Timeshift9 (talk | contribs) →Incivility: or how about 'fuck you'. deleted. |
Timeshift9 (talk | contribs) my joestella list |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
There is no [[Wikipedia:List of cabals|cabal]]. Mmmm, cabal... |
There is no [[Wikipedia:List of cabals|cabal]]. Mmmm, cabal... |
||
And then there's those who've made my 'Joestella' list - Prester John, Brendan, and Jackofoz. |
|||
== 24 Nov == |
== 24 Nov == |
Revision as of 10:02, 12 November 2007
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 :-)
My edit count. Backup if not working. 930 watchlist articles and counting.
There is no cabal. Mmmm, cabal...
And then there's those who've made my 'Joestella' list - Prester John, Brendan, and Jackofoz.
24 Nov
Damn. :/ 3 Nov, 17 Nov, 1 Dec, 8 Dec I could have helped out in a seat which matters. Ah well. Orderinchaos 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
New 2PP graph
To me, it seems the WP software is not using the updated image yet. Are you having the same problem? JPD (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Looks like it works when I manage to purge everything. JPD (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Concerning the vertical lines: I had considered a line marking when Rudd took over, and liked the idea, but couldn't see a way to do it that would look ok. All the stuff about when the election could be, etc. seems a bit overkill, making it crowded (and not all dates are currently on the graph), but now that the election has been called, I thought it would be good to mark that. The most recent version I've uploaded have the election date marked, and I've also uploaded Image:Pollchart-tpp-event.svg, which has 4-12-07 marked. Do you think it is an improvement? Could it be done better? JPD (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - I've got them watchlisted, so it shows up. I'm not sure about the other graph - I'll leave a comment on the election talk page - but I don't mind making it if it is wanted. Unfortunately, I won't have any time at all until at least the weekend, though. I've been thinking about the overflow lines, etc. too. Which events would we want to have marked? Leadership changes, calling of the election...? Do you think it would work if I put shaded the election campaign area in a different background colour? JPD (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The Newspoll is surprising! I've left the RM phone poll in for now. RM list a similar poll in 1998 on their trends page, and perhaps more importantly, the ACNielsen poll from last week that we have already included wasn't one of their regular polls, either. JPD (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
missed out
sorry you missed out on all the excitement! :) check out this hope I don't get you in any trouble, but I've been putting two and two together lately and I think I've achieved 4. WikiTownsvillian 09:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- BTW [1] :P Orderinchaos 23:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ack
Woops, the first time I removed it because I thought it was just some vandal adding information. When I realised you were an established editor I (seriously) though I was editing it to not emphasise the Rudd angle so much but I discarded it at some point. My mistake (to clarify: the second removal of the paragraph was accidental). --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it wasn't for me stumbling upon your reasons on the Liberal Party talk page, I would've labelled your edits vandalism since you yourself said: "remove tags, no effort to point out where the article has the issues, or attempts to improve, or put forth a genuine discussion of the issue on the talk page". --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
booths
BTW can you follow up that business with the SEO of SA? It's been months and their last excuse kind of ran dry. :P Orderinchaos 10:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Might want to follow it up at AN/I - look near the top under "long term cases". Orderinchaos 04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Labour vs Labor
Greetings. This and this may interest you. Cheers. -- JackofOz 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. The amount of ignorance when editing aus politics lately is rather sickening. Timeshift 05:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure there must have been a time, Timeshift, when you weren't knowledgeable about this spelling change. Why not extend understanding and charity to those who still aren't aware of it. It happened in 1912, after all, and is hardly front-page news these days. I've now twice suggested that we implement some strategy to overcome the edit-revert cycle. I'd welcome your positive contribution to that discussion. Cheers. -- JackofOz 05:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there was a time that I wasn't knowledgeable about it. And at that time I didn't go around making changes on websites I knew nothing about either. Timeshift 05:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
3RR report
I see someone has already reported the Kevin Rudd page to the 3RR board. Once it's on the boards, there's a high chance someone gets blocked. Then they might decide to treat both sides equally. This kind of thing is not worth getting blocked over. It's probably worthwhile for you and Brendan to take a break from the article for a day or two, and avoid getting blocked (if it's not too late already). Cheers, --Lester 12:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Talk on Rudd's page, the 3RR and AN/I are now all interlinked. I just hope common sense prevails. Timeshift 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Rudd
- Crossposted to User talk:Brendan.lloyd also
I've unprotected the article, mainly because it's highly unfair that 2 people's silliness should affect so many others. The consequence of further edit warring shall affect both of you more directly, so I strongly suggest you try to work it out properly. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Commons Tagging
You mean this page. You already are endorsed by another editor on the list since 2 October. Maybe you should leave Betacommand a message so that he can put you in the approved list. Garion96 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Its all good
It's cool, I don't want a fight or anything, but I think the IP is really just trying to make a point rather than asking a real question. Which is why I just took the BLP issue out and substitued the name. It's all good :-) Shot info 06:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Rudd and same-sex marriage
Hi Timeshift. Only just found your message. Rudd had previously stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, so it was already known. But I thought the video was interesting because Rudd seemed uncomfortable when asked about the subject. It was also interesting because it was not a pre-prepared video, unlike the YouTube ones. The main gay newspaper Sydney Star Observer is running big on the issue, and every mainstream newspaper is covering the story.--Lester 23:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Message
Hi, could you please explain this edit. Was it an accident? --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 13:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- No worries!, it just confused me when I was looking for a reply. Thanks. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 14:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Family First deletions
Hello Timeshift. I've noticed there have been a lot of deletions going on in the Family First article lately: 1. Brokenshire (deleted) 2. SA same-sex bill (deleted) 3. Family First porn scandal (deleted) In the end, what we get left with is a replica of Family First's own website, which is a shame, as I think Wikipedia articles should be free and independent from political party influence.--Lester 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Just be a bit careful
I know you've got strong opinions about the use of the picture on the Kevin Rudd article, but calling people names isn't a good way to make your arguments heard. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but it's called frustration. I've already put my point across and admins agreed with me over him. Timeshift 05:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I know the feeling. It's just that, regardless of how frustrated you are and how many admins have agreed with you, personal attacks don't go over well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that admins need to step in and impose what they believe when it's obvious the two parties aren't getting anywhere or making progress, and especially when the admin view is unanimous. Timeshift 05:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I guess that's the other way to think of it. I haven't been following the discussion, so I won't make a ruling either way, but on a page as current as this, it would certainly be nice to have a general agreement from all concerned about what's in and what's out, or at least an agreement to disagree. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that admins need to step in and impose what they believe when it's obvious the two parties aren't getting anywhere or making progress, and especially when the admin view is unanimous. Timeshift 05:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I know the feeling. It's just that, regardless of how frustrated you are and how many admins have agreed with you, personal attacks don't go over well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Senate majority
I don't think I am [disagreeing with the Clerk]. I think he was loosely using terminology that is used in different ways. If I had to agree with anyone, I would personally agree with him and the "one-seat majority", but I would be aware that much of the world would then disagree with me. In particular, I would be aware that this is inconsistent with saying the Coalition have a 24-seat majority in the Reps. What this means for a Wikipedia article, I don't know, but general use is a mess, and I'm not afraid to say so. JPD (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and in the senate Labor has 28, Coalition 39 and 9 others. So, we can say that in the Reps, the Coalition has 24 more than all the others put together, and has to lose 12 seats to lose majority. In the Senate, the Coalition has 2 more than all the others put together, and has to lose 1 seat to lose majority. When we talk about how big the majority is, why do most sources pick use 24 (the difference with the sum of the others) for the reps but 1 (the number of seats needed to lose majority) for the Senate? JPD (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
New John Howard image
Nice work :) --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- yes well done! WikiTownsvillian 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually try to improve wikipedia in a bipartisan fashion despite what some people might arbitrarily believe. Timeshift 05:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cool :) Unrelated, but have you seen a YouTube clip parodying Govt ads that featured a "baby eating" unionists "Reynold Reynolds"? I've been scouring for it after ABC Lateline reported it last night, but can't for the life of me find it. It was in a story that included the work of Manic Times but I don't think it was one of theirs. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've left a message on the talk page, are you sure it was a breach of 3RR? WikiTownsvillian 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Earwax
What's got into you? I'm expressing my opinions, and if you don't like my sense of humour, go chew on a lemon. The "pursed lips" photo isn't my preference - I like the one where KR looks happy. --Pete 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikibreak
Please read my notice, and recent edits to my user page - all is clear there. I am *sort of* here, but even a cursory look at my recent history would reveal I've been too busy to genuinely involve myself, and that will be the case for almost a month yet (particularly as I leave later today). Orderinchaos 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Election Images
Nice work fixing up the images. Ammended my vote to allow the use of that image, although i think the other image should be used, although in reality, im not too phased and think it completely ridiculous that this is an issue. Good work on the image. Twenty Years 04:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
JH edit
You know, that recent edit of your's isn't really NPOV, only because it doesn't actually mention the "slogan" per se, other than in a negative context. After, it's only an slogan. Also the editsum suggests that you are only making the edit to prove a point. While I don't agree with PJ, I find that his edits are actually more "N"POV rather than POV given the overall weight that most other editors seem to think is important in the article. Also in terms of BLP, the slogan of the liberals and it's positive/negative connotations doesn't really belong in an article about JH. I'm only making these comments here rather than at JH to keep the escalation that I can foresee happening, to a minimum. Can I suggest that you review your edits and look at perhaps editing to make it read better? Shot info 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)