Welcome to my talk page, where you are welcome to leave a message at the bottom of this page for any reason at all and I will attempt to respond ASAP. I try to remember to respond on your talk page, and I mostly do, but if you leave a message here and for some reason i'm not replying, perhaps check back here from time to time :-)

2,900 watchlist articles and counting :)

There is no cabal. Mmmm, cabal....

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

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

Isn't it wonderful to be proved so very right? (On a purely practical note I'm really glad Lawrie didn't go for "Independent Liberal", since there is actually a colour for that back when the parliamentary handbooks used to list it as an official designation, but I don't think this would qualify. Nice to keep things simple.) Frickeg (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as far as the label (not the colour) went, I was thinking he was correct. I was driving through the seat yesterday and Sue Lawrie had INDEPENDENT LIBERAL posters everywhere, but the issue was, there wasn't a cite. Now, we have the official cite. I'm thinking the ECSA stifled her plans >:) Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not a deletionist by nature. I tend to wait to see other wikipedians reactions. One issue however that I always have with articles of that sort, and I speak in generic, non-directed terms, is that when it's written by one editor about a large event, decides what should and shouldn't be included and how much detail is warranted, with the story told in much greater detail than any of its references. Sure, any editor can come along and make changes, but often the chosen structures and slants of an article can be well-entrenched and hard to alter without a complete re-do of an article. A recipe for trouble :) Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely agree with both you and LF. I'm not entirely convinced that the event will be of lasting historical significance either, but it could well be relevant to either Gillard's ultimate fate as PM, or the success/failure of any constitutional change to do with Indigenous Australia. So I've just been collecting refs for now, in case they can be used for those articles, or the repercussions become large enough for the event to have an article in its own right c.f. eating prawns or sending an email. --Surturz (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting shifting of the goalposts between your two posts Surtz :) And national unemployment is down! I bet the Libs are so distressed that the economy isn't doing as badly as they claim. What an indictment upon the Libs that they want the economy to falter to further their political ambitions. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No real shifting of goalposts :-) Personally, I'd like to see the article in mainspace, but I was aware that there might be WP:N issues, which is why I asked you (and mentioned WP:N). I figured if you thought it was notable, then it would probably survive an AfD. I think it is similar importance to OzCar - except that OzCar eventually contributed to Turnbull's demise, while this event hasn't led to Gillard losing her job (yet).

[1] Not sure we'll be so happy about the unemployment rate in a month or two. Libs are trying to save the economy. This sort of thing isn't leadership :-)--Surturz (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you reeled me in to a rant :) Leadership is another modern political buzzword. Is leadership letting your party sail to a solid defeat because they don't want to give up the job? Is leadership going further than Menzies in a hung government with three times the number of crossbenchers? The word leadership is meaningless. Everyone has qualities, I think our current PM has many qualities :) And the Libs don't save the economy. Howard's economy during PM Fraser was hopeless with all the figures in double digits, before Hawke and Keating who saved it with extensive economic reform while being humane. This linked us up completely to global events. Since then, the Australian economy has followed the global economy. When the world is doing well, Australia is doing well. When the world is not doing so well, Australia is not doing so well. Howard was the highest taxing govt in Australia's history, Labor then reduced the income tax rate three times since, all he did in terms of economic reform was a GST. He preferred to play the social conservative while pretending that the economic benefits we reap somehow came from his government, when it is things like markets, the general direction of IR, taxation, the banking system, superannuation, etc etc, which have allowed Australia to succeed. Oh, and in modern times, they'll also slash and burn health/education/social/etc services to bring the budget back in to the black. Even though Menzies never had a budget surplus. I'd rather our money spent on us to support Australians, not held in a surplus gathering dust for no good reason - it's our money. Not only has Labor done a lot for 'major party progressivism', I am very very thankful that Labor rescued us from Howard's regressive oppressive conservative regime. Australia has been far better off with Labor governments historically and in modern times in the short and long run. Oh, and, huh? 90 year old Coalition indeed. Timeshift (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TREASURY Secretary Martin Parkinson says Australians are very negative about the state of the domestic economy. Dr Parkinson said the national mindset was a ``bit overdone. ``It's almost as if most Australians tend to think we live in Greece, we don't, ``We actually have an incredibly bright future in front of us. ``There is an overwhelming negative sense about much of the national discussion and debate,[2]

I think it's crystal clear that Abbott is Australia's biggest danger to our economy. Timeshift (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd rather our money spent on us to support Australians, not held in a surplus gathering dust for no good reason"

What surplus? Labor have not only trashed the surplus, they've put us back in debt! And what support for Australians? Most of the stimulus cheques went to the purchase of imported goods! --Surturz (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. Because any political tragic loves a bit of Keating: [3][reply]

For an economic liberal, you aren't very smart are you? :P The Howard government left us in a structural deficit beyond what Labor states did with their respective finances. Do you forget how Labor states during the Howard government were awash with cash too? Try and understand how budget surpluses and deficits occur in the modern economic age. Read more articles like this. Tell me, what is wrong with 'debt' and when is it an issue? Sustainable debt to support an economy during a downturn is an economically sensible idea, just ask the IMF. Australia remains one of the lowest debt countries in the world and I don't see that changing any time soon. And tell me, what number of jobs do you think need to be saved for an economically responsible economic stimulus to be worth it? About as many as the Libs would have claimed they saved with their smaller stimulus that would have put us in "less debt"? I guess when they came up with that one they forgot about the Liberal 101 little black book of lines like "debt=bad". Oops! Timeshift (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Your arguments and those of the article, are self-defeating defenses of Keynesianism. The idea of borrowing in the downturn to soften the downturn only works if governments pay off debt in the recovery. Howard/Costello did that... but you are arguing that they didn't really do that. We know ALP governments certainly don't pay off debt, ever. I would argue that governments always have an incentive to borrow no matter what point they are in the economic cycle - borrowing during the boom is exactly what the US did, for example. I'm not expert on Keynes, but I suspect the idea only really works if the govt borrows from its own citizens, not other countries. Borrowing from other countries hampers the effectiveness of the central bank (as the big 4 banks are now currently arguing, that debt they owe overseas means they must ignore the RBA cash rate - not that I buy the argument!), and ties the economy to a different economy at a different point in the cycle. You say I don't know how the modern economy works... but it is you that is suggesting we mindlessly follow economic theories developed seventy-five years ago! I see no reason why the Australian government should ever need go into debt. Into deficit, sure, but not debt. Rudd was handed a big nest egg and could have run a sizeable deficit without blowing the lot and more and putting us into debt. --Surturz (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keynesianism is only a label, as is neo-liberalism/New Right etc. No pure ideology has a monopoly on good and effective policy and outcomes, good government comes from a mix. Menzies never ran a surplus, but he's a Liberal Party hero. Howard/Costello only did it by savagely cutting various public services. There's nothing wrong with borrowing from other countries as long as the loans are prudent and make fiscal sense. I can't believe we're having to re-attempt to include dental in Medicare... shame Howard, shame. Governments do pay the debt off in recovery, what do you think Labor is attempting to do by humane cutting of parts of the budget, even though the vast majority of recovery comes from GST tax receipts! Global economic modelling at the time did not indicate a downturn/stagnation in the world that would be so prolonged. But as long as the debt remains low, it's not an issue. The question is, do you save jobs and keep the economy out of going in to recession and save all the confidence-sapping problems associated with that? All global economic organisations (IMF etc) think Australia's economy is excellent and debt is extremely within manageable levels. We have an excellent GDP, productivity, interest rates, inflation, and employment. The Liberals wanted a stimulus too, but not as large as Labor's. That was after they were firmly against any stimulus. I'm for decisive action to cushion the impact in Australia, as the benefits outweigh the short-term increase in debt, but a completely manageable debt. We are not Greece, we have one of the best debt levels in the entire world. It is not impacting on business confidence, the debt to GDP ratio is going gangbusters. You need to get in a lot more debt than Labor has done before it becomes an issue. I'm not for the Liberal action of being a weathervane and doing what seems politically and tactically best at the time, in the process in itself eroding some confidence. If Turnbull were still opposition leader, business confidence would no doubt be a lot higher. Abbott would love nothing more than for the economy to tank. Each set of numbers that comes out, like unemployment levels, Abbott would surely weep as his predictions have not been borne out. We keep hearing about how 'debt and deficit' is such a bad thing, but then here you are saying you're all for a deficit. What level is ok? What isn't? Or is it just political expediency to say Labor's is larger, therefore it's a bad decision - a very arbitrary argument. Rarely has there been successful entrepreneurs who don't get to where they are by taking out prudent loans and go in to debt. The economic/fiscal paramaters the government is operating on considering the world situation is extremely prudent, and again, all the global organisations like the IMF agree. Swan got awarded world's best treasurer, rememeber! :D Timeshift (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

World's best treasurer according to Euromoney magazine, who had previously made awards such as:

• Best Investment Bank - Lehman Brothers
• Best Equity House - Morgan Stanley
• Best at Risk Management - Bear Stearns
• Best at Investor Services - Citigroup

How does a country get 15 trillion dollars (US) or 360 billion Euro (Greece) in debt? In all likelihood, a million dollars at a time. Funding government services with foreign debt is bad for a whole bunch of reasons: it reduces accountability to taxpayers, it perverts the redistribution of wealth by government. But the most important downside is that it plunders future generations earnings - it is the parents buying big on the children's credit card. Saving jobs is a noble cause, but it is only a rational thing to do if those jobs are actually viable. Otherwise, once the stimulus is removed, all those jobs go away. We've seen this with the pink batt installers and the solar panel sellers; people won't actually spend their own money on these things. --Surturz (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like a balanced diet, everything in moderation. To always maintain a surplus is economically irresponsible and destructive. Nobody in the world has one iota of an issue with Australia's level of debt and deficit - it's not an issue. Our GDP, inflation, dollar, employment, and interest rates are all doing well. It increases during the bad times and decreases during the better times, and when the mining boom expands even further, treasury coffers will flood again. And finally, you can't just look at the jobs the stimulus created. You must look at the confidence we would otherwise not have, had we have gone in to a recession. A lot more jobs would have been lost if we went in to a recession that the stimulus managed to ward off. Confidence is everything. Timeshift (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the govt should not go into deficit. I said that it should never go into debt (and particularly, never go into foreign debt). Also, the ALP is not planning to pay off the debt, they are only committing to going back into surplus - and they have not indicated a particular level of surplus - spending one dollar less than the tax they collect would be enough for them. Such a low bar. --Surturz (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I thought you were Green? Pump-priming is anathema to the environment, since by definition, stimulus spending is non-essential spending. In a recession, a lack of confidence means people cut their expenditure back to essential spending. Keynesian stimulus replaces private luxury spending with government luxury spending, to (supposedly) prop up the economy and avoid the paradox of thrift. Environmentalism, however, urges individuals to minimise resource consumption. Recessions are good for the environment. --Surturz (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any reference from overseas that has concerns with out debt? There is nothing wrong with debt in itself. Many of the worlds richest only got that way from getting in to debt. And can you cite an ALP policy that says in the future no debt will be paid? I think it's commendable to chase a surplus. Would you rather they not? Hmm! And i'm not a Green. I preference Green above Labor for various reasons. In a plurality vote, Labor would get my vote every time. Timeshift (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Being an American, I don't have the emotional investment you do, and I find the ALP's faction system baffling, but my god is Tony Abbott unlikeable. Even his comments that the impending Queensland result is a referendum on Julia Gillard, the carbon tax, and just about everything else Abbott doesn't like, are grating. I keep seeing dire predictions for the federal ALP in 2013, and I realise he came close in 2010, but how in the world could Australians elect this guy? Say what you will about G. W. Bush, at least he didn't seem like a thug. Do Labor supporters hope against hope that somehow someone less—I don't know, Abbotty?—will manage to wrest the Liberal leadership from him? Or do they hope voters will again take a look at him in an election and decide they aren't willing to buy? -Rrius (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For all the faults with the US system, at least the primary process would ensure nutters like Abbott would never manage to get the top job. Australians won't elect Abbott, and they didn't elect Gillard. They elected their local MP. This is what the conservatives fail to grasp when they go on and on and are expected to go on and on for 3 years, because they didnt get their partisan result they were looking for. Timeshift (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the voters don't directly vote for prime minister, but the leadership of each party does inform voting behaviour. My point is that if I were an Australian voter, even a centre-right voter, I would put the Libs and/or Nats at the bottom in terms of preferences just to avoid having him as PM. As for the conservatives going on and on, it's weird how, no matter what the country, the conservative party always feels it is entitled to rule. Anyway, time for sleep so I can wake up at 5 or so AEST (3 a.m. my time) to get ready to follow the results. -Rrius (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to Abbott, people in QLD won't be voting on Anna Bligh's Labor government which has been in power for 18 of the last 20 years. They'll be voting on the carbox tax. People take a wide range of factors in to consideration when voting... they aren't as dumb as some make them out to be, but it is a shame that the media is cancerous in it's inaccuracies. From false 'facts' to misleading bias to simple lack of proof reading. I think it's a shame that the conservatives would normally be the ones to best defend Westminster tradition, yet they slammed the Gillard minority government, and want a Premier who isn't even an MP... a scary precedent/development to set, very USA. You are right, many conservatives have a deep dislike of Abbott. I know many. Nobody who has ever had a dissatisfaction rating of higher than 50% has become PM. It is a long time until the next election. Look at polling anyway... Labor had 53% of the TPP vote in 1998 in Newspoll two days out from the election, ended up with 51%, but not enough seats. Labor peaked at 60% in Newspoll a year before the 2001 election, but they only got 49% and not enough seats. A week is a long time in politics, Labor has been very active despite the current hung parliament in conjunction with Abbott being one of the government's best assets. I also think that now we will have four state conservative governments, people will be more likely in those states to vote the other way federally... this is often observed. Julia would have crawled over hot coals last year for two 47-53's in a row. I'm not worried and neither should other people. We've never had such masses of polling in history, it's a different environment. This, and with all of Abbott's uncosted promises, it would be hilarious to see how an Abbott government would actually play out. But this is by no means likely :) Timeshift (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Earthians... --Surturz (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the states have 12 senators, except WA which seems to have only 11.

This may affect the knife-edge balance of power.

Can you help fix this?

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

See: Members of the Australian Senate, 2011–2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awaiting your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anybody there? Pdfpdf (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Or you just like clicking undo and causing trouble? Cursesonabauumy (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Timeshift9,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Anna Bligh is no longer the member for South Brisbane and Labor's margin in the seat has changed. Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but I wanted to check. -Rrius (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I expect you will be interested in an addition yesterday to the Tony Abbott page, and a related discussion on the Talk page. 22:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

You are wrong RE: Parliament of Australia.

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

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

Also, you said my edit was wrong and incorrect.

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

Please refrain from vandalising Wikipedia pages.

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

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

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

[4] Quantity not quality, eh? :-) --Surturz (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you read the justification I gave for uploading the image, you'll notice that the copyright belongs to me. You're also wrong to say it was uploaded under fair use - I put it under CC3 as my own work, because that's what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuliwil (talk • contribs) 08:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence that you wholly produced it and have the rights to release it? Timeshift (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The video hasn't been uploaded yet, and once it it it'll have the Warragul Citizen watermark over part of the image, proving that I have the originals - is that enough? How do I go about proving it? Want my ABN so you can match it to the paper?Kuliwil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil

The best and easiest way to prove it would be to put on the webpage the CC logo to represent release by creative commons. What is the website? It needs some semblance of credability. Timeshift (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The video is not CC, the screendump I made from my own video on the other hand is. Anyway, anyone could re-upload a video under CC to prove that - I think the fact the video hasn't even been uploaded yet should be justification enough. Also, *credibility Kuliwil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuliwil (talk • contribs) 09:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it isn't enough. There needs to be proof that you own or have rights to the image. Timeshift (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please tell me what to provide! (Help me removed - question answered) Can we get a second opinion here? Page is: Russell Broadbent Kuliwil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil 09:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could upload the screendump to your site then attach a CC to that. Sorry if you think evidence for image ownership is burdensome. Timeshift (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not burdensome, it's just I didn't know what to do, smartypants. I've put a note about a CC screendump being available for Wikipedia in the comment for the YouTube video, which will be online tomorrow. I'll add the image again then. Kuliwil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil 10:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be a smartypants. When an image is to be uploaded, a user is given a ton of wording to sift through. Please go through the steps again and at the early steps it will provide you with more info. As I said originally, if your site is semi reliable (and may be part of consensus discussion) and has permission, and/or you send permission to wikipedia (which is again available through the text given in image uploading), then so be it. But an image of that size, especially a screendump of a video with a CC tag and an ownership claim, is insufficient. Timeshift (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will a comment in the YouTube upload stating that there is a screendump available be sufficient? And I thought I had read everything - I must've missed a page. Kuliwil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil 11:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally had word from another user who actually knew image proof of ownership procedures - They outlined the procedure on my talkpage if you're interested. Kuliwil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's all available when a user uploads an image. The burden of knowledge isn't on someone else, it's on you. Stop shirking the responsibility please. Timeshift (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timeshift9. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia with photos of the likes of Bob Brown. The photo from that article is being used by the Economist in an article about Brown, but they just credit it to Wikimedia Commons and link to the image file itself, rather than the image description page, and there is no mention of its actual source or of the CC-BY-SA. You would think with a the budget of a large international news magazine they could either afford to pay for a photo through the usual channels, or have staff intelligent enough to follow the terms of a free licence. (PS, if you reply, please do so here rather than on my IP talkpage) 77.99.26.23 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned. Timeshift (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You think it's fine for a wealthy media organisation to use a freely-licensed image without crediting the source or complying with the licence? 77.99.26.23 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but on my concern list, it would be near the bottom. Timeshift (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• some of your edits to Isobel Redmond
• complaint on the BLP noticeboard

Your edits to the article present a false chronology that even I can see doesn't match the chronology and information in the autobiographical source cited. Someone who claims to have spoken with the subject also disputes what you have written. Please correct the error that you made. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! They're the stubbiest of stubs, of course, but at least the framework is there. (Once I realised that it took about five minutes to create each one, they became the perfect thing to do in the middle of other stuff when something had to load.) Frickeg (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope so. It only takes a few people to come in and focus on a particular area. Might take a while though! Frickeg (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thompson Remarks Controversy

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

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

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

Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove comments from talk pages. - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments can be removed if they are just a WP:SOAPBOX and do not contribute to article improvement. Timeshift (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsbefiends (talk • contribs) 22:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Now please don't add WP:SOAPBOX talk to talkpage discussion or it will again be removed. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timeshift9, you removed the margin "for consistency - no other SA MP has it" - however I copied the original template from Stephanie Key, which certainly does have it. It would seem to be more the case that most of the SA pollies' pages don't have infoboxes at all. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I removed it from Key's article as well, it's already mentioned in the article and in the seat article. I just think it is duplication and something that unnecessarily bulks up an infobox. Timeshift (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you intending to post interim results as they become available? Tony (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are available. If I have the motivation and it hasnt been done, I tend to put one up at the point of last count on election night as preliminary results. Timeshift (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, this one looks like too difficult a call for tonight. Tony (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

When making these tables I generally go with a dedicated column if a party runs in more than half the seats (unless that would make the table too bulky), or if the party is particularly significant. NT is a bit of a special case, since the small electorates mean only the major parties are able to run in every seat. (The Greens, for example, aren't running in half the seats, but I still gave them a column.) I gave First Nations a column because there was room, and because my suspicion is that they'll do moderately well. (I think the Sex Party probably will too, but five was just too few.) If you're not comfortable with it I've got no problem moving them back into the Others, though. Frickeg (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping they would too, if only to bring NT into line with all the other states and territories. They are running more than ever before, which is something, I suppose. I suspect First Nations has sapped a few of their members (Williams, etc.). Frickeg (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm also glad they've abandoned the bizarre and antiquated tradition of endorsing more than one candidate in some seats. (I could never understand why they didn't run in MacDonnell, when they'd won it only two elections ago.) Frickeg (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scullion caucuses with the Nats, Griggs with the Libs. They're definitely not a branch of the Nationals - or of the Liberals, for that matter. They're a separate, affiliated party. Frickeg (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Griggs does actually sit in the Liberal party room, though, as Tollner used to. I remember looking it up back when we changed the member pages to include which LNP members caucused with whom. Can't find the source now, though. Frickeg (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One day, they'll all merge (and hopefully pick a better name than Liberal National Party) and we can breathe a sigh of relief. (It's funny, nowadays I look at politics through two different lenses - one for my own views, and one with a view to what will be easier for us on Wiki. With O'Connor in 2010, obviously Tuckey was an idiot, but I knew a WA Nat would make everything a whole lot more complicated. Sad, really!) Frickeg (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I realise that it's only a brief topic ban that's been proposed. But I mean what I said. That in itself won't teach him anything. I think he's learning anyway.

The AN/I process is seriously flawed. It allows disgruntled players to pile on while angry and just let off steam, building up an often unfair and dishonest case against a miscreant who has no real way of defending himself against bullshit

(I speak from personal experience here.)

HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would very strongly advise you to not make any further contributions to the AN/I thread. Other, previously uninvolved editors are now commenting and there is absolutely no need to stir the pot with contributions like this one. You'll notice that there was a suggestion that you too should be topic banned for your disruptive editing and comments like that one would tend to make me support such a proposal. Far better for you if you now leave the case against your protagonist to other people. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question, what would you label the 25-35 percent of Australian Green voters who preference the Liberal Party above the Labor Party? Timeshift (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Answer, especially with Abbott in charge, Confused.

I am not sure if Welshboy needs a ban, he was highly emotional and even hostile at times but he seems to be learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, so much energy expended over less than five words in the article. FWIW my opinion is here. tl;dr is that the Greens themselves are arguing over this issue, and you and Welshboyau should cover that argument in the article. You and I had similar blues back in the day, but I don't think we ever got to ANI. And from his infoboxes, he seems to have a lot more in common with you than with me :-) --Surturz (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All i'm going to say is that things are not always what they appear to be :) Timeshift (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add my recurring thought that the real problem here is Infoboxes, which encourage (simple?) people to try to represent complex matters simplistically in just one or two words. Far too shallow a goal for this encyclopaedia while it aims to be a quality publication. It can never be accurate and meaningful. And, in that context, I would still argue that trying to place all the world's political parties somewhere on a simple (and simplistic!) linear continuum is just plain silly. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Timeshift (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) To barge in a little, I think it's less a problem with infoboxes (what can I say, I love them), and more a problem with using left-right identifiers. I'd be quite happy to phase them out entirely, to be honest. (I do hope we don't end up having to resort to a topic ban, because Welshboy seems to be a potentially good contributor, and goodness knows we need more of them.) Frickeg (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that assessment, represented by the absence of substantial productive diffs. Timeshift (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic. I see someone who's enthusiastic and who doesn't really get that sometimes on Wikipedia you lose arguments, but that doesn't mean they can never reform. If he masters WP:CONSENSUS and especially WP:AGF, I think he might fit in fine. Frickeg (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reason to believe that's not the case... let's leave it at that. Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Timeshift. I deleted your user page as I believed it was being used improperly as what amounted to a personal blog. We have considerable latitude in what we put on our user space, but I believe you breached the limits here. No hard feelings. --John (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And I have now restored your page pending discussion, and per Orderinchaos's request to me at my user talk. Answer me this; when your page had already been deleted once as a result of similar concerns in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, why would you want to recreate it and use it in the same way? --John (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to listen to policies and perhaps his view that the rules don't apply to him. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion at [5], I have modified your user page. This is the least drastic solution available. It exceeds the policy WP:UP for personal use. I have done this so that you may still have access to the information in the history, but if the page goes back to being a soapbox, it will be either speedy deleted or set to MfD by myself or another admin, based on a clear consensus that it is excessive. I have tried to leave the Wikipedia related info boxes and other templates, which are less controversial. Please familiarize yourself with the policy on user pages before making any drastic changes. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]