User talk:Timeshift9/Archive4

Norman Gunston
I'm not sure if that Norman Gunston video really belongs on the Gough Whitlam page, but nevertheless thanks for posting it. It is absolutely brilliant, I don't know how Gunston got away with doing that. Peter Ballard 12:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, it will be an interesting few years to come in Queensland politics! WikiTownsvillian 11:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Bligh
Thanks mate!!! it looks good, we've just got to beef up the content a bit, there are heaps of articles in the media at the moment about her background so it shouldn't be too hard to fill it out a bit, will put a bit into it after the Chaser tonight! WikiTownsvillian 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well yes... but she's still not Premier until she is sworn in later today, it's not done at midnight, I don't think the Governor stays up that late :) WikiTownsvillian 15:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of reverting people who are jumping the gun, I'm going to bed, see ya. WikiTownsvillian 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry mate, that was just me being tired, not me being pissy/defensive, especially towards yourself, please never hesitate in editing Qld pages, your contributions are of a very good quality. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 20:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * HA! Nope can't do it, have tried several times now! :P WikiTownsvillian 10:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of the new pictures? I'd say Urgent's going to have as much troubles as you :) WikiTownsvillian 10:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a toughie, given this user's edit history (and possibly username?) it is quite possible that this user is from the Premier's office or a related office and therefore does have copyright ownership over it, this would explain why they are professional photographs without metatags. Of course if this is the case they would need to demonstrate this credibly.  Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 11:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Prediction in Kevin Rudd lead section
Please revisit the two pertinent sections of the Rudd talkpage (namely Introductory Paragraph and Crystal). The version of the lead section to which you keep reverting does not have consensus. It cannot acquire consensus because it breaches WP:CRYSTAL policy (and please note WP:LEAD guidelines). A fair reading of the talkpage discussions suggests that a majority sensed, even at the outset, that the wording was questionable. It has only been kept by prior editors on the basis it may serve as a useful template for future edits, which is not a legitimate reason for keeping it in. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mike Rann.jpg
FYI, I tagged this image as replaceable fair use. Have you btw contacted the copyright holder at Flickr? I noticed many people on flickr are more than willing to change their license. In this case without the non-commercial clause. Garion96 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI the previous image with a less solid rationale had existed for years and was fine for the 2006 election to go FA as the rationale was tight enough. To hell with you nazis - contact the author I shall. Why one tries to improve wikipedia, f*ck knows. Timeshift 16:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What you have done now is simply upload an image from flickr while the copyright holder has specifically licensed the image non-commercial and while Wikipedia does not accept non-commercial usage. Uploading files find somewhere on the internet is very easy. Asking them to release their images under a license we can use is harder but definitely possible, see User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images. Also, we might not agree but don't tell people they are nazis. Garion96 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Noncommercial. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work — and derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial purposes only Examples: Gus publishes his photograph on his website with a Noncommercial license. Camille prints Gus’ photograph. Camille is not allowed to sell the print photograph without Gus’s permission. The policy of not allowing these images and your adherance to it is destructive to wikipedia. Timeshift 17:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, good summary of non-commercial. We still don't allow it. Feel free to take it up with the Wikimedia foundation though. Garion96 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See how relatively easy that can be. A great example why this image was replaceable fair use. Good job. Garion96 (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, I don't know why you are so quick to call people nazis and dismiss their actions as destructive, but could you consider trying to understand the motivations and explanations instead of viewing it as a battle that you must win? Wikipedia aims to provide content that can be sold, and to promote the creation of such content. Including non-commercial use only images is destructive to that aim. If the aims were different, it might be destructive to not include them. So it is not about being destructive, but an issue of what the aims of the project are. Personally, I am actually attracted to your view of what Wikipedia should be, but it is not what it is, and I can appreciate the reasons why it isn't.

This image actually demonstrates the effectiveness of the policy quite well. Because the foundation insists on free licenses, you have asked the photographer to change the license, and there is now one more free image than there was before. You or I may think this is less important than creating articles with as many suitable legally used images as possible, but frankly, to work on that principle, we'd have to convince the Foundation or start our own encyclopedia. In the meantime, we can keep improving Wikipedia according to its own aims. JPD (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Like putting industrial brakes on a car or a fly screen on a submarine. So pointless and unproductive. I'm over it - just another one of the gripes I have with wikipedia. Timeshift 09:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like a lot of people are building a truck, you only need to use it as a car, so you're trying ignore the plans. Whether you think the rules are productive or not, can you please try to get a grip on them before uploading any more invalid images? Express permission to "use an image on Wikipedia" doesn't achieve anything. Images are either free (public domain or licensed under an free license) or they are not. If they are not, they must satisfy WP:NFCC, and permission doesn't help the image meet any of those criteria.
 * Let's look at your rationale for Image:Pollchart-tpp.png. Point 1 is irrelevant - the only permission Wikipedia is interest in is a free license. I can't tell what point 2 is meant to mean - how is the image ceremonial, and what has that got to do with the non-free content criteria? Why is there no commercial value? Point 3 is on the right track - the article is definitely improved by a graph, so it would actually be a good point if you had written it for this image rather than calling it a photo. Point 4 may be true, but doesn't really help with the criteria again, partly since it goes against one of the central parts of Wikipedia's mission, but also because in general an image doesn't need to be being used for profit to replace the market role of the original. Point 5 is nothing but a claim with nothing to support it. Lastly, point 6 is not true. The image is not discussed in the article, the subject of the image is. Rationales including something like your point 6 are for images that are themselves notable (book covers, works of art, famous photographs, etc.).
 * Despite the extraneous invalid claims in your rationale, the image actually only fails the NFCC in criterion 1: replaceability. The non-free content guideline actually explicitly spells out why non-free graphs are almost never appropriate. It is always possible for someone to create a free alternative, as I have done. My image is possibly not as good as the one from ozpolitics - if you have suggested improvements, please tell me. It may even be easier to get Bryan Palmer to release the image under a free license. See Requesting copyright permission for details on what to say when asking people for permission - any permission other than that dsecribed there is no use at all. JPD (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just seen your message and would like to a few points in response. I owuld be interested to hear more detail on what you prefer about the layout. I deliberately changed a few things that are a matter of taste, but there is definitely room for improvement. Apart from that, the reason we have a choice is not because I have made this image, it's because it was possible to make this image. The policy doesn't say we can use an image if we don't have a free alternative - it says we can use it if it is impossible to create a free alternative. Using the other image was never valid, and wouldn't be unless it was released for more general use than simply on Wikipedia. JPD (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Per my response on your page. Another admin has assisted and didn't take issue, and imho no rational person would care as Bryan gave permission regardless of what the technicals of wiki policy are. Horses for courses. I'm not interested enough to continue this. Timeshift 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What difference does it make whether we are admins? Wikipedia doesn't work by going and asking someone for the admin opinion. It works by following the key policies and after that by consensus of all users. Admins shouldn't be treated as any more or less important than others. Some admins haven't thought too much about the non-free content policy, and some non-admins know it inside out. In that sense, yes, it's horses for courses. In the sense of what's allowed on Wikipedia, it's not. It's not true that no rational person would care - what about someone who wants to use the article outside Wikipedia, possibly even for profit? Could you please take the time to read some of the links I used above that spell out quite clearly why the image was not allowed? Understand the policy, instead of reducing everything to "he said, she said". Finally, unless you are planning to ask Bryan to license his pictures (and perhaps even if you are), I would genuinely like to know your suggestions for improving my graph. JPD (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, if you can't be bothered to understand the policy, you shouldn't be uploading images. We all make mistakes and don't understand things, but not making an effort is just rude. So is calling things dodgy without giving details that would actually help. What sort of font would you prefer? That would be very easy to change. What is different about the lines? How would you like to see the dates - they could probably be changed without too much effort. Do you prefer the squares etc at each point? As a matter of taste, I don't like them, but if consensus preferred them, I could put them in with a bit more effort. If you're over it, don't say anything. If you really think the quality has been "drawn back" (a bit of an exaggeration - the differences are minimal), then explain how. The rest of us are actually trying to improve things, not snipe at people. JPD (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Read what you've written. You quite blatantly said that you don't care to find out what the project considers an improvement as far as images go. Not that you don't understand why - you just simply don't care. Then you assert that an image is superior but at the same time imply that you don't have the skills to judge why. I have said before that you are a valued contributor to the project, but in this particular discussion you have completely ignored any notion of improving the encyclopedia, and have turned everything into personal criticism. I don't care whether you are a newbie, have 10,000 edits, 20 FAs and 100 GAs, or anything in between. When talking about the election article, what would improve that article is all that is relevant. One of us has tried to explain to someone who apparently doesn't want to know one aspect of the sort of improvement we're looking for, the other has told someone who's asked for suggestions that they're "over it". How are we going to improve things from here? JPD (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a clue what you mean by patronising. My point is simple. In this context, the only relevant issue is how to obtain the best appropriate image. Anything else you bring up is irrelevant and gets in the way of improving the article. JPD (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Grind
Now at AFD. Recurring dreams 11:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just fyi it seems Joe has changed his name to: User:Single16+Sections Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew Fisher
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Andrew Fisher you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 2 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Pursey  Talk 11:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Timeshift, just ask if there's anything I can do to help over the review period. Good Luck!  WikiTownsvillian 11:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Review complete. This article has passed, congratulations. Full details available on the article's talk page.  Pursey  Talk 10:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations!!! WikiTownsvillian 10:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou you two! Timeshift 11:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * RE: The cat. it is in on the GA Page, yeah sure. I agree it should probably go in the head of state section. I'll move it in an hour or two when I head over that way. It's now on my to do list.  Pursey  Talk 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

graph
Neither, its only useful on articles about the government as a whole not either individual person. Gnangarra 11:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia commons
It all goes automatic. If there is no image on en.wikipedia with the name it automaticaly uses the Commons image. I deleted the Wikipedia version for you. If you have any more images you want to move to Commons you can add copy to commons or you can msg me and I can let a bot do it like I did with the previous image(much easier and faster). Garion96 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello. I was wondering if you would like to contribute to this discussion to help in coming to a consensus, which is an important thing to do before the federal election. Thanks! Frickeg 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright
It's still 1945. While images published prior to the latter date are public domain in Australia, they are not public domain in the United States due to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Any Australian images taken prior to 1945 are public domain in both, which is why we can use them on Wikipedia. Rebecca 05:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: commons ok
I've gone through and tagged photographs that had a clear source and were taken prior to 1955. I'm not sure about the paintings from geocities (this one, in particular). Also, Image:WhitRAAF.JPG is an official document with a fair use rationale. The PD-Australia-CC copyright tag on images will use the generic commons:template:PD-Australia tag. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the late reply, the Kevin Rudd images have been transferred. I'm taking a bit of a break from the project, but if you'd like I'd be happy to endorse you at User:Betacommand/Commons for approval to use commons ok and the associated script. Remember to make sure tagged images have a clear source and a Commons: category. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Add your name to User:Betacommand/Commons and I'll add an endorsement sig. Cheers ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Those few were done by CH² and there was a bug with commonshelper ignoring the description template on the flickr images. I've fixed the attribution on the commons descriptions, thanks for the heads up. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pollchart-tpp.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pollchart-tpp.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

National Party of Australia
I've changed the table you added in National Party of Australia to a horizontal one - I think it is much easier to compare the results from election to election this way, and it doesn't cut out the body of the article. You may wish to change it to be more appealing to the eye or to double-check the results, which I copied from your own previous table. Cheers, George1966 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I've been having trouble uploading images for National Party politicians - User:Sarah deleted most of them and then restored them when I resent an email to OTRS. Could you please advise me on what to do with the image for Damian Drum?  Thanks, George1966 07:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. George1966 00:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Images
Hi Timeshift, I've got to say congratulations, despite your frustrations it is great you still persist with your quest on bringing images to wikipedia! On a side note I just noticed that in the non cropped pic of KR & AB the other person in the photo is Grace Grace, the new candidate for Electoral district of Brisbane Central. Funny how these things end up three for the price of one. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 11:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * yes you are :D you stalking him with a camera? WikiTownsvillian 09:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny they have a coke sign behind them! :D WikiTownsvillian 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Labour Party image
I had indeed seen the image and plan to spend some more time trying to put names to faces. Also, top job on the Andrew Fisher article. --Roisterer 00:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask and ye shall receive. Check out . --Roisterer 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Howard economic management
I started a discussion about the John Howard Economic Management section, that some people appear to be edit waring over. Maybe you are interested in discussing it. Link: Talk:John_Howard. Cheers, --Lester2 00:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Labour Day in Australia image
Your image seems to come from the future. ;-) The Labour Day 2007 has not yet happened. --Kakaotasse 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Downer family
Downer family, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Downer family satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downer family and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Downer family during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee    t / c  14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Labor/Labour
Your becoming a cynic Timeshift :) WikiTownsvillian 08:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Australia
Have done - just needed to add "|state = " to it. Number  5  7  11:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you rv-ing an edit over on Family First Party, and so I started a topic on the talk page, and I'd like your input. Xiong Chiamiov   :: contact ::   23:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

ANI notice
Please feel free to join the thread I have started about you at the ANI. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Identity of anonymous editors
You may not be aware of it, but posting personal information on editors who have not voluntarily self-disclosed, whether that information is verifiable or speculative, is totally unacceptable. This the first and only warning you will receive; don't do it again. Raymond Arritt 01:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See the ANI for my response. Timeshift 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Prosh (University of Adelaide)
Hi, I noticed you've removed the picture of Millhouse during the Prosh parade and put in one of him in his later years (possibly when a judge or pollie). Why is the newer picture better than one of him during Prosh, since his inclusion is about his Prosh involvement and not his later years? Ozdaren 08:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shame you chose to change photos. The 2nd one doesn't really add to the Prosh article at all. The original illustrated the Prosh Parade, St Marks and a fairly famous participant. Now it doesn't really tie them together in the same way. Ozdaren 10:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

O'Connor
LOL! He sounds like he'll be a good laugh even if he doesn't have a hope of winning. This is probably why there aren't more 19-20-year-old MPs. Orderinchaos 07:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Preferred PM table
Hi Timeshift. I don't quite understand what wouldn't be acceptable. The problem isn't asking for permission, it's getting permission for use only on Wikipedia. If Bryan were to give permission for the chart to be used anywhere, even with the condition that his website be credited, it should be fine. This applies to all images - asking for permission for use on Wikipedia only is a waste of time, see Requesting copyright permission. (This is true even for images with a non-free content rationale - we would only use them if the rationale is good enough even without the permission.)

If you can't get or don't want to ask for this sort of permission for the chart, then I should be able to make one showing the same information, but I won't have time to do that until tomorrow. JPD (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I use the raw data (copyright on a copy would still beliong to Bryan). It would definitely be possible to combine the different PPM polls on one graph, but since PPm really needs to show three figures for each poll, rather than one, it might be a bit confusing. I still haven't had time to try it, but maybe I'll try all of them and see what it looks like. JPD (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only Newspoll and Nielsen have PPM figures, right? JPD (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is now a chart at Image:Pollchart-ppm.svg. I left undecided out, as whether or not the graph gives you an idea of the figures, I think the graph is clearer concerning the important info without it. As always, suggestions are welcome - I'm not convinced that I should have included the initial Latham period. JPD (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Eden-Monaro
Interesting, my local seat is similar, but it has changed hugely in size since Federation, E-M will be one to watch! Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah for sure, I managed to get a photo of the local candidate at the local markets this morning, didn't catch the PM while he was here yesterday though, will upload the photo when I put it on my computer. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 11:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * huh? what 18%? WikiTownsvillian 11:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ah I see, haven't looked at that article for a while :) WikiTownsvillian 11:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS only 6.something% swing needed here, anything more is just ego :) WikiTownsvillian 11:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Saturdays
Hi, and thanks. I suspected it was something like that. Cheers. JackofOz 11:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What the?
WikiTownsvillian 10:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Fisher
Hi Timeshift9. I don't object to my edits being reverted if there's a decent rationale. OK, I was wrong about the Labour/Labor spelling. But the rest of my edits I made today were reasonable. Cook didn't "engineer" the double dissolution - that makes it sound as if he did something rather devious and improper. It was his perfect right to ask the GG to do this under the circumstances, and as I said in my edit summary, if the opposition hadn't blocked his legislation he would have had no constitutional trigger. So the DD was of the opposition's making, and Cook took advantage of it, as any PM worth his salt would have. Also, the "Governor-General Dudley" thing is just not the Australian way of referring to the GG, and it certainly isn't suitable in a world-class encyclopedia. I'll be reinserting most of these edits. The fact that this article has "received GA approval" does not make it immune from future improvement - in fact, the GA template says "If you can improve it further, please do". The fact that it was you who nominated it for that status means you have to go the extra mile to ensure you're not perceived as having a vested interest in it staying as it is. That means, amongst other things, not absurdly accusing conscientious editors of excellent standing, who happen not to have previously been involved in the article, of "pushing [their] agenda". -- JackofOz 14:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You make it sound as if "we" somehow doesn't include myself, Timsehift. I am also solely interested in making quality articles, which is why I've created 78 of them from scratch and made over 17,000 edits over the past 4 years, only a tiny fraction of which have ever been reverted.  I'm not saying that whatever I write is sacrosanct, but my record of quality edits speaks for itself.  Just because a particular form of words is found in a source does not necessarily mean it is the best, or the only appropriate, form of words.  The basic facts may be right, but the way of expressing those facts can often do with some improvement.  If Wikipedia isn't about continuous improvement, what is it about?  This was the sole rationale for my edits to Andrew Fisher.  I took the trouble to explain to you what my edits were about, yet you respond merely with the charge that I'm "trying to find holes that arent [sic] there", with zero discussion of the substance of my argument.  My impression remains that you are objecting on principle to the article being changed.  I will therefore be discussing my edits on the talk page for all comers to have a say.  --  JackofOz 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * JackofOz, rather than reverting your changes myself I brought your edits to the particular attention of Timeshift as the main contributor to this article because he is in a much better position to judge the nitty gritty of your changes. But on the face of it your edits looked ridiculous, firstly as you said you have an edit count of over 17,000 edits so your edits, which seemed to be fairly armature to me, were quite out of character/unusual.  I'm sure I've dealt with you before but can't remember if it was in a positive or negative context.  The Labor/Labour issue has been broadly edit warred across many many pages, so you were just factually wrong there, but you also changed the image link to turn it into a red link! Additionally you gave no discussion or sources for edits which were obviously changing the meaning of the text even if I'm not in a position to judge the correctness of those changes, now you're attacking Timeshift for reverted edits which would be dismissed immediately as vandalism if they weren't from such a senior editor.  Just strange, I don't have the in depth knowledge of this stuff that Timeshift has, but the edits you made which I did know something about did not live up to the standard of an editor of good standing... no matter what Timeshift has done your statements above breach WP:CIVIL and I hope you will apologise to him.  Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Townsvillia. I wasn't aware that I'd changed any image link, and if I did inadvertently do that, I apologise.  But vandalism?  Hardly.  I acknowledged in my first message to Timeshift (above) above that my changing of Labour to Labor was wrong, so I don't understand why you're going over that issue any more.  But I made a series of other edits that were reverted as well. I have now fully explained these edits on Fisher's talk page, and I invite you and anybody else to consider them dispassionately.  I have not attacked Timeshift.  I have remained civil at all times, as I always do.  I certainly have not descended into language such as "trying to find holes that aren't there", or "pushing my own agenda".  That came from Timeshift, not from me.  --  JackofOz 02:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Postscript: Nor have I descended into language such as the following from Timeshift on your talk page, which was about me: "Thick as a brick: I made the revert out of sheer frustration. I really cbf doing much on wikipedia tonight, but hes done a lot of IMO manipulative changes lately. As for Labor/Labour, gah. Some people will NEVER get it. THICK, THICK, THICK, THICK".  He then said his wikimood was -10, which might help to explain this outburst but certainly does not excuse it.
 * By my count, the incivility score is now: JackofOz - 0, Timeshift - 5. So, do you still say that it is I who owe Timeshift an apology, and not the other way around?  What I don't understand is all this hostility about well-intentioned edits from a good-faith editor, and why the victim of it is being asked to apologise to the perpetrator.  --  JackofOz 15:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is why people like you, whose knowledge is so basic that they think Labor was always Labor, think they can come in and "improve it", start treading all over the work of other peoples articles, breaking them in the process and calling it an improvement. That is where my frustration is coming from. Adam Carr, I feel your pain. Timeshift 19:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! Now the real truth is revealed: this has been a personal campaign against me from Day 1.  Your reversion of my edits is revealed as fundamentally flawed, Timeshift.  By your own admission you made the revert "out of sheer frustration" and when your mood (negative 10) was far from conducive to good editing, and you included in that revert other edits of mine that had nothing to do with Labour/Labor.  That frustration on your part had nothing whatsoever to do with me, as I have not been recently involved in any articles where Labour/Labor was an issue.  I have now had the good grace to acknowledge not once but three times (twice in this thread, and again on Fisher's talk page) that I was wrong about Labor/Labour, yet you and WikiTownsvillian have ignored this but keep on bringing it up and beating me over the head with it.  How many more times do you want me to say it - I was wrong (that makes four times now).  For God's sake, just let it go, man.  Unfortunately, you seem to have decided that because my knowledge is "so basic" on this particular issue, it must therefore be negligible on anything else, and any of my edits can be dismissed out of hand.  If that's not personal, nothing is.  I've yet to see you provide any response to my detailed exposition of these other edits on Andrew Fisher's talk page.
 * Two final points: Since when does any article belong to any one editor or any one group of editors? "Other peoples articles" - bah, humbug to that!!  I would also like you to justify your comment that I have "done a lot of IMO manipulative changes lately".  --  JackofOz 01:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you take my objections to inferior edits as a personal campaign, then so be it. All my frustration was aimed at you after all the Labor/Labour stuff of late - and you, another uninformed person, had to again make the apparent correction. No article belongs to me, and I am completely in favour of quality edits that improve articles. Quality however is the key here - not edits that break images, create mistruths, and remove clearly cited words. I (and it seems others) aren't making responses to your points, due to (as far as i'm concerned anyway) the way you've handled yourself. Timeshift 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I was not aware of any Labor/Labour stuff of late, and I just happened to make the same sort of changes to this article in ignorance of the fact that there had been any wikidebates on the issue. I guess the fact that this spelling often gets incorrectly changed means a lot of people aren't aware of the history of the spelling, so I can see it being an ongoing issue.  Maybe there should be some sort of strategy to obviate such changes in future.  Frustration is a natural human reaction, but when it's directed at a party who is very new to a pre-existing issue, it is hardly fair.
 * In relation to the way I've handled myself, I don't believe there's anything to suggest it's not been appropriate. I made my edits in good faith on 8 October; you reverted them, as is your right; and I immediately came here to discuss them.   What on earth was inappropriate about that?  However you've consistently stonewalled me.  You have chosen not to address the substance of the other edits I've proposed on Fisher's talk page, on the spurious basis of the identity of the editor making them.  I give you fair warning that unless there's some discussion of these edits within a reasonable time (not necessarily with your involvement, but your involvement is certainly welcome), I will be re-inserting them on the basis that nobody has disagreed with them.  Silence denotes consent, as far as I'm concerned.  (And will you do something for me, Timeshift, please?  It is ill-mannered to bring up errors for which the maker has already apologised, so will you promise to make no further references to image-breaking?)  --  JackofOz 02:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiya
< could be construed as a personal attack under WP:NPA. Probably best to refactor it.  Shot info  05:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how. Timeshift 05:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Does he have a vested interest? Is that particular edit a whitewash (he is reverting back to the general consensus)?  But if you don't want to, that's fine, it's your edit, but it has little to do with the article in question and comments on an editor.  Hallmarks of WP:NPA.   Shot info  06:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He has about as much of a vested interest as one could have! But unfortunately I cannot refer to what it is, as admins have told me that as he hasn't voluntarily disclosed it, i'm not allowed to. So therefore, I havent, and will not be, disclosing it. Reading his posts though kinda is a dead giveaway. Timeshift 06:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, still its something about the editor rather than the article.  Shot info  07:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

24 Nov
Damn. :/ 3 Nov, 17 Nov, 1 Dec, 8 Dec I could have helped out in a seat which matters. Ah well. Orderinchaos 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

New 2PP graph
To me, it seems the WP software is not using the updated image yet. Are you having the same problem? JPD (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Looks like it works when I manage to purge everything. JPD (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerning the vertical lines: I had considered a line marking when Rudd took over, and liked the idea, but couldn't see a way to do it that would look ok. All the stuff about when the election could be, etc. seems a bit overkill, making it crowded (and not all dates are currently on the graph), but now that the election has been called, I thought it would be good to mark that. The most recent version I've uploaded have the election date marked, and I've also uploaded Image:Pollchart-tpp-event.svg‎, which has 4-12-07 marked. Do you think it is an improvement? Could it be done better? JPD (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I've got them watchlisted, so it shows up. I'm not sure about the other graph - I'll leave a comment on the election talk page - but I don't mind making it if it is wanted. Unfortunately, I won't have any time at all until at least the weekend, though. I've been thinking about the overflow lines, etc. too. Which events would we want to have marked? Leadership changes, calling of the election...? Do you think it would work if I put shaded the election campaign area in a different background colour? JPD (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Newspoll is surprising! I've left the RM phone poll in for now. RM list a similar poll in 1998 on their trends page, and perhaps more importantly, the ACNielsen poll from last week that we have already included wasn't one of their regular polls, either. JPD (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

missed out
sorry you missed out on all the excitement! :) check out this hope I don't get you in any trouble, but I've been putting two and two together lately and I think I've achieved 4. WikiTownsvillian 09:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW :P Orderinchaos 23:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ack
Woops, the first time I removed it because I thought it was just some vandal adding information. When I realised you were an established editor I (seriously) though I was editing it to not emphasise the Rudd angle so much but I discarded it at some point. My mistake (to clarify: the second removal of the paragraph was accidental). --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't for me stumbling upon your reasons on the Liberal Party talk page, I would've labelled your edits vandalism since you yourself said: "remove tags, no effort to point out where the article has the issues, or attempts to improve, or put forth a genuine discussion of the issue on the talk page". --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

booths
BTW can you follow up that business with the SEO of SA? It's been months and their last excuse kind of ran dry. :P Orderinchaos 10:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Might want to follow it up at AN/I - look near the top under "long term cases". Orderinchaos 04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Labour vs Labor
Greetings. This and this may interest you. Cheers. -- JackofOz 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The amount of ignorance when editing aus politics lately is rather sickening. Timeshift 05:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there must have been a time, Timeshift, when you weren't knowledgeable about this spelling change. Why not extend understanding and charity to those who still aren't aware of it.  It happened in 1912, after all, and is hardly front-page news these days.  I've now twice suggested that we implement some strategy to overcome the edit-revert cycle.  I'd welcome your positive contribution to that discussion.  Cheers. --  JackofOz 05:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there was a time that I wasn't knowledgeable about it. And at that time I didn't go around making changes on websites I knew nothing about either. Timeshift 05:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR report
I see someone has already reported the Kevin Rudd page to the 3RR board. Once it's on the boards, there's a high chance someone gets blocked. Then they might decide to treat both sides equally. This kind of thing is not worth getting blocked over. It's probably worthwhile for you and Brendan to take a break from the article for a day or two, and avoid getting blocked (if it's not too late already). Cheers, -- Lester  12:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk on Rudd's page, the 3RR and AN/I are now all interlinked. I just hope common sense prevails. Timeshift 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudd

 * Crossposted to User talk:Brendan.lloyd also

I've unprotected the article, mainly because it's highly unfair that 2 people's silliness should affect so many others. The consequence of further edit warring shall affect both of you more directly, so I strongly suggest you try to work it out properly. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons Tagging
You mean this page. You already are endorsed by another editor on the list since 2 October. Maybe you should leave Betacommand a message so that he can put you in the approved list. Garion96 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Its all good
It's cool, I don't want a fight or anything, but I think the IP is really just trying to make a point rather than asking a real question. Which is why I just took the BLP issue out and substitued the name. It's all good :-) Shot info 06:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudd and same-sex marriage
Hi Timeshift. Only just found your message. Rudd had previously stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, so it was already known. But I thought the video was interesting because Rudd seemed uncomfortable when asked about the subject. It was also interesting because it was not a pre-prepared video, unlike the YouTube ones. The main gay newspaper Sydney Star Observer is running big on the issue, and every mainstream newspaper is covering the story.-- Lester  23:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Message
Hi, could you please explain this edit. Was it an accident? --  ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤   13:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries!, it just confused me when I was looking for a reply. Thanks. --  ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤   14:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Family First deletions
Hello Timeshift. I've noticed there have been a lot of deletions going on in the Family First article lately: 1. Brokenshire (deleted) 2. SA same-sex bill (deleted) 3. Family First porn scandal (deleted) In the end, what we get left with is a replica of Family First's own website, which is a shame, as I think Wikipedia articles should be free and independent from political party influence.-- Lester  21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just be a bit careful
I know you've got strong opinions about the use of the picture on the Kevin Rudd article, but calling people names isn't a good way to make your arguments heard. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but it's called frustration. I've already put my point across and admins agreed with me over him. Timeshift 05:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling. It's just that, regardless of how frustrated you are and how many admins have agreed with you, personal attacks don't go over well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that admins need to step in and impose what they believe when it's obvious the two parties aren't getting anywhere or making progress, and especially when the admin view is unanimous. Timeshift 05:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that's the other way to think of it. I haven't been following the discussion, so I won't make a ruling either way, but on a page as current as this, it would certainly be nice to have a general agreement from all concerned about what's in and what's out, or at least an agreement to disagree. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Senate majority
I don't think I am [disagreeing with the Clerk]. I think he was loosely using terminology that is used in different ways. If I had to agree with anyone, I would personally agree with him and the "one-seat majority", but I would be aware that much of the world would then disagree with me. In particular, I would be aware that this is inconsistent with saying the Coalition have a 24-seat majority in the Reps. What this means for a Wikipedia article, I don't know, but general use is a mess, and I'm not afraid to say so. JPD (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and in the senate Labor has 28, Coalition 39 and 9 others. So, we can say that in the Reps, the Coalition has 24 more than all the others put together, and has to lose 12 seats to lose majority. In the Senate, the Coalition has 2 more than all the others put together, and has to lose 1 seat to lose majority. When we talk about how big the majority is, why do most sources pick use 24 (the difference with the sum of the others) for the reps but 1 (the number of seats needed to lose majority) for the Senate? JPD (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

New John Howard image
Nice work :) --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * yes well done! Wiki Townsvillian 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually try to improve wikipedia in a bipartisan fashion despite what some people might arbitrarily believe. Timeshift 05:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool :) Unrelated, but have you seen a YouTube clip parodying Govt ads that featured a "baby eating" unionists "Reynold Reynolds"? I've been scouring for it after ABC Lateline reported it last night, but can't for the life of me find it. It was in a story that included the work of Manic Times but I don't think it was one of theirs. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on the talk page, are you sure it was a breach of 3RR? Wiki Townsvillian 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Earwax
What's got into you? I'm expressing my opinions, and if you don't like my sense of humour, go chew on a lemon. The "pursed lips" photo isn't my preference - I like the one where KR looks happy. --Pete 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Please read my notice, and recent edits to my user page - all is clear there. I am *sort of* here, but even a cursory look at my recent history would reveal I've been too busy to genuinely involve myself, and that will be the case for almost a month yet (particularly as I leave later today). Orderinchaos 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Election Images
Nice work fixing up the images. Ammended my vote to allow the use of that image, although i think the other image should be used, although in reality, im not too phased and think it completely ridiculous that this is an issue. Good work on the image. Twenty Years 04:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

JH edit
You know, that recent edit of your's isn't really NPOV, only because it doesn't actually mention the "slogan" per se, other than in a negative context. After, it's only an slogan. Also the editsum suggests that you are only making the edit to prove a point. While I don't agree with PJ, I find that his edits are actually more "N"POV rather than POV given the overall weight that most other editors seem to think is important in the article. Also in terms of BLP, the slogan of the liberals and it's positive/negative connotations doesn't really belong in an article about JH. I'm only making these comments here rather than at JH to keep the escalation that I can foresee happening, to a minimum. Can I suggest that you review your edits and look at perhaps editing to make it read better? Shot info 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Collegial editing
Hello Timeshift9. JackofOz asked me to review some recent interactions between you two, to see if I could advise him on how to foster a better working relationship, seeing as you appear to have overlapping editing interests. I can't comment on the quality or otherwise of the content you or Jack has contributed to article space. However, while we don't expect editors to necessarily like each other or agree with each others edits, we do have levels of civility and respect that we expect editors to adhere to. A few of your comments concerned me. For example, WP:NPA explicitly states we should comment on content, not the contributor. Calling another editor "THICK, THICK, THICK, THICK" is a comment on a contributor. In addition, while you are welcome to remove anything you wish from your talk page with our without comment, we do expect a certain level of civility in doing so. Responding with "how about 'fuck you'" is not civil language.

Those comments are in the past. What is important is that, moving forward, you are willing to interact in a more productive manner when your paths cross again. Please bear that in mind. Also, please consider what constructive purpose this list serves on your talk page. If you have evidence that these people are sock puppets then by all means present a case at WP:SSP. If you can't do that, then please remove the list, as it does nothing but foster bad feeling. Thanks, I appreciate your consideration. Rockpock e  t  08:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your comments, they have been taken under consideration. And the list has nothing to do with sockpuppets. Timeshift 08:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. What, if you don't mind me asking, is the list about then? Rockpock  e  t  18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Didn't realise there was a wiki standard. The ratings I was putting in were as per the abc website.Rac fleming 10:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean that the ratings, as per safe vsafe etc were to be found on the AEC website?? I have checked for electorate pages and it generally gives a brief bio on the elctorate, but not the ratings?? You just made me realise I had mis-spelled Allegiance! Rac fleming 11:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't make my question clear. Got it re the wiki standard, but I meant that did you find the actual ratings, ie Sturt is 6.8 on the AEC website? As all I could find were brief bio's...On the ABC, which I had been using is basically says "Sturt - Safe Liberal" without providing a rating to go by.Rac fleming 11:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the help. I see you have gone about fixing the SA ones...I will do the same for the others, and do the QLD, NSW, WA and VIC infoboxes accordingly...Not looking forward to NSW there is too many electorates!Rac fleming 11:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally - you don't know of anywhere you can get the overall population details per electorate do you? I have found it by LGA on the ABS website, but not by electorate - think it will be useful to have in the infobox to compare population with registered voters. Rac fleming 11:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Micro, not macro
For at least the third time in the last year, someone has changed the word 'micreconomic' to 'macroeconomic' in the Reforming Treasurer section. Although they perhaps all did it good faith, there is an enormous difference between the two, even if only one letter differentiates their respective spellings. Moreover, to confound one for the other undermines the quality of the article, as it completely changes the meaning of the sentence. In future, I would appreciate if people refrained from making such erronous amendments and corrected any future instances of this occurring Apollo1986 —Preceding comment was added at 05:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

explanation
Keating and the Hawke government were known for their structual reforms to the Australian economy, including tax reform, floating the dollar, introducing competition for the banks and the lowering of tariffs. As any economic student knows, this is microeconomic reform. A definition can be found [|here]. Compare with a definition of macroeconomics [|here] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"As treasurer for eight years Keating implemented the most far-reaching economic reforms in Australia's postwar history with progressive deregulation of the financial sector and float of the dollar. After winning an historic fifth-term victory for the Labor Party in 1993, Keating pursued his micro-economic reform agenda, committing himself to high productivity growth, greater efficiency in transport industries and improving Australia's international competitiveness. " Apollo1986  —Preceding comment was added at 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"The election of the Hawke Labor government in 1983 was a pivotal event in Australian microeconomic reform. In opposition Labor had been critical of deregulation in general, and of the Campbell Committee recommendations in particular. In government, with Paul Keating as Treasurer, however, Labor adopted and extended the Campbell recommendations, and subsequently moved to implement much of the deregulatory agenda proposed by the ‘economic rationalists’ of the 1980s." Apollo1986 —Preceding comment was added at 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Key microeconomic reforms have included unilaterally reducing high tariffs and other protective barriers, floating the Australian dollar exchange rate, deregulating the financial services sector -- including a decision in late 1992 to allow liberal access for foreign bank branches, rationalising and reducing the number of trade unions, efforts to restructure the highly centralised system of industrial relations and labour bargaining, better integrating the individual state economies into a national federal system, improving and standardising the national infrastructure, and privatising much of the government-owned services and public utilities"  Apollo1986


 * You're not seriously quoting wikipedia to justify wikipedia? lol. Timeshift 06:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore: "The first phase of microeconomic reform in Australia commenced in 1973 with the Whitlam government’s 25 per cent cut in all tariffs, and related cuts in agricultural assistance of which the most controversial was the abolition of a bounty on purchases of superphosphate. This deregulatory phase reached its climax in the mid-1980s with financial deregulation (floating the dollar, abolition of exchange controls etc)." 

Starting to look like u just flunked Economic101! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"According to the 'New Economy' story the program of microeconomic reform that began with the floating of the Australian dollar in 1983 has, after some initial disruption, produced a new, more flexible and more productive Australian economy. Thus, the pain of structural adjustment has been more than offset by the gains from sustained high economic growth. " Apollo1986  —Preceding comment was added at 06:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You are both now in 3RR territory and facing imminent blocks unless this stops now. Discuss on the talk page or elsewhere but endless reversion wars trying to wear out your opponent is not the way its done. &mdash;Moondyne 06:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Joestella list
It appears you declined to take the hint with regards to the list at the top of your page. I have therefore removed the list myself per WP:USER, specifically, Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. You are free to your opinion on other editors, but there is no good reason for recording it on your talk page other than to antagonize. If you have concerns about the actions of other users, then there is an appropriate mechanism to draw attention to that. Please do not add the list back. Thanks. Rockpock e  t  07:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nla.pic-an23474705-v.jpg
Oops. Looks like a mistake on my part, sincere apologies.  Majorly  (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Preferential voting tip
Preferential voting is almost worth an article in itself, considering less than 5% of Australians use their preferences. The other 95% vote above the line. If you vote below the line you are confronted with the myriad of 70 or so candidates which all have to be numbered. Here's my tip: It's much easier to decide who you don't like. Start at the bottom, list the politicians you despise most, then work your way up the list! Cheers,  Lester  00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting?
You say here, I've reverted the content on the page. This can't be true, I've not edited the page once! :S    Regards,  Rudget . talk  18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah..ok! Thanks for replying. Rudget . talk  18:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"keeping lead sentence seperate per liberal page"
Excuse me, what exactly are you doing? -- Cat chi? 07:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeping it uniform with Liberal Party of Australia, of course. And what are you doing? Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am editing an article that has a broken sentences as lead. Both articles suffer from the same problem. Is this "uniformness" based on consensus? If so where was this discussed? WP:REVERT is pretty clear why non-vandalism reverts should generally be avoided. I strongly suggest you try not to make reverts especially if there is no pressing reason to revert. Also your statement does not explain why you restored the internal article link. -- Cat chi? 09:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am editing an article that has a broken sentences as lead. does not make sense. The lead of the article does, and has stood the test of time. The first sentence states in the shortest way possible, what the subject is. At the core of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia, they are both an Australian political party. Simple. Timeshift (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good page for you to work on
I came across this, and in the spirit of USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, you might want to create an article cited with this type of reference? Timeshift 07:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehehe. Who could they be? I did ask some people, but they weren't very forthcoming. Lester  14:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Election results tables
I do indeed plan to do them all again with the new results - probably in the school holidays. I'll also be busy creating separate results pages for each electorate rather than cluttering up the main page with past results. Busy (but exciting and, given the election's results, deeply satisfying) times ahead! Frickeg 09:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Help please re KR
Please back me up here (in my argument about the family section)— I'm not soliciting votes, because I know you agree with what I'm saying here - there are plenty of others who support my proposal for a separate family section through which we can expand the article. There is only one person opposed and yet I am the one, according to Brendan, who is supposed to "achieve consensus" - this makes absolutely no sense and seems very unfair. I've already had two other users treat me like rubbish elsewhere because they wanted to impose their own agenda on the article no matter what anyone else thought, and I'm feeling the same way here. JRG 11:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Stamp


Here's a stamp from the Faroe Islands for you! Stamps from the Faroe Islands somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! —Preceding miss-signed comment added by Vatomanocu (talk • contribs)

Aussie

 * We aren't racists and follow policy, ha! Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying things Timeshift. I nearly misconstrude the non-Australians thing. Anyways, I'm thinking perhaps Elections & Head of State should be removed from all PM infoboxes (constitutional monarchies & republican PMs) on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's on my mind, that doesn't mean I'll succeed of course. Wikipedia is a very big encylopedia. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Australian federal election, 2007 November 24, 2007.
The Australian federal election, 2007 says in its first sentence the election was conducted on November 24, 2007. Perhaps the article is incorrect, and the new PM should not have been sworn in? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your point. All of the seats have been declared. What is unfinished? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic image!
But! What is the source?! :P Timeshift (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * do you feel like emailing me to discuss? Lester  23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It should work. You may have to add yours in your preferences. You could always create a new one. Lester  00:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Maybe my fault. Try again :)  Lester  00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Just a suggestion, per the comment you left on the talk page of the IP that blanked your user and talk pages, it's better to deny vandals recognition instead of leaving comments. It just eggs them on and could be perceived as a personal attack upon your part. Better to just revert it, warn them with one of the standard templates, and report them if they continue. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to your user page
It probably would be considered good faith to remove your comments. After all, you are commenting on an editor, regardless if you name him or her. This is still considered a personal attack on that editor regardless of who that editor actually is. I would ask that you reconsider. Shot info (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "It is a personal attack even if you don't name the editor" I see nothing on WP:NPA to that effect. Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The first line of WP:NPA Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Regardless of the editor, you have made a personal attack against an editor.  You even say it's an editor (banned from editing by Jimbo etc.).  Not naming who he (which you also make clear) is irrelevant and is just gaming.  WP is [[WP:BATTLE|not a battleground and we don't make personal attacks period.  I would ask that you refactor taking into account WP:NPA.  Shot info (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a personal attack, it is civil, and I do not bring in to question their personal character. Please refrain from further trolling on my talkpage. Timeshift (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Timeshift, you may recall I asked you to remove a similarly worded non-attack previously, which you declined to do so I did it for you. Please have a read of WP:USER. User pages are expressly not for posting "material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." There is no constructive reason for recording the potential COI of another editor here, named or not. If it is a problem you think the community needs to address, then bring it up in the appropriate forum, but do not post it here as some sort of pseudo-political statement. Thanks. Rockpock  e  t  02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed, and you cannot for one second fault my new version. Thankyou and goodbye. Timeshift (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I cannot. Thank you for that. Rockpock  e  t  02:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments at AN/I
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at regarding. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

Per the above, I would comment that such comments per the first two diffs provided by User:Brenden do not comply with WP:CIVIL, and are un-necessary. It would be useful if you guys would tone down the attitude a shade. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. He just wants me banned so he can feel a bit better. I haven't communicated with him since and don't particularly plan to. Thanks anyway. Timeshift (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)