User talk:Timeshift9/Archive5

Prime Minister's Avenue
Thanks for all the help Timeshift, you've been doing some great work! Wiki Townsvillian 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC) hey timeshift, this isnt to do with this topic but about a comment you made on Sir Alexander Downers page, asking when he was Premier of SA. He was never premier, but his father was round the time of federation Plumes (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Assassination of Benazir Bhutto
Hello Timeshift. I agree with the point you've made regarding the international response of Australia. See my comment on the talk page. Cheers. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SA divisions
I'm just going by the parliamentary handbook, which has the 1951-54 change - it appears that the members I've changed left the federal Liberal Party for that period. Frickeg (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you!
It's always good to know I have a fan. When I finally decide on what I want my signature to look like, I'll give you my autograph. Happy editing!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image of a dubious medallion
Hi Timeshift. I ask you a question as you are good with image issues. In the White Australia policy article, there is an image of a medallion commemorating the policy. A dubious medallion it was, but part of Australia's history which is interesting to see. The image is now listed for deletion, because it does not contain a proper fair use rationale. It was originally added by User:Adam Carr, so who knows where he is now. I think the image is worth saving. Any ideas on how to retain it? Regards,  Lester  00:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your assistance with the image, Timeshift.  Lester  01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Something you might find useful
Hi Timeshift - I just discovered that the statistical record of the SA parliament has been put online and updated to the present parliament. This was the document that I used to create all the early SA parliaments, and until now was pretty damned hard to find. I figure this could come in handy for your election articles and such. Rebecca (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the SA parliament has been one of the worst for this sort of thing, so it's a refreshing change to see that they've put this up. If you actually have a copy of it, is there any chance you could email it to me? The parliament's servers are hopeless, and any download keeps cutting out at random points. Rebecca (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks heaps for that! I'm not sure what image you're referring to re: Betacommandbot. I know he's on a new crusade, but I've long since been trying to stay out of image issues - too much drama. Rebecca (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a National Party in the NT at the moment, but there was in the 1980s. They got former Chief Minister Ian Tuxworth to lead them]], were very heavily backed by Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and ran a huge campaign in the 1987 election, but were comprehensively outwitted by the Hatton government and got crushed. Tuxworth held his seat, and they won another in a by-election, before losing them both in 1990 and dying out. Caused quite the stir, and really put the federal Nationals under pressure for a while there. I'm going to write an article about them soon - I've got a book about them out from the library, so that's why the link is there. Rebecca (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Aussie PM
''"Hopefully Kevin Rudd will be on the end of the graph by the end of the year" - was it ever in doubt? :D'' Well, I'm relieved that there was no last-minute Tampa or September 11 to work in Howard's favour - but Maxine McKew is now my number 1 hero :) Let's just hope Kev doesn't become a pale imitation of the right wing, much like Blair did after becoming UK PM. Brisv e  gas  09:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Easy
Perhaps someone else should take a look at what's in the e-book, and contrast it what you have "re-written". Michael talk 07:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should get the opinion of another user, to see if they think it is plagiarism. That way, whatever you think of my word, you have theirs. Michael talk 07:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to rain on your parade, I'm trying to offer you something to clean up the water. I notice things that need improving, and better I say so than keep quiet. Please ask another editor if they think the contribution is plagiarism. Action now will make it easier later on. Michael talk 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian PM infoboxes
My ambition to have those articles infoboxes in sync? seems doomed. Why is comformity such a crime to so many? Oh well, I tried. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the first time, my ideas went down to defeat. Now, onto getting rid of de jure reigns. 'Til we meet again. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3
Hi Timeshift9 - we're planning a third meetup in Adelaide sometime in the coming weeks, and would love to have you there. If you can, please help decide a location, a date and a time here. Thanks!
 * Thanks but no thanks. Timeshift (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Your Aussie Majesty, thank you for superb contributions. May you (or the koala) wear the crowns well. Durova Charge! 23:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Timeshift (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You have no control over talk pages
Recently it seems like you think talk pages & articles are yours. I just saw you removed a comment from the talk page of Australian Federal Election, 2007. You have no right at all to do it. Guy0307 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure he can, see WP:TALK as the edit removed was nothing to do with the article, Wikipedia...or continuing any sane discussion whatsoever. Shot info (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The section Timeshift removed was a partisan rant which I'm not even absolutely sure the News Ltd moderators would have published in a "Have Your Say" section on their website, and utterly violated WP:BLP policies (which I might note is all but a mandate from Jimbo himself to shoot on sight). In case there is any doubt, I've placed the standard talk header on it. Orderinchaos 09:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify - I'm a labor supporter. I just don't think that if someone has a comment we should delete it, whatever it is. I don't know all of Wikipedia's policys, so I'm sorry if he should've deleted the section according to them. Guy0307 (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Aust Barnstar

 * Another one! I'm being inundated! Thanks!! Timeshift (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Laming
Looked into it - sources were actually really good, although some tone and writing issues existed. With Factiva and the listed sources by my side, I rewrote the section. IMO the whole thing was a factional stitch-up but as the old saying says, there is some truth in every tale - and given this is the only way by which most Australians know Laming, to not cover the incident is a violation of expectation, and to not cover it carefully (which requires more length) is a violation of fairness. Thanks for making me aware of it (I've been busily writing political biographies of obscure 1890s WA politicians of late, so it was a nice break to look at something modern!) Orderinchaos 09:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Re the archiving of Talk:Andrew Laming - I agree with you regarding the issue under discussion, and I also think it has been exhaustively canvassed and isn't likely to go much further. But I think its a bit soon to archive the debate, given it only started a week ago and the most recent comments were yesterday. If there are future reversions of the printing controversy I think it helps to have the talk page consensus in easy view to rebut it.


 * I haven't reverted the archiving as I wanted to get your views first. So, any views? Euryalus (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. I don't agree with you but its not a big deal either way so let's leave it as is. What are these certain recent events? Now you've got mee interested :) Euryalus (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hughes
He's a notable minor political figure, especially for his time with the People Power Party and propensity for getting involved in political drama. He's pretty well known, and it isn't as if there'd be the slightest difficulty in finding reliable sources for the article. Rebecca (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3
Hi Timeshift9 - after some planning we've decided to hold the third Adelaide Wikimeetup on Sunday, 17th February, 2008. The meeting will be held at Billy Baxter's in Rundle Mall at 11:30AM. Further details and directions are available on the meetup page. Please RSVP here by 20:00UTC on 15th February 2008 (that's 6AM Saturday for our time zone) so that we can inform the restaurant about numbers. Hope to see you there!

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

On behalf of Riana ⁂, 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Revised
Hi Timeshift9 - since Sunday is inconvenient for many people due to church, we are rescheduling for Saturday. I hope this will enable you to attend! Best, ~ Riana ⁂ 11:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lu Kewen
I've reverted your removal of the Chinese characters for Kevin Rudd's self-selected Chinese name. Does your browser normally display Chinese, Japanese and/or Korean characters, or do they normally come up as question marks or boxes or something? I think that's probably what's going on here, since my browser shows the characters perfectly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

warning
I wasn't getting anyone to revert on my behalf. I simply didn't want to break the rule even though the revert needs to be done, and so I simply asked someone else if they can revert it. It's still up to them. And if you looked into it, you would know that the revision is need because the other version is simply to start an edit war and is more like vandalism by an very disruptive user.--THUGCHILD z  22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No I didn't, I'm not getting them to revert it for me. They can revert it IF THEY want to or not if THEY don't want and not on my behalf but on their own behalf.--THUGCHILD z  22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I probably wouldn't be charged with 3rr because of the terms involved with it, read up on that. I actually wanted to avoid the hassle that might come up. And second if someone reverted it then it would do me a favor and everyone else a favor who came to a consensus but PIO.--THUGCHILD z  22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah whatever dude, these is the kind of hassle i was trying to avoid.--THUGCHILD z  00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

THUGCHILDz, but you really think cricket popular very much so as rugby union in New Zealand and Wales? But you are a vandal or maybe payed by international cricket federation? Your edit war in national sport is surrealistic!!!!--PIO (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take this up on my talk page. I care none about the issue itself. Timeshift (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift9, I agree with you and your messages in THUGCHILDz's talk!!!!--PIO (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course. I took issue with Thug. You'd hardly not agree with me, would you. What I dont want is you to bring your issues re sport and countries on to my talk page. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift, I don't think you got what I was trying to say. The reason I asked someone else if they would do it, doesn't matter on whose behalf, is because I didn't want to go through a hassle like this and explain my self why i was in this edit war etc. I didn't want to be in one. Now I know on the technical level yeah I was wrong but if you actually knew what was going on may be you would have a different prospective. Anyways it's all good.--THUGCHILD z  05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wrong. Settled. Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton/Third Way
I think the evidence of her husband's presidency would suggest that she supports the same sorts of policies, whereas we know nothing of evidence of this Barack Obama. Frankly, though, I think both should be removed. Safesler 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting user
Someone's busy sending out lots of messages.  Lester  11:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm already well aware of him messaging all and sundry. He has made all sorts of wild accusations against me and admins. He can't spell Labor though so already his impression of any expertise has been severely damaged. He admits that Roxon simply has a Jewish father rather than practising the Jewish faith herself, but seems to think that still equates to her religion. I've been accused of conspiring with admins, being anti-semitic, and other crap here. Frankly, i'm prepared to let the discussion speak for itself rather than going on any sort of counter-crusade myself. Timeshift (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pollie Photos
FYI - I have put up images of Julie Owens and Pricey (and Hawkie). Not ministers I am afraid but we get ALP duds here in the safe western Sydney seats. Albatross2147 (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I had already noticed them. Very good work, thanks! I'd love it if we had photos of all 150 lower house and all 76 upper house MPs. Don't be discouraged just because they aren't ministers! Price is the whip for the govt though, bit more importance than your average MP. Seen a bit of him on the lower house webcast today and tonight. Timeshift (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Stolen generation misuse of word "Stolen"
Thankyou for your message. I am not ceasing my point of argument regarding the misuse of the word "stolen". The fact I have pointed out remains. I am merely ceasing to repeat that fact since the numerous ways in which I have explained the fact to you does not seem to sink in. Also please refrain from speaking about animal abuse on my talk page "beating a dead horse". OzWoden (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ceasing your pointless crusade regarding the validity of the word 'stolen' which is a far more broader debate than wikipedia. Per Naming conventions (common names) and this, metaphorically speaking you were beating a dead horse. Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!


A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Polling
62.5 2pp, 54 primary. Orderinchaos 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pffft morgan... :P Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Aussie PM infoboxes
I'm signing out for awhile, but I'll be back later. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the gesture, but I seriously doubt you'll get consensus from everyone on what to keep in there... Timeshift (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Time will tell. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

BetaStupidBot
What should we do? Slac speak up! 03:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kerry Nettle
Her position on the spectrum seems to be at the socialist position not the liberal position - she seems to think we can turn the clock back to 1973 when old style leftism were still viable and the government owned a great many things. PMA (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a vast difference between generic liberalism and social liberalism. Timeshift (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't mean for all this fuss - i just have had problems with people trying to whitewash just how to the left Nettle is - even Rebecca agreed with me on the talk page. My apologies. PMA (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WA media
I was saying to someone earlier today (re your comment about a media beat-up) that I think if you read the two main WA weekend papers today, you'd actually manage to know less about what's going on than you did before reading them. Orderinchaos 14:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Back-turning
It could definately be argued that it was controversial that backs were turned in the great hall of parliament (given the place), especially by the two labor members of staff. However, you're gonna have to prove that it was in any way "controversial" for those outside to turn their backs given such a large proportion of Australians did so across the country.

The picture in question is of people turning their backs not in parliament (and i am amazed and applaud the fact that not even the indigenous guests inside parliament did so, they kept their calm), nor in the great hall (where it did happen), but outside by everyday Australians. On the other hand, what is uncontested as contraversial is the speech that was made by Nelson.

That it was so widespread across Australia makes me wonder where you are getting this idea that for the most part, Australians saw it as a controversy. Most people would tell you it was the descent reaction to a controversial speech. Al-Andalus (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages
I think we're talking at cross-purposes at GaryGazza. I agree that he can delete or archive comments on his own talk page, although the latter is preferred. What he can't do, however, is something in the middle - ie. blank part of your message (bar the signature) claiming a racist comment when, in fact, the comment wasn't racist. That's refactoring, and that's a no-no, in my book.

Ironically enough, if he'd simply deleted your comment, or archived it, I wouldn' have had a problem. The net effect, however, was to accuse you of racism (to the casual observer) when such an accusation wasn't justified. Regards. GBT/C 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. Either way he's been blocked for the third time. Timeshift (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The spluttering may cease ;)
No, that is not me. What was in it to elicit such a reaction from you? I just see the random non-controversial ramblings of some man. My username "Brisvegas" is a rather popular, if cliched nickname for the fair (ish) city that straddles beside Moreton Bay. So heaps of people use it, not just me. Another name, though even more likely to make Brisbanites groan with disgust is "Brisneyland".

Regarding Northern Rock, I guess it just shows the pragmatism that is a feature of modern politics; in most countries over time, the major parties move so close to each other's policies that they sometimes become indistinguishable. But don't forget I was talking about the right-wing nature of Tony Blair, a.k.a. "The Greatest Tory Ever Sold". Cheers :) Brisv e  gas  09:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Was? Is.
Thanks. Wm (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR...
As for the article, the pics look really bad on lower res monitors. I hope you can find solution. Perhaps cropping? --Merbabu (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Keating
Believe it or not, there may actually be some truth to that rumour about Keating. However, there would be no reference for it, so it was right to delete it. Lester  10:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't disputing that, simply the wording. Timeshift (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I heard a few of them around about 1997 when I knew people who worked in various departments in Canberra, but although their sources were of a reliable enough disposition to convince me, they wouldn't qualify under WP:RS :P Orderinchaos 23:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Mention of "sources" demands a comment. For all anyone knows Keating may be gay, but if so, there is no published evidence of it.  I believe this started when he was seen having lunch in a restaurant with a "handsome young man", around the time he separated from Annita.  The gay rumour mill went into meltdown.  (Within the gay community: "Everyone is saying it, so it must be true" (yeah, right). Straight people: "All my gay friends are saying it, and they would know" (yeah, right).   The handsome young man turned out to be his son.  The gay rumour mill is usually the very worst place to find factual information about such matters.  The Canberra rumour mill is, paradoxical as it might seem, even worse.  Put them together and there's no telling what you could hear from "reliable sources" that sound quite plausible. Some even go so far as to say that John Howard was the best PM we ever had.  Trust nobody.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Taste/Bad Taste?
"Brendan 07" t-shirts? Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I find this quite amusing too. It makes John Howard's "why does this man even bother" 18% look credible. Timeshift (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He was always going to be the sacrifical lamb, but did he have to be so good at it? Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Their problem is that Turnbull is too moderate for the modern day Liberals, and Tony Abbott has only core support. A party can't control the way their MPs vote, they genuinely selected Nelson to lead as he was the most suitable conservative. At 14-11-9-7 percent, and x-42-43-37 two party, it shows what a mess Howard left the party in. Now the only question remains is whether they trash Howard the way they trashed Fraser. Such disunity... Timeshift (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Disunity. The curse of opposition. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PabloZ (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)== Photos ==

Yep, sure is. I have a high-quality group shot of Greens Senators that I have been chopping up. PabloZ (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * updated.

An image of John Gorton
Hello there, Timeshift. You seem well-versed in Australian copyright law, and I'm just wondering on the status of this image of former-PM John Gorton: (http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/PhotoSearchItemDetail.asp?M=0&B=11196652&SE=1). The description states that the image's reproduction rights are owned by the National Archives of Australia, but the photo was taken in 1954. Am I wrong in presuming that any Australian photograph taken prior to 1955 falls into the public domain? Thanks for the help. Ackatsis (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Ackatsis (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference to female dogs
Hi. I agree with you re the bulk of your recent post on Betacommand's talk page, but the first line is pretty unnecessary. Could I ask that you consider removing that first sentence with the reference to female dogs, in the interests of reducing any tension in this debate? Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification - just in case...
Hi Timeshift, regarding this, it merely shows that I was tiring of discussing the specific Influenza article - it doesn't mean that you are not welcome to drop me a line anytime, including about pixel counts. We disagree - to some extent - on the image/pixel issue, but that doesn't mean I want to burn any bridges. PS, pity you don't have e-mail activated. regards --Merbabu (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hitler!
Did you know that you are responsible for removing content which is true, in aid to cover up the fact you profit from the removal of rights from another citizen. There are images to cite the illegal road side advertisment you support by removal of comments! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.227.87 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Top of the talk page (and all talk pages) - This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kevin Rudd article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New messages
You have new messages on my talk page. Grantkeys (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are blocked :-) Timeshift (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Upg protection
Enjoy the peace and quiet for a few days. 

Gnangarra has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Gnangarra 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gnan, I don't mind either way really. Userpage vandalism is amusing ;-) Timeshift (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * at what 6-7 times in 3 hours, it was getting bit tedious rather than really amusing Gnangarra 14:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * done or was that undone... Gnangarra 02:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

1954 election
I don't understand why you undid my comment about Labor not winning government despite polling more than 50%. Even if they didn't stand candidates in 6 seats, I don't see how that affects my point.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the technical sense of the wording used, the comment I suppose would be correct. I have undone my revision with a slight difference, indicating the reason for >50% 2pp despite losing the election. Timeshift (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the revision. I guess the point I was trying to make was the uneven nature of swings in Australian elections, where winning more than 50% of the vote is no guarantee of winning government.  The six uncontested seats however would no doubt have affected the proportion of votes/size of swing.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm all aware about it, see two party preferred and the polling graphs at Australian federal election, 2007. Exceptions since 2PP was introduced in 1949 were in 1954 (49.3), 1961 (49.5), 1969 (49.8), 1990 (49.90), and 1998 (49.02). 1940 was estimated to be won on 49.7 percent. 1998 is the real shame that the electoral system let Australia down, as it's the one with the largest discrepancy, when all seats were challenged by both sides of politics. Timeshift (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party and the SI
You mentioned here that there is community consensus to not add the SI to the infobox. I'm afraid I can't seem to find any discussion about the SI in the talk page archives, so, if you'd be so kind, please point me to it. Honestly, I find this quite unusual; it's standard practice to add such relevant information to infoboxes. Regards, Agüeybaná 00:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where it took place now. There are no affiliations in any of the Australian party infoboxes as we don't find them relevant enough to be in the infobox. Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep claiming that you have consensus to back up your actions. And yet, I can't seem to find any such discussion in any of the talk pages of the major Australian political parties. International affiliations are important and relevant information (that's why the Infobox parameter was created!) and should be in the Infobox, as is standard practice (examples: United States Republican Party, Puerto Rican Independence Party, Canadian Conservative Party). If you can't provide any links, I'm taking this to the talk page to get some real consensus. --Agüeybaná 13:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics. Its always fun getting overseasers dictating what we should be doing. Timeshift (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! --Agüeybaná 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian images
Hello there, I've noticed that you uploaded many pictures from the Australian national archives. I found an excellent picture of Clement Attlee Here. But I don't fully understand the Australian copyright etc. I assume that as this image is more than fifty years old it is out of copyright and therefore ok to use without special permission. Just wondered if you could help? G-Man ? 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do I find out? G-Man  ? 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony Abbott
Do not understand why my contribution on Tony Abbott was removed. It was very relevant about the man himself the fact that he was the Liberal leadership candidate who had previous experience in Opposition and yet did not get the top job at the end.--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See bottom dotpoint of new template addition at very top of Talk:Tony_Abbott. It was a reflection on the subject, not the article. Timeshift (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Careful
aw - now come on. If you think you are being baited, then don't take the bait. Let the content arguments stand on their own merits - and not about editors. Such comments though, won't help now or the next time. (in this case I tend to agree with your side of the debate). kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's past that. The debate moves nowhere, and it's such a stupid debate, it's a given that Howard as the only living former PM not to attend is noteworthy. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. But, just to reiterate (sorry), I was just butting in uninvited and suggesting a little more care with how we all express this. :-) regards  --Merbabu (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

CLP colour
The reason I changed the CLP colour is because, at the moment, it's the same as the United Australia Party colour, and I thought it was probably better that it was the same as the Liberals rather than the UAP. Frickeg (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. How about dark blue? Frickeg (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can tell pretty clearly the difference, but I don't see any harm in swapping them. Frickeg (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

1943 election
Hi - this election page lists an independent, Malinda Angelina Ivey, as being a member of the House of Reps. I can't find her anywhere in the seats, except as an independent in West Sydney who polled 1.9%. Are you sure this is right? Frickeg (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've been wondering that for a while. Of course, I wasn't questioning your reliability; the source would indeed be fascinating! Frickeg (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Warning
This comment is unlikely to foster a spirit of collaboration. Please cease making comments intended to disparage other editors. Because of the recent history of incivility at Talk:John Howard, you will be blocked if you continue making such remarks. CIreland (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As it was my last comment on the matter per what I said, that won't be a problem :) Timeshift (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim Beazley
Can't believe Beazley's Rove gaffe wasn't in the article. Is now. I haven't searched through the history to see if it was once there in the past, and someone objected to it, which is often the case these days :)  Lester  04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * also, Timeshift, you may like to check the article on Jeff Egan. Cheers,  Lester  05:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Removing content
Hi Timeshift. I see your comment on the John Howard discussion page, that deletion is OK when content is in dispute. Is there really a Wikipedia rule about that? When the content is vandalism or libel it would be a different matter. But when nobody disputes the factuality of the content, they just dispute whether they like it or not, is that a case for reversion? Cheers,  Lester  07:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, maybe I read your comment to mean the opposite of what you intended. I'll go back and read it again. Regards,  Lester  07:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Observed
I refer you to your response to me in this page "You don't need to be convinced. You've been thoroughly observed. Timeshift (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)" What do you mean by that, exactly? --Surturz (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Howard bias
It is fairly clear from your edit history that you miss no opportunity to insert quotes critical of John Howard. This is fine, I honestly have no problem with it. But be aware that now he is out of office, you are actually helping cement his name in the history books. If your intention is to hurt the man, then your best course of action is to assist him slide into obscurity, by refraining from inserting material about him. --Surturz (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not clear from my edit history. My edits show balanced contributions. Latest example - Talk:Gippsland by-election, 2008. Unlike you who admits to actively POV-pushing, and is obvious by your contributions. Timeshift (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: John Howard
Hello. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you,  Lester  01:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rejecting an RfM before it even begins demonstrates your unwillingness to compromise and reach a solution that is acceptable to the wikipedia community. Be it on your head. Timeshift (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it shows an unwillingness to be involved in pointless bureaucracy. I'd rather edit articles. --Surturz (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Careful....
You should read WP:3RR, cause you are very close to violating it. J.d ela noy gabs adds 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Andrew Evans
Can you assist? I am from his office in Parliament and am trying to upload a profile picture to his profile page (Andrew Evans (pastor)). However as a new user (not intending to edit elsewhere) with no intention of editing 10 articles, I am blocked from adding the picture properly. AndrewEvans (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Timeshift (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Blocked
In light of your refusal to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and your uncivil response to warnings on the subject, I have blocked you for twenty-four hours. To contest the block, you may place on your talk page. Diffs:, , , ,. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Very watery diffs. You're all sad sad people who need a life. Timeshift (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Opps, seems like you strayed outside of the protective realm of Aust. Politics :-) Shot info (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the last time I defend Betacommand. I acknowledge and remove the warning placed on my talk page, and contribute no further to anything at all, but then I kept getting bugged on my page and not left alone. This place is filled with *gasp* sooky la-la's. Timeshift (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, Timeshift, is that you "acknowledge" the warnings about incivility with another incivil remark. That isn't much of an acknowledgment, is it? If you left the warning in situ, at least for a while, then you wouldn't continue to get bugged because other admins would know you had already been warned. By the way, how far are you planning to push it? Because if you continue to respond in the vein above, you are very likely to have the blocked extended. Rockpock  e  t  23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a tip. Leave me alone, as I have that right, and I won't be responding. Timeshift (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, you could apologize for the original comment on beta's talk page, ask for an unblock, and forget this whole silly escalation ever took place. We're all colleagues here, let's not get bent out of shape and resort to blocking as a method of behavioral modification. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the comment from the page. If you read the comment, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, thus no apology is warranted. And it's a 24 hour block, i'm happy to let it stick as it makes others look petty. Timeshift (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Understood. And here is a tip in return: treat others with a little more respect, and they will be only too happy to observe your wishes. Rockpock  e  t  23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if those "others" stopped fightings others battles, there wouldn't be any need. Timeshift (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with someone, address it in a constructive manner. Calling someone an "idiot" or a "sooky la-la" is not constructive and therefore there is no "need" to do so. Rockpock  e  t  23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read the comment, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. But keep ensuring excellent contributors get blocked, as wikipedia is already in the process of digging it's own grave. Timeshift (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (reset indent) I did read the comments:
 * I've blocked you [Betacommand] and Locke Cole for 24 hours for edit-warring on WP:BOTS. &mdash; Werdna talk 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I always lol when idiots block Betacommand. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you really didn't mean to direct that at anyone in particular, you have a very unfortunate way with words. If you wish to be considered an excellent contributor, you might want to work on that. Rockpock  e  t  00:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, because Betacommand is always getting blocked, half the time by accident and half the time for silly reasons. I was referring to the collective, not the individual. I don't need your or anyone else's opinion to know I provide quality and quantity contributions. Now respect my wishes and be gone from my talk page. Timeshift (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Timeshift9's use of the plural "idiots" would imply it was not aimed at anyone in particular. If he had said "I always lol when power-mad idiots like you block Betacommand." then perhaps a case could be made against him --Surturz (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Don't bother. As I said, it's a 24 hour block, i'm happy to let it stick as it makes others look petty. Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the other incivil comments were not aimed at anyone in particular either? Despite, like the one above, being an unsolicited response to a specific comment. Also one can't simply delete unfortunate words when they are in edit summaries, I'm afraid. If your response to entirely valid concerns by administrators is to ignore the cause of the block and instead just wait it out, I expect you will find yourself having longer to wait next time. Rockpock  e  t  04:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


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

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


 * Read from the start. My message on BC's talk page (which I removed) and the edit summaries when I removed warnings from my talk page. Apparently sooky la-la's is a blockable offense. Again, I really didn't mind if the block stayed, as observers like you come along and notice the triviality of it. Timeshift (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Woot, ozzies stick together :-) Shot info (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no cabal. Timeshift (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Premiership of John Howard
Hi - I didn't quite understand your comment at the talk page where you said ''And this is why this page gets deleted. Because people create it filled with nothing and seems redundant.''. We are discussing adding to the article at Talk:John Howard. I disagree that it is filled with nothing - it obviously needs more content but is a work in progress - a legitimate place to be. --Matilda talk 01:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah yeah - just let me get there slowly - I am not actually disagreeing - by bringing up Dame Joan I am coming around! --Matilda talk 07:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)