User talk:Timeshift9/Archive10

Your userpage
I've been looking through your userpage and have a few concerns. Although the guidelines and policies regarding content in userpages are relatively lax, your userpage seems to be going a bit far. My main concern is regarding WP:What Wikipedia is not. Two of these apply to your page: You're offering some very strong opinions. For what purpose? The page does little other than make other editors uncomfortable collaborating with you. Furthermore, some of the opinions ("Fatty O'Farrell", "They run the political show with an IQ of less than 0.", "Pure politics... and Turnbull has no balls if he won't fight for what he believes in.", etc.) are attacks, or at the very least, violations of the BLP policy. I suggest that you add a db-userreq to remove the page and its history, and if you like, recreate the page with content that is more appropriate for Wikipedia. If you decide not to do so, consider this your notification that I will begin a MfD discussion. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADVOCATE:
 * 1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. See Advocacy.
 * 2) Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
 * 3) Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
 * WP:NOTBLOG:
 * 1) Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however.


 * Timeshift, I'd like to echo the sentiments above. I understand your justification for using your userpage this way ("NPOV is for articles, bias is better declared"), and to some extent I'm sure it has served that function. However, especially over the last 12 months, I feel you've begun to cross a line.  As GorillaWarfare points out, this has found you in violation of our personal attacks and BLP policies.  Furthermore, your userpage is making things more difficult with new editors to the Australian Politics Wikiproject, for whom your userpage is often their first interaction with the WikiProject. For them, it doesn't look like a simple declaration of bias, it looks like a flagrant disregard for the neutrality necessary for an encyclopaedia, and it makes them instantly combative when dealing with you specifically, and with the project more broadly. I honestly believe that it would be in the best interests of the WikiProject for you to replace your page with a simple declaration of your biases, more akin to what it was like in your first years of editing.


 * I know you've managed to deflect concerns about your userpage in the past, Timeshift, but I'm afraid it'll be best for everyone if you take GorillaWarfare's advice now, rather than taking this to an MfD. Your userpage will certainly be deleted if we head down that road, and I for one don't want to see an editor who has done so much good for this part of Wikipedia be dragged before a broader forum that will have no qualms digging in with gutso.  -- Lear's Fool 02:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shifty, why not simply start a blog and link it from your user page? There are plenty of options - wordpress, blogger, typepad etc. That gives you and us the freedom to comment on the auspol issues of the day without disrupting the project. --Surturz (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I too agree that the userpage is a little out of hand. Echoing sentiments above. --Merbabu (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe i've addressed the BLP concerns I consider to hold some validity (most of GW's initial post refers to articles, not userpages). Let's take a step back and look... this only came about as a result of Enidblyton. The last person to complain about my userpage was a few years ago, and i'm not sure if i'm correct but I seem to recall some sort of sock activity with that too. TimBracks13 was not a new user and their concerns were not genuine. If anyone has further concerns over my userpage, i'm happy to discuss them. But I won't remove my opinions from my userpage, we've been through this before, my page containing my views is in itself not a violation. Timeshift (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that editors are allowed, within reason, to use their user page to express their personal views as long as it's not judged to be offensive to an identifiable person/people or being explicitly used to recruit others. I've seen ultra right wing and borderline Nazi user pages survive MfDs in the past, for instance (though views on this kind of thing seem to be - rightly in my view - hardening). Editors are generally given a lot of latitude with what they use their user page for, though they do need to be aware that its content will guide other editors' views of them. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou muchly. Timeshift (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Nick: Sure, but it has a particular effect on editors new to the project. When I started editing 18 months ago and stumbled upon Timeshift's userpage, it had a couple of comments, some links to interesting articles that were generally favourable to the left, and a prominent userbox explaining that the purpose of all this was to disclose bias.  These days, it's become significantly more partisan and blog-like. New editors (not just Enid) can see it as being aggressive and hostile, and I don't think that helps anyone.  I'd be satisfied with a more prominent indication of the purpose of the page, and a toning down of the partisan nature of the commentary.  -- Lear's Fool 08:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the potential BLP violations. If you have a current concern with aspects of the page, raise it please. If it's about the page in general, sorry, it sounds like a moral rather than a wiki guideline standpoint. Timeshift (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You could always create a blog and add User blogger to your userpage, that way you can say what ever you want without worrying about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bidgee (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want a blog. And nobody has pointed out how the current state of my userpage breaks guidelines. If it's the whole userpage, then in itself it is not a violation of wikipedia guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually have pointed out how it breaks guidelines, in my original post. Although you have removed some of the libelous information, all of the problems mentioned in WP:NOT still remain. Since you seem to be unwilling to delete, I'm going to go ahead and start the MfD discussion. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have already addressed the BLP vios and have made it clear that i'm happy to address other BLP vios if brought up. I do not believe my userpage is something to be voted upon and potentially its contents removed from me. Ive been putting my views and thoughts there for years, people don't have to read my userpage if they don't want to. It's not an article. To quote the admin on this talk page: "It's worth noting that editors are allowed, within reason, to use their user page to express their personal views as long as it's not judged to be offensive to an identifiable person/people or being explicitly used to recruit others. I've seen ultra right wing and borderline Nazi user pages survive MfDs in the past, for instance (though views on this kind of thing seem to be - rightly in my view - hardening). Editors are generally given a lot of latitude with what they use their user page for, though they do need to be aware that its content will guide other editors' views of them." Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Baleeted
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too. - Voltaire" What a joke. Commiserations. Perhaps you could go down the path of Cut &amp; paste - plopping incongruous quotes next to each other. --Surturz (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is pretty dumb. I hope that you don't model your new user page on The Australian though! Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Surturz, I'd say glass houses and stones. Refer User:Surturz & WP:NPA. --Merbabu (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the relevant links, since you asked so nicely. --Surturz (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good move. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry to see you go. but take heart, as one editor said "the irony is that if I were an Australian and the userpage was a blog, I'd probably be watching it, as I often agreed with Timeshift's opinions" therefore, stop casting pearls before swine, make a weekly blog, network, put up ads, make money. have pity on the deleters, they admire the creators. Slowking4 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage (again)
Hey Timeshift, it's great to see your name on my watchlist again, and I'm sure others will agree. I'm afraid you may have to accept that you will no longer be able to use your userpage in the same way as you did previously. I don't think it would be appropriate to provide you a copy of the last revision with an eye to you restoring the content on your userpage, as this would flout the decision made at the MfD and the resultant Deletion Review. Such a restoration may well be eligible for a G4 speedy deletion. If I were you, I would simply replace your userpage with a link to a blogspot blog or something. I would be more than happy to provide you with previous revisions for use in an external blog. Otherwise, you may have to go for a second deletion review, although I imagine that would be unsuccessful. -- Lear's Fool 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not really acceptable. A lot of the issue was that there were potential BLP violations available in the userpage history. I am certainly allowed to have some opinion on my userpage. I need to know what level that is. Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * this archive is from 2008, but probably not much help. This is now an issue of admin control, not content. I'd wait a few months until the pricks lose interest. Fight the power! Once united, we can never be defeated! Smash the State! Solidarity forever! :-) --Surturz (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Images listed for deletion
Some files that you uploaded or altered, had been listed at Files for deletion/2011 July 20. Take a look to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in why is it going to be deleted. The files are:
 * File:Dunstan1970caucus.JPG
 * File:UnfinishedPK.jpg
 * File:RecollectionsPK.jpg
 * File:M596285.jpg
 * File:MohamedHaneef.jpg
 * File:Hanna1.jpg
 * File:JohnHowardCrop.JPG
 * File:KevinRudd3Copy.jpg
 * File:John Howard May 2006 crop.jpg
 * File:Don Steele.JPG
 * File:Terry Roberts.jpg
 * File:Sametro02.jpg
 * File:Sastate06.jpg
 * File:Sametro06.jpg
 * File:Sastate02.jpg
 * File:Metro07.PNG
 * File:Map7-2004.gif
 * File:Map8-2004.gif
 * File:BASantamaria.jpg

Thank you, --damiens.rf 16:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage
Heyo again, Timeshift. Someone just notified me that you again have bloggy content on your userpage. What gives? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What gives is that nobody has been willing to state exactly how much is too much. Users are given a longer leash with their userpage and can contain thoughts and opinions. The stickler that people pointed out in the last deletion is that BLP vios were in the edit history. It is no longer. Rather than come down on me like a ton of bricks, can you constructively assist? I have had a couple of questions raised in the past over my userpage, and up until the recent episodes with the latest to be reported to you by what appears to be a sockpuppet, it has been again and again deemed ok. I would appreciate it if we could have a sensible productive discussion. Timeshift (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to "come down on you like a ton of bricks". I'm simply asking what your reasoning is. My real question here is why you feel the need to have this content on your userpage at all. Most of us get by with no issue by having short autobiographical/Wikipedia-related content on our userpages, and hosting our political opinions, if we like, on external blog sites that are intended for this purpose. Why are you so keen on using Wikipedia for this? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Because I want my views expressed on the userpage... "This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs on user and talk pages should be encouraged. Bias is better declared". I don't want to start a blog, i'm much happier having only one login and can edit, add or cut the static userpage. It's a good design and i'm happy with it. Timeshift (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That userbox to me means that a user can make general statements about his or her political beliefs. If there's something that might come up when they're editing, such as a strong left-wing editor editing right-wing pages, etc., it's good to state this so people know what to check. I see your userpage as much too specific to actually provide any declared bias. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Again I ask, where is the line? I have had chunks of my personal opinion on there before, and have never been told to outright remove it. Can I ask, what is the harm in leaving it there? Timeshift (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the thing: I don't know where the line is. That's why I started this discussion with you, and perhaps it would be worth starting a discussion elsewhere with more people involved. I'm not trying to harangue you here, I just am not sure it's appropriate. The content in your userpage could easily be interpreted to be in violation of the two bits of policy I mentioned before. However, I recognize that this kind of thing has also been allowed to a degree in the past. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many, many other userpages on Wikipedia containing significantly more information than that on people's beliefs on a range of topics, including that of at least one serving arbitrator and numerous administrators. I'm aware that they're not allowed on some other WM projects and on some other language WP's, but one would need a widespread RFC linked to watchlists to decide what the policy should be, rather than simply going after one particular editor. Orderinchaos 02:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? You open with a rather demanding "What gives?" and then say you just want a discussion and have no idea where the line is. If you don't want to "harangue" him and admit you don't know what the boundaries are, aren't you better just to leave it alone? Personally, I think it's a bit of a silly user page, but there's already been so much unnecessary disruption, distress, and time and effort wasting on this thing, why expend more? Move along already. --Merbabu (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As a fellow admin, I strongly believe that User:GorillaWarfare has overstepped the boundaries into harassment of this user a long time ago. The fact they are so willing to play into an outside political campaign against him being waged with sockpuppets really says where it's at right now. Orderinchaos 01:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, I think that analysis is extremely unfair. The fact that this particular incarnation of the concerns about Timeshift's userpage was kicked of by Enidblyton11 is unfortunate, but many uninvolved editors (including admins) have expressed a belief that the way his userpage is used is inappropriate. At the very least, Timeshift has given the appearance of completely ignoring the consensus at the MfD, I don't think it constitutes harassment to ask for an explanation.  -- Lear's Fool 03:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as i can see, there was no consensus. Rather, there was a range of opinions given, and a unilateral decision made to delete. But that's beside the point - what is important and regrettable, a once prolific editor continues to be hounded on his return, and other editors are spending way too much time on the matter. IMO, some reevaluation of project perspective and allocation of editor's time is needed. --Merbabu (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see my concern as inappropriate. Timeshift's userpage was very recently deleted for this same reason by an MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9. The deletion was subsequently reviewed and endorsed at Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5. The page was recreated with similar content (though minus all of the blatant BLP issues, which is good) very soon after. I don't see following up on this as harassment at all. I'm not trying to "go after" Timeshift in any way.


 * Orderinchaos, I'm not trying to play into some sockpuppetry campaign. I've explained on my user talk that I was unfamiliar with the sockmaster. Accusing me to be a sockmaster myself, however, seems to be taking things a bit far.


 * Merbabu, does anybody know where the boundaries are? It seems disruptive to me to recreate a page with similar content to the page that was just deleted at MfD.


 * Finally, I'm just letting everyone here know that I will be out of town for a few days, and apologize for any delays in responding to this discussion. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merbabu, you should have brought up your views that there was no consensus to delete at the DRV. Now that the discussion was closed as delete and then subsequently endorsed, that seems like a funny argument to make. Feel free to bring it back to DRV for a third round, if you like, but until then I don't think your interpretation holds much weight. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then clearly we have very different opinions on consensus, and I might add different views on what is disruptive. Given your involvement with this issue, it strikes me that you would be better served and look better if you now stepped back from the matter (maybe referring it to another page) rather than once again pushing the issue. As I said, this all seems like warped perspectives and interpretation of project objectives.   --Merbabu (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can bring the issue to ANI if you think it would be more productive to do so. Discussing this issue with Timeshift seemed like the appropriate first step to me. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My primary point was to suggest that it isn't productive to continue this matter in any manner. If you don't agree with this, then my secondary point is to suggest that you hand over to others should you, regrettably, wish to see the campaign continue. --Merbabu (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why can't we all just move on? Timeshift (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We're dealing with a malicious sockpuppeting troll, and an enabling admin with a grudge who can't let it go. I've already let the latter know that any further conduct along this line will be referred to ArbCom. Orderinchaos 12:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To Arbcom? Aren't we being a bit dramatic here when other forms of dispute resolution have not been tried? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this is the first I've heard of any threats of ArbCom. Where have you already notified me? My "conduct along this line" will continue in the various discussions (at ANI, any ensuing MfDs, etc.), so please be courteous enough to notify me of the request for arbitration that you open. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Orderinchaos mentioned arbcon on your talk page on July 31 to which you specifically replied the same day. --Merbabu (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, you're correct. Guess I must have missed it or forgotten. I've struck that bit, but the last point remains. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked the community to review the user page at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lulz
"For trivia buffs, the Gay and Lesbian Party was set up by a group of four-wheel drive activists and is not believed to have had an gay or lesbian members. A well known gay rights activist did set up a party, but it was called Stop Banks Exploiting Australians." 
 * Julia Gillard says she's "not going anywhere"... I'll say! Shades of Brendan Nelson... Oh teh lulz! --Surturz (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You may like: vexnews ... WP:RS? Hardly. But.. teh lulz! Delicious-cake-like lulz! --Surturz (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not bad... though the best lulz always come from real news. Oh the lulz!!! :D Timeshift (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Indent
It was a direct quote from the companies blurb (look in edit mode and you can see the blockquote markup term there) - I thought separating it would be better than italicising it for instance (but someone has moved the ref from the end of the quote ) - as for spelling mistakes surely you could have fixed it? I am very dissapointed with the lack of others actually digging to improve the article - what is it about wp these days - everyone seems to assume we still have editors to fix up for them or something... SatuSuro 01:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Julia Gillard review
Hi Timeshift. I can't work out what is going on at the Good Article Nomination page for Julia Gillard Talk:Julia Gillard/GA1. User:Inkheart0123s only edits have been to initiate that review and they have signed some of there comments with your username. You have then corrected the spelling and rearranged the paragraphs. If you could explain what is going on that would be appreciated. AIR corn (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't have the time right now, i'll come back to your query when I can. Timeshift (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just found this diff which explains everything. Sorry about suggesting you might have been involved in something dodgy. However another editor with no other edits just passed the article . I reverted as no review has been conducted yet. I will keep an eye on it and see what else occurs. AIR corn  (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Timeshift (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD
I was pleased to see at Talk:Next Queensland state election, Talk:Jay Weatherill and Talk:South Australian state election, 2014 that you've rediscovered your affection for BRD. Can I therefore expect you to remove your contested change to Mike Rann or am I still going to have to take it to a noticeboard? -- Lear's Fool 10:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the above was petty and unhelpful. I apologise unreservedly. -- Lear's Fool 11:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

John McEwen revert
This edit about McEwen being the last Country PM was a bit trivial and probably not necessary, but surely the editor deserved more than a simple "Undid revision" edit description, don't you think? Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, on closer inspection it seems all other edits were vandalism. Perhaps they didn't deserve a more detailed description. Unless we want to assume someone else with the same IP coincidently minutes later did some vandalising on other PM articles... Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You may like
If you haven't seen it. RE: Brough leak on Turnbull - actually, that's relatively civilised for the Libs. Leadership stoushes in Lib Oppositions are internecine... better to let all the other contenders flame out first and then step in at the end, like Howard and O'Farrell. All chiefs and no indians otherwise. --Surturz (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the last change was the least civilised that the Libs have ever had. That aside, Howard? 1987? :P Timeshift (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, you've got a point. Like O'Farrell then. Abbott wouldn't have got up except that Turnbull split Hockey's vote - being everyone's 2nd choice doesn't help you in an Exhaustive ballot. --Surturz (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was tactical voting going on. If it was only Turnbull v Abbott i'm sure Turnbull would have won. And it's a shame for the Libs really. He polls so badly yet the Libs are prepared to go with him because he's so good at hypocritical wedge politics with zilch ideological consistency. Gillard's had two positions on CC, as have other Liberal leaders, but around 10 for Abbott. And as for protectionism... maybe i've been wrong, and Menzies wouldn't be turning in his grave... :) You should have watched Abbott on the last day of parliament last week after question time. I noticed and was backed up by what I was reading that Abbott seemed to be so flat. Not just in tone and enthusiasm, of which he normally has more of, but also in what he was reading... i'm starting to wonder if he's questioning his set speeches which contain nothing about what a future Coalition government would do. There's two issues here... one, I really just don't think Abbott is upo to the office of PM, he just doesn't seem to have the intellectual capacity. Second, in a hung parliament, they're hoping that something happens where they can claim government quickly and without having to release policies. Just imagine what an incoming Coalition government could do without the time/opportunity to say so beforehand... if they can get in to government without specifying what they'll do, they will *shudder* WorkChoices mkII? But it seems as though the crossbench is more likely to not support Abbott than ever, and even Katter and Crook even consider the government acceptable and is possible they could side with Labor for continuity. As for Thomson, if he is found to be criminally guilty, that outcome would take longer than the current parliament has to run, and we all know that he's not going anywhere otherwise. Two years is a long time of legislation and lock-in contracts :) Spur of the moment rant over :) Timeshift (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah, Turnbull only got done because Rudd mercilessly wedged him on climate change. Australia would be in its fourth year of an ETS except that Rudd played politics with the issue. You talk about a lack of conviction, Rudd should have gone to a double dissolution over the ETS - I reckon he would have romped it in, CC politics were very different back then.
 * But here's the sad bit, Rudd and the Greens don't want the outcome, they just want the issue. As for Rhodes scholar Abbott's intellectual capacity - not everyone that opposes a carbon price is stupid, you know. Punters are smart enough to know that there is something fishy when the ALP wants to introduce a carbon price and simultaneously double coal mining by 2020. This whole debate is about pretending to offshore CO2 remediation and you know it.
 * If the ALP-Greens were serious about CO2 emission reduction they'd tax/cap carbon extraction (coal and oil mining) and importation. They wouldn't need a carbon cop to make the scheme work, as the price signals would work their way through the economy through normal (real) market forces. The tax couldn't be dodged because carbon miners have to track the tonneage they dig up as part of their business operation (unlike coal burners who have little incentive to track emissions). Finally, they wouldn't need international cooperation, because anyone that buys our coal, foreign or domestic, would have to pay the tax; our unilateral action would cause international carbon prices to go up. Instead the ALP are banking on increasing coal mining taxation revenues to FUND the purchase of international carbon credits! (and pay off their borrowings of course). Emissions trading/taxation is a fundamentally flawed model, particularly for Australia: it's like a drug dealer wringing their hands about junkies but wanting to keep profits from drug dealing high.
 * (This all assumes your POV of course, I don't believe the IPCC. I've been meaning to respond to your userpage for a while now). --Surturz (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. Workchoices? Sigh. Howard is long gone... can't we move on from 2007? :-) P.P.S. (edit conflict) re: Crossbench. The crossbench have a vested interest to support the weaker side, as their influence is greater. If they supported Abbott, he would try to go to a new election as early as possible, which would likely oust the indies. Supporting lame Gillard means the government runs its full term. This is about power politics, not the personal qualities of Gillard and Abbott.
 * Talk about a bite and a half!! I don't have the time to reply at the moment, but I most definately will :) Timeshift (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to the CC/ETS, what it boils down to is that every single Liberal and Labor leader who has had a position on an ETS at one stage or another backed having an ETS. Howard wanted Australia to "lead the world" on the issue. Where were the cries from Liberal supporters that it would destroy Australia back then? The Liberal base rebelled, Abbott became leader by accident, his high-wedge low-base no-morale no-ideological-consistency style, as unbefitting for PM as it is, went hand in hand with the mining tax to get Rudd unhinged. As much as the Libs love to say that Labor was always this unpopular, it is simply untrue. Rudd's approval went terminal when the mining tax was campaigned against by industry (but the WA Coalition can tax royalties and that's ok?). Moving on, are you saying it's not a good idea to strive for both a carbon reduction plan (market-mechanism-based) and a thriving coal industry? We need incentive for innovation to drive production up and pollution down. Are you saying it's not possible to extract more in cleaner ways, and/or that we shouldn't strive to? You can criticise Labor's ETS but what is the alternative? The Liberals used to support an ETS and wanted to lead the world on it. It can be changed and amended. What do the Coalition want now? They've had so many positions but one can only assume that they support "Direct Action", a non-market-based interventionist way to drive down emissions. Both parties want to reduce emissions by 5%, it's in their current policies - but Abbott says that a 5% cut will destroy Australia! If the Coalition took their position collectively but the same moderates kept speaking in favour of an ETS and espoused pro-ETS but anti-Labor-method arguments, then they might have some credibility. But to think they all supported an ETS in 2007 and Howard wanted to lead the world on it! At least the UK conservatives have a climate conscience... pity they couldn't convince the OZ conservatives. This is all about politics, the Liberals are weathervanes on the issue (Abbott once admitted as much), they are just looking for a quick pass back to government without having to lay out their alternative policies and the scrutiny it would deserve... imagine a Coalition blank cheque. As for the crossbenchers... it's very easy to make those claims, but if you take a step back and look at the policies they've been advocating as independents prior to the 2010 election, you couldn't exactly call them conservatives. They are oldschool rural MPs from conservative parties, but as we all know, what makes an Australian conservative now to 20 years ago is vastly different. No independent at the 2010 election, on the whole, contradicted their individual independent policy positions when siding with Labor, they all supported more of Labor's agenda than the Liberal agenda. Australians elected 150 MPs at the last election as they do at every election, and those 150 MPs decided who would make the best PM as they do at every election. Howard is a classic example of this conservative denialism. He says Gillard has no legitimacy. Well let's visit 1998 where he claimed a mandate for the GST despite only winning 49.02% of the national two-party vote, but won thanks to marginal seat campaigning. Gillard wins 50.12% of the national two-party vote, but she doesn't hold PM office or policy legitimacy? Did Menzies not have legitimacy in 1940? Oh please. It's Snedden's 1974 "we didn't win but we didn't lose" all over again. The PM is the PM. Gillard commands a parliamentary majority, Labor won the 2PP vote, Labor won a majority of seats in a majority of states, Labor won Eden-Monaro, Labor received a record 2PP in Victoria, as well as Tasmania, and in South Australia were 1% short of the record. This to me doesn't sound like the party that loses government. Timeshift (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Howard, WorkChoices, and Howard's ETS are all gone mate. Time for Timeshift to shift on from 2007 :-) Did Howard have a desperate grab bag of policies near the end in vain attempt to cling to power? Of course he did. It's certainly not 1998 either, but at least Howard went to an election with the GST as a policy after changing his mind on his "never ever" comment. Gillard said "no carbon tax" and then has flipped without going to an election. I am indeed saying it is incongruent to have both a carbon reduction plan and a thriving coal industry. Coal gets burnt into CO2, there are very few other uses for it. If you believe the science - that is, something called the second law of thermodynamics - then it just isn't possible to burn coal without increasing CO2 levels. And this is the real deception with an ETS - it means that Australia is not required to reduce its CO2 emissions if it can pay third world countries to plant trees instead of food. If they clean up their backyard, then supposedly we don't have to. As for "direct action", the current ALP policy itself acknowledges that it will not reduce Australian CO2 emissions - the _net_ (not real) reduction in CO2 emission is achieved only through purchasing permits from overseas and direct action. It's a mathematical cheat. As for Gillard's legitimacy, I think it is fair to say that the parliament has legitimacy, but that Gillard has no effective mandate. The electorate has received the parliament it asked for. I'm sympathetic to the view that a vote for the Country Independents was a vote against the Coalition, though on that basis Adam Bandt should have sided with the Coalition. Time will tell, but I'd much rather be in the Coalition's shoes than the ALP's. I predict the Greens will get decimated next election, unless they can somehow get a large component of the ALP MP's to switch to their camp. --Surturz (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * They are not gone. The Liberals love the HR Nicholls Society more than ever. That's why they want the blank cheque election so much. I believe that Gillard was being truthful when she said she wouldn't choose to enact carbon pricing, but nobody thought we would go back to 1940 and have a hung parliament. People who voted for Bandt, a Green, would expect him to side with Labor in the unlikely event of a hung parliament. Same for Wilkie, a former Green. Oakeshott and Windsor are independent MPs, they are former National MPs, but their policy positions both before and after the 2010 election had the ball tending to lay somewhat in Labor's ballcourt than the Coalition's, not to mention the anomosity between these two independents and the Coalition. People in those electorates knew they were electing independents with somewhat Labor-friendly policy platforms rather than the endorsed Coalition candidate, and the voters knew this. If the Coalition took power, they'd have needed Crook, Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor, and the Greens or Labor in the Senate... DD at the earliest and Abbott on 110% volume? Pass thanks. To make a government a) work and b) go for the three years that resulted from the 2010 election, things had to give, compromises had to be made. I think if the Coalition took power we'd have already been at another expensive and a somewhat democracy-insulting election, micro-party randoms in the Senate, and Abbott with a blank cheque. Gillard and Labor and the crossbench have done an excellent job of making the government work with what it received from the 2010 election. I would think the GG thinks so too. "We didn't win but we didn't lose"... mmhm. Yes, the Greens may have peaked, but thats said at every election. It peaks when it peaks, who cares, it happens when it happens. I don't think they'll match or beat Labor, I think Labor will remain the major centre-left party. Timeshift (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also interesting that the Libs themselves are starting to chatter publically about re-introducing WorkChoices. Oh wait, that's right, it's not going to be called WorkChoices! I guess we all really knew that the Libs were indeed weathervanes on this (and yet another) topic. Say one thing when it suits them and another when they think it no longer matters. Why would I drop talking about WorkChoices when they haven't :) Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And on another matter again, surprise surprise, O'Farrell to put the budget in to the red by a billion to give better transport for the Labor western suburbs. So much for "responsible economic management" which the Libs claimed meant that you don't spend what you don't have and you shouldn't go in to deficit. Pffft. How many surpluses did Menzies deliver in all those years of power...? The answer may shock you. But what I love is the number of scandals already in NSW and Vic... nice to see some Liberal governments around the place copping some heat! It's funny how Lib governments always have more scandals and resignations (just look at Howard when he was first elected)... Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout we compromise: "one and a half seat majority"?
Hi Timeshift9 - I called it as I saw at the time, that's all I want to add here. ... As people who know they are wrong but simply don't want to admit it often say ;-) ---Shirt58 (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WP Australian Politics in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Australian Politics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read this speech?
Michael Danby mentioned the wiki. Sweet little angel 102 (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * lol! --Surturz (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ? Timeshift (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Poor Mr. Maltby. When I shuffle off this mortal coil, I hope that the historical record of my existence does not consist solely of an accusation of WP POV-pushing in Hansard. --Surturz (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd give up your wikipedia account if it meant a mention in Hansard... :) Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Senate logo
Unfortunately it doesn't seem that the Senate uses a logo or identifying graphic other than an all red rendering of the Commonwealth coat of arms. While I have seen the use of a logo on documents relating to the Senate (see here: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/aso/order_form_aso.pdf) it isn't consistent or clear that it is a Senate specific and not a general parliamentary logo. This being said I'll shoot an email to the Senate PR office and see what the deal is. -- Aricci526 09:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"sole balance of power"
Hi Timeshift9 - I think the expression "sole balance of power" makes sense with your explanation, yet not without. Could you substitute some clearer phrase? --Wikiain (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's clear to me now. --Wikiain (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rann
Gotta tell you I admire your perseverence! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perseverence for what...? Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perseverence with trying to keep the contents of the Mike Rann article in a reasonable state. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say though, there hasn't been nearly as much IP editing as I thought there'd be. Timeshift (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * True. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Though these days I find the more esoteric articles interesting... ie: the little spoken of John Madigan :) Timeshift (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Wilkie
Just a short note to say "thanks for that". :)  &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tax though? What a load of little black book Liberal 101 claptrap... sorry... Timeshift (talk)


 * Yeah, I know. Been spending too much time with the inlaws down at the local leagues club. Heh. As I said, thanks for catching it.  &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can only begin to imagine the misinformed bile that floats around at RSL and sporting clubs... Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing The Queensland Party. My brain failed when I saw your edit summary because I thought you were a sock adding the same attack that had been put on my user page a little earlier. Anyway, I reverted you, and then reverted myself after coming to my senses. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe your right...
Maybe your not. I just think he is a rogue MP in regard to the GST surely. I know there are others in the party who want individual contracts, that is not a surprise but GST on fruits and veggies? Come on. Tony Abbott surely did not get in the head of him to use him as a scapegoat. I know he is in a safe seat but that is a bit desperate. I know he is still whining about not winning government, maybe it is tactics but this guys reputation is going down the gurglars. U8701 (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It feels like Abbott is trying to do a Menzies... I reckon he's getting nutters in the Lib/Nat coalition to talk up things like GST and IR so then Abbott can appear more middle groundish and a "safe pair of hands" against the "most incompetent government since Whitlam, and that's not fair on Whitlam"... he wants to be elected more than anything. I wouldn't be surprised if Cossie's "Abbott isn't a Liberal" rant was a planned calculation too. Everyone knows Abbott has a massive image problem and his satisfaction/dissatisfaction polling is still appalling, people correctly see him as extreme, he wants to find a way to be liked and elected. It's funny how the Libs complain that the indies are holding the country to ransom, yet Abbott would have "sold his arse" to be chosen by the crossbench. All up though, I liked Wilkie's part of it the most I reckon :) Timeshift (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?!
I see you reverted my friendly message on GoodDay's talk page accompanied with an accustion that I might be a sockpuppet. Would you care to elaborate on this please? I am highly curious as to whom I may be a sockpuppet of. BTW, GoodDay and I have been leaving comments on each others talk pages for years and this has never happened before.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please excuse my jumping in, but I am watching here as we are currently observing an attack from sockpuppets of a banned user (per WP:DENY it is best to not discuss details). I have no idea why your greeting was reverted, but the situation is real and I guess some tenseness has crept in. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if a genuine contrib has been mixed up against the recent sockcontribs, if you're a genuine editor and wish to contribute something worthy, please feel free. I have nothing against genuine editors. This is a pure factual AND perception sockpuppet issue. Apologies if i've incorrectly fingered you. Timeshift (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. It looks like I accidentally got caught in the crossfire.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs. Timeshift (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If my edit summary at GoodDay's TP was tetchy, apologies me too. Applaud any editor who takes the time and effort to close down socks. RashersTierney (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Please start using them. They help other editors to understand what you've done without having to go to diff's. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If I haven't after five years, i'm not about to. Really, there is no requirement to provide any edit summary whatsoever. The easiest way to see what i've done is dot the first edit, which means you can view all my edits as if it was one edit. Timeshift (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit_summary: "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit..." Please, I'm asking you nicely instead of templating you with Template:Uw-editsummary. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And i'm sure you're aware of the wikipedia guideline not to template the regulars. But both are optional. Timeshift (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a guideline, it's an essay. Please, this is to save us all time so that I don't even have to click dots, I (and all other editors) can just see what you've done in our watchlists from a very brief edit summary. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I second this request? Of course it's optional and if you don't want to there's nothing anyone can do about it, but it makes things so much easier. Most of my edit summaries are tiny and merely indicate that the edit is uncontroversial ("fix", "+", "typo", "link", "dab", etc.) and these literally take five seconds; it's easy to get into the habit, especially if you turn the thing in preferences on that prompts you if you don't do one. Rather than clicking on the diff for every edit, it's much easier to see even a shorthand summary in one's watchlist. Frickeg (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If either of you want to know if an edit is minor or major, just check the byte value between the user and summary in the history tab. Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That doesn't really help to see what you've done. Sometimes it could be that you've added a, new reference sometimes it could be a new sentence. Again, we don't know until we hit diff. For everyone else, we can figure out if we need to spend the time going there or not. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You think Labor can win Boothby?
You seem to know your politics and are from that part of the world, I know its early but what do you think? Labor surely cant come any closer and not win. Southcott's vote will either go up for the first time in a long time or it will fall. As you know, it will be the only seat in SA up for grabs so both parties will throw everything at it. Even with the national polling, we saw in 2004 with Adelaide and Hindmarsh that seats can go against the tide. Cheers Wikiopidiea (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible, but on the balance of probabilities, i'd suspect it's more likely to be a Liberal retain. Labor in SA was only 1% off of their best two-party preferred vote at the 2010 federal election, and near-best since 2PP records first began in 1949. But they couldn't get Boothby or Sturt. That's Adelaide and single-member electorate proportional averages for you. I think SA Labor has done very well otherwise, with Kingston, Makin, and Wakefield achieving record 60%+ 2PP margins. Why do you ask? Timeshift (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest thats all. With a minority govt every seat counts. You could make a case that those former marginals that Labor romped home in were a combination of the Libs not giving a damn about at the last election, Antony Green made that point in his blog. Interesting times ahead though. I do have to ask from a strategic point of view on another issue why would the govt have bothered to try and convince Crook about the Malaysian deal when it would never pass the Senate anyway. What is the point? Wikiopidiea (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Libs gave a damn, they just couldn't raise the money because as we all know, the Libs are so organisationally and financially poor. Since 2007 they have only just managed to tread water. I suppose that's what happens when business loses faith in them. The point of getting it to the Senate is so that the House doesn't see a government bill defeated for the first time in many decades. I don't see the big deal myself, it's par for the course in hung parliaments, the media just can't help themselves though considering it's the first hung parliament since the 1940s. The problem in Australia is that our parliament is the most adversary in the world. We need more consensus politics. Adversarial politics in Australia has shown itself to be a negative, because it constantly sees both sides get in to the silliest of pointless revolving arguments. I don't think Boothby will come in to play at the next election. A federal hung parliament is so rare in Australia. Who knows who will win the next election. If someone said to me two years ago that Turnbull would be rolled through a strategic three-way Lib leadership contest, Abbott of all people would take it over, and support and then oppose everything with 20 points of view, that we'd have a hung parliament with a massive Greens vote, and now on-shore processing, and both the SA Labor and SA Liberal leaders both support gay marriage all of a sudden, the list goes on. Howard in 2007: "we must LEAD THE WORLD on an ETS", Abbott in 2009: "if they want to reduce emissions, the best way is with a simple tax", Abbott last week: "We'll move an amendment to defer the carbon tax until after the election", but at the same time, "we'll tear it down after the next election". Such a mess for a policy that enjoyed bi-partisan support for years and years. And still enjoys support from half of the Liberal Party room as well as all of their former living leaders (some formerly). Two years is a long time! ;) Timeshift (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know and given Tony Abbott's blood promise on the carbon tax the only way he can do that is with power in the Senate and we know what happened last time - Workchoices. Wikiopidiea (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall WorkChoices enjoying bipartisan support for years or constant flip-flopping from Labor on the issue. Abbott will have a tough enough time rolling parts of it back if he gains power. Even more so if he doesn't get a Senate majority. But if it turns out that someone like the DLP hold the Senate balance of power, then by all rights we could call Mr Madigan the actual Prime Minister of Australia under an Abbott government. :) Timeshift (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I also don't recall this sort of poll movement when WorkChoices was passed... quite the opposite ;) Timeshift (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The point I was making was that Tony Abbott with the blood promise is one he cannot go back on. No matter what. And the only way he can repeal it is with power in the Senate and as I said the last time they had power there we ended up with Workchoices. I think the people will have grave doubts about installing such power to Abbott no matter how much they hate the tax. Btw, I think people will end up getting used to it and Abbott will be left with nowhere to go, he has admitted he has baked his political future on this so. Wikiopidiea (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why can't he go back on it? He's a politician. And he's Abbott. Double whammy. He's going so strong on the carbon tax because he has nowhere else to go. This is the one thing the Libs think can get them back in to government so they will exploit it for all it's worth, and hope they get enough support to get enough Senate primary votes to at least pull the balance of power away from the Greens. Fair enough I suppose. It's just a pity for them that the Libs have been infinately so much more unprincipled on carbon action than Labor has. But that's Abbott to a tee I suppose. On the one hand, Abbott would have sold his arse to become PM last year and in a futile move offered all these lavish things for the crossbenchers, but on the other hand he's constantly out there saying how evil Gillard is for the various things she's doing as a result of the minority government agreement. Why is it that to Abbott, his shit never stinks? If Beazley Labor was anywhere near this consistently weathervane unprincipled and contradictory in 1998, Howard would have struggled even further, undoubtedly Beazley would have won even more than 51% of the 2PP vote and would have been PM. Funny though how Howard considered 49% 2PP but majority seats/government a mandate for a GST. If Abbott is doing this badly in policy, general consistency, and personal polling, imagine what he'd be like in government. Timeshift (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Adelaide
In case you weren't aware, the 62.141.xxx.xxx vandal is a persistent nuisance, not a "fly by" - see Talk:Adelaide. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Timeshift (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * When I reverted the last edit by 62.141.216.6 the User talk:62.141.216.6 was empty even though there were 4 cases of content removal from the same article today by that user. When you see vandalism in progress then please post a comment in the user's talk page using one of the warning templates, see Vandalism. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

SSRP
Just saw the edit on my watchlist, and had a look. According to it was still registered as of 28 July 2011, but hadn't contested an election since 2006. Orderinchaos 21:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Anna Bligh
In Oct 2011 Alan Jones has called for Anna Bligh's scalp, accusing the Queensland Premier of selling out her state's prime farming land to mining companies. In a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra Jones said food security was the biggest issue facing Australia's future. Ms Bligh and her Treasurer Andrew Fraser should be asked to stand down for their addictions to mining royalties, the Sydney-based commentator said.

Why doing you keet taking this down. Seems like you cannot handle the fact. What upsets me most is that looking at your undos there were some well written articles yet you have the arrogance to be a editor when Wikipedia is for all of us.....a my statement has a reference so why lie....it will be up every day until you stop or i will waste both our times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.232.51 (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The wording and tone is not WP:NEUTRAL and Alan Jones is not a WP:RS, what a talkback presentor thinks has nothing to do with an encyclopedic article of a Premier. And that is not a valid ref... not that a valid one would make it any more suitable for inclusion. Either way, if you don't agree with me, your contributions are a change to the status quo, and as they are disputed, they require consensus on the article's talk page and you are required not to edit war until such time, to the point where an administrator could block your account. Take your concerns to the article talk page rather than engaging in edit wars please, thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As for well written articles, they were there well before the daily vandalism reverts, don't you worry about that. Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Weatherill DOB
I only added the year, which comes from here. (I'll cross-post this over to the Weatherill talk page.) The date was added by an IP some time later, and I can't find any confirmation in any published sources. I will have a look at the university library the next time I'm there but I'm not too optimistic - SA is not the best state for this kind of thing. Frickeg (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Weatherill image
Sorry but it was me and regret it doesn't look terribly like him. It was done pretty quickly with a mouse rather than tablet. Still, I always contend that a rough sketch is better than nothing for someone in public office though. If you click through to the image on commons you can see the non-free reference image. I've since seen other reference images that would be much easier to sketch. Donama (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I shall have to try and do a better one when I've time. I got away with it in the Alex Gallacher article. You might want to vet that one too. Donama (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Earle Page
Why did you undo my edit at his article?--46.246.209.29 (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you changed a long-standing number in the article without edit summary or cite. Timeshift (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The narrowing
I laughed at the ABC report showing the (possibly statistically insignificant) 2-point narrowing, but there is a serious point. The Coalition should be wiping the floor with Labor right now, so how can the Libs stick with a guy whose approval/disapproval numbers bear a striking relation to Gillard's and who consistently underperforms in PPM relative to 2PP? Wouldn't another (possibly more friendly) Liberal leader have the Coalition opening up a consistent 10+ lead? On the other side, why stick with Gillard? I'm not sure what bringing back Rudd would do, but if the situation is the same a year, year and a half, from now, doesn't she have to go? -Rrius (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't be looking at poll by poll movements, you should be looking at trends. And the trend shows polling going from nearing 60/40 (60/40 and over in some cases) to almost level pegging. A massive massive turnaround, almost unprecedented in federal history. The Coalition shouldn't be wiping the floor with Labor, 4.25% interest rates, 5% unemployment, damn those reds under the bed!! :) Other options have shown that they wouldn't poll better, we've seen three Liberal leadership changes since the change of government. Abbott was only successful in turning the polling tide because of his method - it works short term but not long term. He's a vuvuzela, LOL! She doesn't have to go while there's still two years to go till the next election, i'm sure Labor have learnt their lesson about changing leaders unnecessarily. I think the current polling trends show that all the talk about Labor leadership changes was unnecessary and premature, but you can thank News Ltd's monthly leadership talk for that. All second term incumbent governments struggle mid-term. Can't wait for 2013 :) Timeshift (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the polling, I agree, but the ABC's treatment was funny because it treated an insignificant change as "Labor gaining ground". Anyway, I say the Coalition should be wiping the floor with Labor because of Gillard's horrible approval numbers and the party's mishandling of the carbon and asylum issues. As for changing Liberal leaders, the timing is completely different. When the other changes happened, Labor was in the ascendancy and the Coalition was treading water. Now, Abbott's leadership, his personality really, is a drain on the party. I suspect there are more people in the Liberal caucus who could capitalise on Labor's troubles than could tear down a popular (as it was earlier) government. As for Labor changes, I think defenestrating Rudd saved the 2010 election for Labor. And if Gillard is still dragging down the party in 12 to 18 months, there is strong argument for pushing her out, especially since the choice lies with the people whose jobs are at risk. -Rrius (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Queensland Legislative Assembly
I am not sure if you are watching Queensland Legislative Assembly, but I was hoping you could double check these recent changes and complete the infobox if possible. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Jenkins resigns
teh lulz! --Surturz (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * words cant express the lulz! :D Timeshift (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The lulz, the lulz! I'm sure you left a message on my talk page to beat my inevitable message on yours, but nevertheless... I don't suppose you heard about a state MP here? It seems the poor and precious Liberal MPs and supporters just can't contain their rage. A Liberal MP calling Gillard a dog? Low. I'm revelling in this :) Timeshift (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for greatly improving my addition to the Next Australian federal election‎. The last few days have certainly been interesting ones for political nerds! Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nugget! It certainly shows up Pyne/Abbott and co's claims that the speaker as never come from the opposition! It happened in the last bloody hung parliament, oh the lulz! :) I was skeptical about their claim because it was always prefixed with something along the lines of "as far as we know". They claim Labor is trashing Westminister democracy, it is infact the Liberals doing this... such a constant stream of ignorance from both the Liberals and the media since the minority government. Timeshift (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that the Liberals apparently offered to support Oakeshott if he stood for speaker on Thursday!: . Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And they offered it to Windsor during negotiations... and then Abbott couldn't even fool himself when he responded on the 7:30 report last night that he would not have done the same thing. Normally he has no issues telling porkies but even he struggled on that one! What surprises me is the way Abbott manages to wash his hands of Slipper and his activities and the lack of organisational action against him over a long period of time. The Coalition lost an MP. Sometimes a leader just needs to admit when they've been outmaneuvered. This is one of those times. I'll be fascinated to see the next Newspoll sat/dissat ratings... though it will be a little harder to read in to swings considering the last one was distorted by Obama's visit. Timeshift (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And more examples! The CLP win in 1913 by one seat, they offered to support the incumbent speaker, Labor's Charles McDonald, but he declined. However, Billy Hughes retained McDonald until the 1917 election despite being an official ALP MP until his parliamentary resignation in 1925. Fascinating! Timeshift (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Calwell2.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Calwell2.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Attention yellow.png File:Arthur Calwell 2.jpg listed for deletion on Wikimedia Commons
An image or media file you uploaded,, has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can read and participate in the if you are interested or do not wish the file to be deleted. You may have to search for the title of the file to find its entry. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mais oui!
Howdy Timeshift9. Mais out! (to my knowledge) has shown no interest in the articles I've recently edited (until now). I begining to feel both stalked & harrassed, by him. GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would too, he makes me look like a patron saint. Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only do I take an interest in the Commonwealth Games, but I have worked extensively on the topic. I, like many other Users, are keeping a close eye on your edits. So, if you think that this is a good moment for you to to continue your overly bold editing of UK-related articles, you are profoundly mistaken. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't drag your bickering over here. Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The User accused me of stalking him, wheras the plain fact of the matter is that I have several CG articles on my Watchlist. That was the reason I noticed his latest little spree. I was simply correcting a false accusation. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies
Hi, I keep, well I have twice reverted your reversions of useful edits made  on the Jane Lomax Smith article. Can you please check more carefully before reverting? --Alex Sims (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Just to let you know - your name has been mentioned here: Requests for comment/GoodDay. Daicaregos (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I let that issue go a long time ago after the discussion started growing legs. I don't feel the need to revisit it. And I can't say I recall any pattern of bad behaviour from GoodDay, not that I constantly run in to them. Timeshift (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Foley
The display problem was because the template was "birth year and age" rather than "birth date and age" (no idea why it still displayed the month though - these things are beyond the understanding of mere mortals like ourselves). I'm not sure about the birth date - I'm away from university at the moment and don't have access to the resources and such like - but will try to remember to check when I get back in a few months. The year will be easy enough to confirm, since the SA Electoral Commission includes it in their election reports. I'll check the Who's Who, but it often doesn't have dates for contemporary politicians. Frickeg (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Jay Weatherill
hi! Thanks for fixing my mistake - I've left a message on the IP's talk page in case someone sees my revert of their edit assumes the mistake was at their end. - Bilby (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Port Adelaide
Isn't it wonderful to be proved so very right? (On a purely practical note I'm really glad Lawrie didn't go for "Independent Liberal", since there is actually a colour for that back when the parliamentary handbooks used to list it as an official designation, but I don't think this would qualify. Nice to keep things simple.) Frickeg (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, as far as the label (not the colour) went, I was thinking he was correct. I was driving through the seat yesterday and Sue Lawrie had INDEPENDENT LIBERAL posters everywhere, but the issue was, there wasn't a cite. Now, we have the official cite. I'm thinking the ECSA stifled her plans >:) Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Liberal Democratic Party (Australia), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Defence and John Humphries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

FFP economic libertarians?
I actually don't have a strong opinion. I was only responding to the Edit summary of the change I reverted, which seemed to miss the point that two very separate areas of the party's philosophy were being discussed. Obviously what matters in the end is what the sources say, and I'll have no problem with you or anyone else refining the article based on that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Gillard
A lot of dry grass around Gillard this week. Interest rate rises, job losses, bad polls, bad 4 corners interview, Rudd camp making mischief, and a host of other issues that won't go away.

On a related note, should I bother with User:Surturz/Australia_Day_2012_riots or will you (or the powers that be) challenge it on WP:N? --Surturz (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for butting in (TPS and all), but it's probably too early to tell whether the riots have received enough lasting coverage to meet the notability guidelines for events. Give it a week or two. -- Lear's Fool 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. News Ltd has had a cracker of a new year. The Australian economy is more than ever a part of the global economy, smart people understand that the current economic events would be occurring regardless of who is in government. Rudd/Gillard is it's own issue. The Australia Day event was way overblown, I don't think anyone is at fault.

I'm not a deletionist by nature. I tend to wait to see other wikipedians reactions. One issue however that I always have with articles of that sort, and I speak in generic, non-directed terms, is that when it's written by one editor about a large event, decides what should and shouldn't be included and how much detail is warranted, with the story told in much greater detail than any of its references. Sure, any editor can come along and make changes, but often the chosen structures and slants of an article can be well-entrenched and hard to alter without a complete re-do of an article. A recipe for trouble :) Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I vaguely agree with both you and LF. I'm not entirely convinced that the event will be of lasting historical significance either, but it could well be relevant to either Gillard's ultimate fate as PM, or the success/failure of any constitutional change to do with Indigenous Australia. So I've just been collecting refs for now, in case they can be used for those articles, or the repercussions become large enough for the event to have an article in its own right c.f. eating prawns or sending an email. --Surturz (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting shifting of the goalposts between your two posts Surtz :) And national unemployment is down! I bet the Libs are so distressed that the economy isn't doing as badly as they claim. What an indictment upon the Libs that they want the economy to falter to further their political ambitions. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No real shifting of goalposts :-) Personally, I'd like to see the article in mainspace, but I was aware that there might be WP:N issues, which is why I asked you (and mentioned WP:N). I figured if you thought it was notable, then it would probably survive an AfD. I think it is similar importance to OzCar - except that OzCar eventually contributed to Turnbull's demise, while this event hasn't led to Gillard losing her job (yet).
 * Not sure we'll be so happy about the unemployment rate in a month or two. Libs are trying to save the economy. This sort of thing isn't leadership :-)--Surturz (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, you reeled me in to a rant :) Leadership is another modern political buzzword. Is leadership letting your party sail to a solid defeat because they don't want to give up the job? Is leadership going further than Menzies in a hung government with three times the number of crossbenchers? The word leadership is meaningless. Everyone has qualities, I think our current PM has many qualities :) And the Libs don't save the economy. Howard's economy during PM Fraser was hopeless with all the figures in double digits, before Hawke and Keating who saved it with extensive economic reform while being humane. This linked us up completely to global events. Since then, the Australian economy has followed the global economy. When the world is doing well, Australia is doing well. When the world is not doing so well, Australia is not doing so well. Howard was the highest taxing govt in Australia's history, Labor then reduced the income tax rate three times since, all he did in terms of economic reform was a GST. He preferred to play the social conservative while pretending that the economic benefits we reap somehow came from his government, when it is things like markets, the general direction of IR, taxation, the banking system, superannuation, etc etc, which have allowed Australia to succeed. Oh, and in modern times, they'll also slash and burn health/education/social/etc services to bring the budget back in to the black. Even though Menzies never had a budget surplus. I'd rather our money spent on us to support Australians, not held in a surplus gathering dust for no good reason - it's our money. Not only has Labor done a lot for 'major party progressivism', I am very very thankful that Labor rescued us from Howard's regressive oppressive conservative regime. Australia has been far better off with Labor governments historically and in modern times in the short and long run. Oh, and, huh? 90 year old Coalition indeed. Timeshift (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * TREASURY Secretary Martin Parkinson says Australians are very negative about the state of the domestic economy. Dr Parkinson said the national mindset was a ``bit overdone. ``It's almost as if most Australians tend to think we live in Greece, we don't, ``We actually have an incredibly bright future in front of us. ``There is an overwhelming negative sense about much of the national discussion and debate,


 * I think it's crystal clear that Abbott is Australia's biggest danger to our economy. Timeshift (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "'I'd rather our money spent on us to support Australians, not held in a surplus gathering dust for no good reason'"What surplus? Labor have not only trashed the surplus, they've put us back in debt! And what support for Australians? Most of the stimulus cheques went to the purchase of imported goods! --Surturz (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. Because any political tragic loves a bit of Keating:
 * For an economic liberal, you aren't very smart are you? :P The Howard government left us in a structural deficit beyond what Labor states did with their respective finances. Do you forget how Labor states during the Howard government were awash with cash too? Try and understand how budget surpluses and deficits occur in the modern economic age. Read more articles like this. Tell me, what is wrong with 'debt' and when is it an issue? Sustainable debt to support an economy during a downturn is an economically sensible idea, just ask the IMF. Australia remains one of the lowest debt countries in the world and I don't see that changing any time soon. And tell me, what number of jobs do you think need to be saved for an economically responsible economic stimulus to be worth it? About as many as the Libs would have claimed they saved with their smaller stimulus that would have put us in "less debt"? I guess when they came up with that one they forgot about the Liberal 101 little black book of lines like "debt=bad". Oops! Timeshift (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Your arguments and those of the article, are self-defeating defenses of Keynesianism. The idea of borrowing in the downturn to soften the downturn only works if governments pay off debt in the recovery. Howard/Costello did that... but you are arguing that they didn't really do that. We know ALP governments certainly don't pay off debt, ever. I would argue that governments always have an incentive to borrow no matter what point they are in the economic cycle - borrowing during the boom is exactly what the US did, for example. I'm not expert on Keynes, but I suspect the idea only really works if the govt borrows from its own citizens, not other countries. Borrowing from other countries hampers the effectiveness of the central bank (as the big 4 banks are now currently arguing, that debt they owe overseas means they must ignore the RBA cash rate - not that I buy the argument!), and ties the economy to a different economy at a different point in the cycle. You say I don't know how the modern economy works... but it is you that is suggesting we mindlessly follow economic theories developed seventy-five years ago! I see no reason why the Australian government should ever need go into debt. Into deficit, sure, but not debt. Rudd was handed a big nest egg and could have run a sizeable deficit without blowing the lot and more and putting us into debt. --Surturz (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keynesianism is only a label, as is neo-liberalism/New Right etc. No pure ideology has a monopoly on good and effective policy and outcomes, good government comes from a mix. Menzies never ran a surplus, but he's a Liberal Party hero. Howard/Costello only did it by savagely cutting various public services. There's nothing wrong with borrowing from other countries as long as the loans are prudent and make fiscal sense. I can't believe we're having to re-attempt to include dental in Medicare... shame Howard, shame. Governments do pay the debt off in recovery, what do you think Labor is attempting to do by humane cutting of parts of the budget, even though the vast majority of recovery comes from GST tax receipts! Global economic modelling at the time did not indicate a downturn/stagnation in the world that would be so prolonged. But as long as the debt remains low, it's not an issue. The question is, do you save jobs and keep the economy out of going in to recession and save all the confidence-sapping problems associated with that? All global economic organisations (IMF etc) think Australia's economy is excellent and debt is extremely within manageable levels. We have an excellent GDP, productivity, interest rates, inflation, and employment. The Liberals wanted a stimulus too, but not as large as Labor's. That was after they were firmly against any stimulus. I'm for decisive action to cushion the impact in Australia, as the benefits outweigh the short-term increase in debt, but a completely manageable debt. We are not Greece, we have one of the best debt levels in the entire world. It is not impacting on business confidence, the debt to GDP ratio is going gangbusters. You need to get in a lot more debt than Labor has done before it becomes an issue. I'm not for the Liberal action of being a weathervane and doing what seems politically and tactically best at the time, in the process in itself eroding some confidence. If Turnbull were still opposition leader, business confidence would no doubt be a lot higher. Abbott would love nothing more than for the economy to tank. Each set of numbers that comes out, like unemployment levels, Abbott would surely weep as his predictions have not been borne out. We keep hearing about how 'debt and deficit' is such a bad thing, but then here you are saying you're all for a deficit. What level is ok? What isn't? Or is it just political expediency to say Labor's is larger, therefore it's a bad decision - a very arbitrary argument. Rarely has there been successful entrepreneurs who don't get to where they are by taking out prudent loans and go in to debt. The economic/fiscal paramaters the government is operating on considering the world situation is extremely prudent, and again, all the global organisations like the IMF agree. Swan got awarded world's best treasurer, rememeber! :D Timeshift (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break
World's best treasurer according to Euromoney magazine, who had previously made awards such as: How does a country get 15 trillion dollars (US) or 360 billion Euro (Greece) in debt? In all likelihood, a million dollars at a time. Funding government services with foreign debt is bad for a whole bunch of reasons: it reduces accountability to taxpayers, it perverts the redistribution of wealth by government. But the most important downside is that it plunders future generations earnings - it is the parents buying big on the children's credit card. Saving jobs is a noble cause, but it is only a rational thing to do if those jobs are actually viable. Otherwise, once the stimulus is removed, all those jobs go away. We've seen this with the pink batt installers and the solar panel sellers; people won't actually spend their own money on these things. --Surturz (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Best Investment Bank - Lehman Brothers
 * Best Equity House - Morgan Stanley
 * Best at Risk Management - Bear Stearns
 * Best at Investor Services - Citigroup


 * Just like a balanced diet, everything in moderation. To always maintain a surplus is economically irresponsible and destructive. Nobody in the world has one iota of an issue with Australia's level of debt and deficit - it's not an issue. Our GDP, inflation, dollar, employment, and interest rates are all doing well. It increases during the bad times and decreases during the better times, and when the mining boom expands even further, treasury coffers will flood again. And finally, you can't just look at the jobs the stimulus created. You must look at the confidence we would otherwise not have, had we have gone in to a recession. A lot more jobs would have been lost if we went in to a recession that the stimulus managed to ward off. Confidence is everything. Timeshift (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said that the govt should not go into deficit. I said that it should never go into debt (and particularly, never go into foreign debt). Also, the ALP is not planning to pay off the debt, they are only committing to going back into surplus - and they have not indicated a particular level of surplus - spending one dollar less than the tax they collect would be enough for them. Such a low bar. --Surturz (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I thought you were Green? Pump-priming is anathema to the environment, since by definition, stimulus spending is non-essential spending. In a recession, a lack of confidence means people cut their expenditure back to essential spending. Keynesian stimulus replaces private luxury spending with government luxury spending, to (supposedly) prop up the economy and avoid the paradox of thrift. Environmentalism, however, urges individuals to minimise resource consumption. Recessions are good for the environment. --Surturz (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you cite any reference from overseas that has concerns with out debt? There is nothing wrong with debt in itself. Many of the worlds richest only got that way from getting in to debt. And can you cite an ALP policy that says in the future no debt will be paid? I think it's commendable to chase a surplus. Would you rather they not? Hmm! And i'm not a Green. I preference Green above Labor for various reasons. In a plurality vote, Labor would get my vote every time. Timeshift (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. When you recently edited Australian Labor Party, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Balance of power (politics) and Liberal Movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Finally, a somewhat useful bot userpage talk contributor. Fixed, thanks. Timeshift (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Abbott
Being an American, I don't have the emotional investment you do, and I find the ALP's faction system baffling, but my god is Tony Abbott unlikeable. Even his comments that the impending Queensland result is a referendum on Julia Gillard, the carbon tax, and just about everything else Abbott doesn't like, are grating. I keep seeing dire predictions for the federal ALP in 2013, and I realise he came close in 2010, but how in the world could Australians elect this guy? Say what you will about G. W. Bush, at least he didn't seem like a thug. Do Labor supporters hope against hope that somehow someone less—I don't know, Abbotty?—will manage to wrest the Liberal leadership from him? Or do they hope voters will again take a look at him in an election and decide they aren't willing to buy? -Rrius (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For all the faults with the US system, at least the primary process would ensure nutters like Abbott would never manage to get the top job. Australians won't elect Abbott, and they didn't elect Gillard. They elected their local MP. This is what the conservatives fail to grasp when they go on and on and are expected to go on and on for 3 years, because they didnt get their partisan result they were looking for. Timeshift (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously the voters don't directly vote for prime minister, but the leadership of each party does inform voting behaviour. My point is that if I were an Australian voter, even a centre-right voter, I would put the Libs and/or Nats at the bottom in terms of preferences just to avoid having him as PM. As for the conservatives going on and on, it's weird how, no matter what the country, the conservative party always feels it is entitled to rule. Anyway, time for sleep so I can wake up at 5 or so AEST (3 a.m. my time) to get ready to follow the results. -Rrius (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well according to Abbott, people in QLD won't be voting on Anna Bligh's Labor government which has been in power for 18 of the last 20 years. They'll be voting on the carbox tax. People take a wide range of factors in to consideration when voting... they aren't as dumb as some make them out to be, but it is a shame that the media is cancerous in it's inaccuracies. From false 'facts' to misleading bias to simple lack of proof reading. I think it's a shame that the conservatives would normally be the ones to best defend Westminster tradition, yet they slammed the Gillard minority government, and want a Premier who isn't even an MP... a scary precedent/development to set, very USA. You are right, many conservatives have a deep dislike of Abbott. I know many. Nobody who has ever had a dissatisfaction rating of higher than 50% has become PM. It is a long time until the next election. Look at polling anyway... Labor had 53% of the TPP vote in 1998 in Newspoll two days out from the election, ended up with 51%, but not enough seats. Labor peaked at 60% in Newspoll a year before the 2001 election, but they only got 49% and not enough seats. A week is a long time in politics, Labor has been very active despite the current hung parliament in conjunction with Abbott being one of the government's best assets. I also think that now we will have four state conservative governments, people will be more likely in those states to vote the other way federally... this is often observed. Julia would have crawled over hot coals last year for two 47-53's in a row. I'm not worried and neither should other people. We've never had such masses of polling in history, it's a different environment. This, and with all of Abbott's uncosted promises, it would be hilarious to see how an Abbott government would actually play out. But this is by no means likely :) Timeshift (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfold the flower!
Fellow Earthians... --Surturz (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's called rhetoric (and despite favouring Labor over Green when it comes to it, I agree with his sentiments). What do you think of my recent WP activity? Timeshift (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Good faith edit
I corrected some wrong information at the tail of Francis Dutton. I gave inline references. I even cited Geoffrey Dutton, a descendant and no mean scholar. I'm not sure how I could have done any better. Or do you object to the word "furphy"? Doug butler (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I object to the word, and the sentence "This is a furphy." in an encyclopedia, as well as the name boldings. Timeshift (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So why throw out the good with what you object to? Doug butler (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Because I patrol 3000 articles, and if I spent time improving such inherantly bad edits, i'd never get anywhere. Nothing personal. Timeshift (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasn't taking it personally. But if I see "it's" when it should be "its" I just fix it and move on. My edits were factual, well referenced and an improvement. I may not be well versed in WP style but I'd appreciate it if my edit were given some respect. Doug butler (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I said it was a good faith edit, you're welcome to the WP policies/guidelines at any time, and you're welcome to use the history tab to easily re-instate your work without the non-encyclopedic content. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK I'm trying to learn, not be a smartarse. Is it un-encyclopaedic to point out that there are two versions out there: one verifiable and the other erroneous. Or should one simply substitute the factual for the furphy, bearing in mind that the latter is repeated over and over? Doug butler (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good faith, again. Feel free to use the history tab to re-instate your edits sans the non-encyclopedic content. Timeshift (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

One of our Senators in missing.
All the states have 12 senators, except WA which seems to have only 11.

This may affect the knife-edge balance of power.

Can you help fix this?

Hint: Sort by state and count short 2014 senators, then count long 2017 senators.

See: Members of the Australian Senate, 2011–2014

Tabletop (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Despair... what knife edge balance of power? This is the Senate. A majority is 39, Labor + Green is 40. Judith Adams died, the WA parliament will appoint a replacement in due course. I already said this in the revert. The article is correct in its current listing. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with Senate Business Managers
I am trying here to assemble lists of the Manager of Government and Opposition Business in the Senate. So far, I have the Government Managers back to 1983, plus Douglas McClelland, who served from July 1874 until the Crisis. On the other side of the Chamber, I have Opposition Managers going back to 1996, with non-consecutive tenures of McClelland, Don Grimes, and Chris Puplick before that. I have used Parliament's biographiss, accessed through the National Library of Australia's Trove site. Hansard's online availability, so far as I know from Parliament's site, only covers the period for which I have complete details for both lists. Google has been completely useless, though I expected nothing else. So I wonder, do you have any tips or know of anyone situated in Australia with the proper tolerance for tedium to look through bound indexes and volumes of Hansard at a library somewhere? My Australian doppelganger, in other words. -Rrius (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha, sorry, you've pretty much done what i'd do. You could try asking on Oz noticeboard and/or project ozpolitics talk pages though. Timeshift (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Timeshift (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited Australian Labor Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicare (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

CSIRO
No other significant content has been removed. The work "the" was removed from the start of a paragraph. Please revert it back to the 1 April 2012 version created by you, which is what I was trying to do. The IP's edits are, as I said, FAR from neutral POV. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Awaiting your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello? Anybody there? Pdfpdf (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Five minutes you queried why I didn't reply, and then again ten minutes after that. Hmm. I've replied on the article talk page. Timeshift (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Pendulums etc.
Thanks for letting me know; I've added my 2c. Frickeg (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. When you recently edited South Brisbane state by-election, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist Alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

anything to add to the discussion?
Or you just like clicking undo and causing trouble? Cursesonabauumy (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're the one causing trouble. I've had my say, others are having their say. I am currently assisting in ensuring that your disputed edit, which is going against consensus, remains out. Thanks for your time. Timeshift (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What consensus? Doesn't there have to be a discussion for there to be a consensus? There is no discussion. You "had your say", were blatantly and obviously mistaken, and then swiftly exited the discussion out of embarrassment. Nice going! lol Cursesonabauumy (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Others have issues with your edits. Why do you believe that editing your way takes precedence over what others believe? WP:CONSENSUS. Please try to get it. Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Because I'm right. You and them, are not. You and them, just keep clicking "undo" out of spite and are too embarrassed to engage in discussion, because you know I am right. Cursesonabauumy (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Claiming you are right does not mean that you are right. If you are right, you will find that others will start to agree with you on the talkpage, and if they do and you form a WP:CONSENSUS, then go right ahead. Timeshift (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions." Cursesonabaummy is acting under the belief—in good faith and not misguided—that the absence of a reply since his comments of 23 April is assent to his desired wording. Other editors are acting under the belief—in good faith and not misguided—that they have not reached consensus on the talk page. (I.e., this administrator thinks there are no bad-faith edits on the article, but it is a full edit war.) If the latter is the case, it may not hurt for one of those editors to put a note on the talk page stating that they still disagree.


 * And if that is the case, it would be a good idea for all parties involved to limit their edits along this line to the talk page. I'd like to see all the editors involved do that willingly, but if I have to fully protect the article to stop the edit war, I will. (And I'd rather protect the page than block editors, since the talk page discussion can continue during protection a lot better than it can during blocks.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll continue to revert what is clearly not consensus. Timeshift (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Slipper
Yes, I'd seen a (not surprisingly) slightly different perspective in The Age. It may require some mature discussion as to how to represent it in the various articles. The rabid Lib/Nats will want to describe it as a defeat for Julia. I just see it as one more tiny chapter in an epic drama. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

One Nation Party (Australia)
Dear Timeshift9,

My reason for posting this comment is to clarify your knowledge on the One Nation Party (Australia); One Nation is not the far-right political party that is was in the late 1990s, indeed the party has shifted towards the centre in the breadth of policy and a restructuring since the year 2001. Given that I am a member of One Nation and posess a policy booklet as well having read the policies of nine other Australian political parties I have the advantage of in depth knowledge on One Nation and the broader political spectrum. Examining the references on the One Nation Party (Australia) page it is clear that the sources are out of date being from 1998 on the most part. I ask that you explain where you are getting your sources on One Nation, the basis of what you call "bias" and your views on the structural layout of the article (the article focus too much on early One Nation and Pauline Hanson rather than the Party itself, post 2001, and its policies.)

Thank you and kind regards, Aaron1914 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron1914 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In reference to your alteration of the One Nation (Australia) page: consensus in this case is biased and ill-informed. Though you may not agree with the reality of the One Nation party it is inappropriate to continue altering up-to-date and accurate contributions with the excus that they are 1 biased and 2 non-encyclopedic. You need to do more research and use up-to-date references that are applicable to the Party beyond 1998 and 2001 especially.

Thank you and kind regards, Aaron1914 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron1914 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are correct then others will agree with you. That is how life works. Your changes are based on non-encyclopedic content from WP:PRIMARY sources, is against the status quo, and disputed by multiple editors. As the changes are new to the article and are disputed, you will require others to agree with you on the talk page and form a new WP:CONSENSUS. If you don't agree with that, sorry. Timeshift (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Pre-/post-election pendulum for Qld
Does the fact of the South Brisbane by-election mean there will need to be a separate pre-election pendulum for the next election? -Rrius (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Anna Bligh is no longer the member for South Brisbane and Labor's margin in the seat has changed. Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, but I wanted to check. -Rrius (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"Disputed edit"
Regarding this edit summary, the stable version showed the vacancy, the other editor changed it, and I disputed it. Under the normal rules of editing, it is the stable version that is presumed to have consensus, yet somehow by restoring his disputed edit, the other editor, at least in your eyes, somehow managed to gain consensus for his edit. I'm not sure you thought that out before you hit "save", but if so, I'd like to hear your reasoning. Also, I'm not as willing to take one commentator's "highly unlikely" as certainty of an outcome (even if it is the Venerable Antony Green), but I'm not going to quibble (especially since I thought it highly unlikely Grehan would win even when he was up in the count!). -Rrius (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Abbott - "The most effective opposition leader in Australia's history"
I expect you will be interested in an addition yesterday to the Tony Abbott page, and a related discussion on the Talk page. 22:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't pay much attention to that article, all the usual suspects ensure it stays the way they like it. I'm sure it will be dealt with appropriately. I doubt that the contributor actually believes it, I reckon they're just looking for the reaction they're getting. Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

AU Parlaiment
You are wrong RE: Parliament of Australia.

See, eg, AAP May 05, 2012 7:12PM http://www.news.com.au/national/coalition-claims-72-seats-as-crook-joins/story-e6frfkvr-1226347635451 OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott's parliamentary numbers have won a boost, with Nationals MP Tony Crook formally joining the Coalition.

So, if Crook has joined the Coalition, why on earth would you say he hasn't by reverting my edit?

Also, you said my edit was wrong and incorrect.

Comments like: 'This has reduced to 74 once more with Slipper currently not voting as he has temporarily stood down from the Speaker role' are correct and not wrong. Therefore your edit was significantly wrong and you had no right to undo my edit.

Please refrain from vandalising Wikipedia pages.

Regards, Demonrhys (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware it was the case. With so many uninformed changes to attempt to make this so over the past two years, it had just become a natural reaction. But it now appears that it is the case. Therefore I was not vandalising, per WP:VANDALISM. What I do find fascinating though, is that the News Ltd media outlets flatly refused to consider Crook as not part of the Coalition and gave them a total of 73 seats at the outcome of the 2010 election - but look at it now! Crook is now a part of the Coalition, as if News Ltd at some point admitted that he wasn't part of the Coalition! If News Ltd were consistent in any way, then the Coalition didn't gain a seat because Crook was one of them! Talk about having your cake and eating it too :) Oh well, better Crook than Tuckey, and the Coalition is now at 72, just like the truth of the 2010 election result. Except without Slipper, it's still one less vote for them - well done Slipper :) Timeshift (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For Dmonrhys's information, even had Timeshift's edit been made with disruptive intent, it still would not have been vandalism. The term has a specific meaning under WP:Vandalism, and misidentifying edits as such can sometimes lead to overheated exchanges. -Rrius (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thousands of acts passed
Quantity not quality, eh? :-) --Surturz (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see your point. The sections early sections should be consistent with the modern sections in expressing the Acts passed by Labor with links and without commentary, which there is plenty of in the links and other areas. If you are referring to quantity of Acts, as i've said previously, an Act isn't a good thing, and the sections neither praise them nor criticise them, there are links and people can make up their own minds. Legislation is the primary and central exercise of political parties and governments. Timeshift (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That screendump of Russell Broadbent was from a video I made
If you read the justification I gave for uploading the image, you'll notice that the copyright belongs to me. You're also wrong to say it was uploaded under fair use - I put it under CC3 as my own work, because that's what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuliwil (talk • contribs) 08:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence that you wholly produced it and have the rights to release it? Timeshift (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The video hasn't been uploaded yet, and once it it it'll have the Warragul Citizen watermark over part of the image, proving that I have the originals - is that enough? How do I go about proving it? Want my ABN so you can match it to the paper? K u l i w i l  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil
 * The best and easiest way to prove it would be to put on the webpage the CC logo to represent release by creative commons. What is the website? It needs some semblance of credability. Timeshift (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The video is not CC, the screendump I made from my own video on the other hand is. Anyway, anyone could re-upload a video under CC to prove that - I think the fact the video hasn't even been uploaded yet should be justification enough. Also, *credibility  K u l i w i l  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuliwil (talk • contribs) 09:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it isn't enough. There needs to be proof that you own or have rights to the image. Timeshift (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then please tell me what to provide! (Help me removed - question answered) Can we get a second opinion here? Page is: Russell Broadbent  K u l i w i l </B> <I>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil</I> 09:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You could upload the screendump to your site then attach a CC to that. Sorry if you think evidence for image ownership is burdensome. Timeshift (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not burdensome, it's just I didn't know what to do, smartypants. I've put a note about a CC screendump being available for Wikipedia in the comment for the YouTube video, which will be online tomorrow. I'll add the image again then. <B> K u l i w i l </B> <I>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil</I> 10:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be a smartypants. When an image is to be uploaded, a user is given a ton of wording to sift through. Please go through the steps again and at the early steps it will provide you with more info. As I said originally, if your site is semi reliable (and may be part of consensus discussion) and has permission, and/or you send permission to wikipedia (which is again available through the text given in image uploading), then so be it. But an image of that size, especially a screendump of a video with a CC tag and an ownership claim, is insufficient. Timeshift (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Will a comment in the YouTube upload stating that there is a screendump available be sufficient? And I thought I had read everything - I must've missed a page. <B> K u l i w i l </B> <I>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil</I> 11:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally had word from another user who actually knew image proof of ownership procedures - They outlined the procedure on my talkpage if you're interested. <B> K u l i w i l </B> <I>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil</I> 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's all available when a user uploads an image. The burden of knowledge isn't on someone else, it's on you. Stop shirking the responsibility please. Timeshift (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

One of your uploaded photos being used in contravention of its licence
Hi Timeshift9. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia with photos of the likes of Bob Brown. The photo from that article is being used by the Economist in an article about Brown, but they just credit it to Wikimedia Commons and link to the image file itself, rather than the image description page, and there is no mention of its actual source or of the CC-BY-SA. You would think with a the budget of a large international news magazine they could either afford to pay for a photo through the usual channels, or have staff intelligent enough to follow the terms of a free licence. (PS, if you reply, please do so here rather than on my IP talkpage) 77.99.26.23 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned. Timeshift (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You think it's fine for a wealthy media organisation to use a freely-licensed image without crediting the source or complying with the licence? 77.99.26.23 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but on my concern list, it would be near the bottom. Timeshift (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob Hawke reversion
Hi, This is to let you know I've disputed (or at least sought clarification of) a reversion you made of an edit of mine to the Bob Hawke article recently. Regards, Welham66 (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Factual errors in your biographical writing
Your edits to the article present a false chronology that even I can see doesn't match the chronology and information in the autobiographical source cited. Someone who claims to have spoken with the subject also disputes what you have written. Please correct the error that you made. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * to Isobel Redmond
 * complaint on the BLP noticeboard

By-elections
Thanks! They're the stubbiest of stubs, of course, but at least the framework is there. (Once I realised that it took about five minutes to create each one, they became the perfect thing to do in the middle of other stuff when something had to load.) Frickeg (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope so. It only takes a few people to come in and focus on a particular area. Might take a while though! Frickeg (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Mike Kelly dispute
Thought the Kelly addition was fair. What is the reasoning behind your dispute?

Thompson Remarks Controversy

Kelly attracted controversy when, during an appearance on Sky Television, he made, what one commmentator regarded as "the most horrible slur I can recall in federal politics."[12] Kelly, speaking about the Coalition's pursuit of Thompson, and to the disbelief of his fellow panel-members, said "The relentless focus on this individual has one outcome in mind. What is that they actually want? Do they want to see a young mother by a graveside weeping, is that the outcome they are looking for? Because this is what they said they want to happen.”[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LowLarynx (talk • contribs) 04:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be factual, but that is not the sole criteria for inclusion. WP:NOTE is a big criteria. If this was noteable, then any Thomson comment by any of the federal 226 MPs would by rights be added to 226 articles. What precisely elevates Kelly's comment above other comments? If you wish to continue, please do so on the article talk page and not my talk page, thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Australian Christians
I'll try to get something of value on these guys together this weekend. I remember having an attempt back when they were first registered with the AEC, but I had a lot of difficulty working out exactly what their relationship with the CDP was (they seem to be what used to be the Victorian branch of the CDP, with possibly several others, still affiliated with them somehow). Hopefully there's some more info around now, especially with this by-election in the works. (I had a look at the by-election page and fixed up the candidates table a little - it was listing candidates of the Democrats, Secular Party and SEP, none of which are registered in Victoria. I have noticed, though, that Antony has started listing unregistered parties in much the same way as registered ones, so this will be worth keeping an eye on in the future.) Frickeg (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing comments from talk pages
Please don't remove comments from talk pages. - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments can be removed if they are just a WP:SOAPBOX and do not contribute to article improvement. Timeshift (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsbefiends (talk • contribs) 22:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Now please don't add WP:SOAPBOX talk to talkpage discussion or it will again be removed. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Indobox for Susan Close
Hi Timeshift9, you removed the margin "for consistency - no other SA MP has it" - however I copied the original template from Stephanie Key, which certainly does have it. It would seem to be more the case that most of the SA pollies' pages don't have infoboxes at all. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I removed it from Key's article as well, it's already mentioned in the article and in the seat article. I just think it is duplication and something that unnecessarily bulks up an infobox. Timeshift (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne by-election
Hi, are you intending to post interim results as they become available? Tony  (talk)  11:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They are available. If I have the motivation and it hasnt been done, I tend to put one up at the point of last count on election night as preliminary results. Timeshift (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, this one looks like too difficult a call for tonight. Tony   (talk)  15:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say Labor has won, though either way it didn't mean much considering there was no Liberal candidate and their preference flows, and the changed preference flow configuration. And either result wouldn't have meant much, though that wouldn't have stopped News Ltd from having an orgasm and predict the fall of federal Labor if the Greens won, but now that it appears Labor has won, i'm sure this by-election will quickly slip in to the ether. Timeshift (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope that you don't mind me re-writing the paragraph you added on this in the Australian Greens article; given that the VEC is yet to finalise counting it seems a bit speculative to post the TPP, especially to that degree of accuracy, and the coverage I've seen has focused on a) the Greens not doing as well as they'd (apparently) hoped and b) the Greens receiving the highest number of first preferences for the first time in Victoria. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was psephological, if/when it slightly changed I would have altered it. Highest primary vote doesn't matter much especially when a major party isn't contesting. Up to you. Timeshift (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Niddrie
The Australian Christians are proving troublesome in all sorts of regards! (I wish they'd just state their relationship with the CDP somewhere in black and white.) Nonetheless I think I found the answer to this one ... Frickeg (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

2013 subpage
I can see arguments both ways; I get what you're saying, but seat-wise they're all equal - I mean, there's no difference between an ACT seat and a NSW one. (It also helps us keep them consistent over time, when populations change - SA used to be bigger than WA, for example.) Either way, it would be way too much work to go back and change the lot of them! :) Frickeg (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

NT candidates
When making these tables I generally go with a dedicated column if a party runs in more than half the seats (unless that would make the table too bulky), or if the party is particularly significant. NT is a bit of a special case, since the small electorates mean only the major parties are able to run in every seat. (The Greens, for example, aren't running in half the seats, but I still gave them a column.) I gave First Nations a column because there was room, and because my suspicion is that they'll do moderately well. (I think the Sex Party probably will too, but five was just too few.) If you're not comfortable with it I've got no problem moving them back into the Others, though. Frickeg (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping they would too, if only to bring NT into line with all the other states and territories. They are running more than ever before, which is something, I suppose. I suspect First Nations has sapped a few of their members (Williams, etc.). Frickeg (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm also glad they've abandoned the bizarre and antiquated tradition of endorsing more than one candidate in some seats. (I could never understand why they didn't run in MacDonnell, when they'd won it only two elections ago.) Frickeg (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

CLP
Scullion caucuses with the Nats, Griggs with the Libs. They're definitely not a branch of the Nationals - or of the Liberals, for that matter. They're a separate, affiliated party. Frickeg (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe Griggs does actually sit in the Liberal party room, though, as Tollner used to. I remember looking it up back when we changed the member pages to include which LNP members caucused with whom. Can't find the source now, though. Frickeg (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One day, they'll all merge (and hopefully pick a better name than Liberal National Party) and we can breathe a sigh of relief. (It's funny, nowadays I look at politics through two different lenses - one for my own views, and one with a view to what will be easier for us on Wiki. With O'Connor in 2010, obviously Tuckey was an idiot, but I knew a WA Nat would make everything a whole lot more complicated. Sad, really!) Frickeg (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Norfolk Island
Hi Timeshift, I'd just like to respectfully ask why the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island is not counted on the Premiers of the Australian states under the self-governing territories section? By the way we haven't been through it. If this is sock puppet rubbish again, please stop. Norfolk Island has the same legal position as the ACT and NT. Thanks Welshboyau11 (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's how it's treated in other areas. Personally I don't care either way but it's what is accepted. Timeshift (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Timeshift9. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AN/I
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Note that it is your apparent failure to adhere to policies which I've raised here - this isn't a place to discuss content disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

BDuke worded it perfectly here. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because it's now consuming too much time and energy, and realise that left-wing won't be allowed to be added any time in the near future, the status quo and majority of the article's editors are on my side. I'm just glad that I remained civil :) Timeshift (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)