User talk:Beneaththelandslide/Archive5

Block problems

Michael, if you're still blocked, let me know who the blocking administrator is so I can track down the autoblock. None of the IP's you listed are blocked.--cj | talk 04:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was musing about joining Adam myself for the higher speeds (damn Telstra!), but I couldn't suffer the inconvenience on Wikipedia. Happy editing, --cj | talk 05:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Al Kateb

Congratulations for achieving featured status! However, I do hope that my suggestions are still implemented. michael ^talk 03:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in getting this into the article; now that essays are out of the way, I've had some time to sit down and start a section on the academic response to the case: Al-Kateb v Godwin#Academic response. There are one or two more articles on the case which are fairly influential, but I don't have access to them electronically, so I'll include those later. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensationalised

I don't want to accuse you of it because I only have somewhat of a recollection and I could very well be wrong, but wasn't it you that made it "28 Labor, 3 Independent, 1 National, and 15 Liberal", because of the point I raised that the independents and national are with the government of the day? I'm not objecting to the edit, just making the observation. Timeshift 04:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALSF

Hey BTL, this is MU arts student, the one you revert the edits of from ALSF Are you a Liberal student? if so, we probably have met.... who is this? --- In that case, if you're in no way involved in the ALSF your monitoring of the page is a bit strange... why do you take so much interest in it? and while using the term legendary is normally a no-no because of NPOV rules, if you were a Liberal student you would realise its not an unjustified use of the term.

SA 2006 election FA

All good points. Thanks. Will see about helping with them. Unsure if you've made the connection yourself, but it is interesting to note that in 2006 being Labor's largest lower house win, compared to in 1993 being Labor's largest lower house loss, they only managed 4 upper house seats in each election......... Timeshift 08:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My strongest objection however is that after your edits, the Liberal section is pretty much SA based, whilst the ALP section is much more federally based and the content there makes them sound more right-wing than the Liberals. White Australia Policy in the ALP was dead and buried aaaages ago and only serves to confuse the reader. I do have many objections to changes you have made I am sorry to say. Timeshift 05:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I was wondering how your motivation to expand on the party backgrounds in the SA election is coming along? Timeshift 15:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting you to do them tonight, just wondered :) Timeshift 15:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to bug you, but yeah... I want to get the article up to FA status so your contributions in this area would be appreciated. Timeshift 15:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the objection to SDA, Labor Left and Labor Right info? Also, it does still appear to be unbalanced in terms of the ALP section being more federal and Lib section being more state. Timeshift 05:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see we won't agree but it's as good as we'll get it - so with that in mind, what else needs doing to get the article up to FA status? Timeshift 06:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In wanting to try and make all wikilinks blue, not red, would it be better to unwikilink 'Liberal Federation' or is there an article it could be linked to? Timeshift 06:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any ideas/suggestions/sources made on the PR page regarding better pictures for Rann/Kerin? Timeshift 07:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michael

Hey Michael, I just wanted to thankyou for your support during my recent RfA. I am thrilled that it was passed today with a final tally of 160/4/1. I was completely blown away by the incredibly generous support I received from so many fantastic Australian editors such as yourself. Thank you, Michael. :) If you ever need any admin help, please don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bressington

I said i'm not arguing change of the article, just the merits with Rocksong. With all due respect please do not tell me what to do. Timeshift 06:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to non wikipedia-related issues i've been quite agitated and shouldn't have been rude in the above comment. I was having a discussion on Bressington and not looking for any alteration to the article. I should have just left it at your comment without replying to you. My apologies. Timeshift 15:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh really? What sort of questions and answers occured if you don't mind me asking? I wonder if she knows about the article on her and the discussion generated on her... i'd like to think pollies keep tabs on what is written about them on wikipedia (or am I being a little naive?)

On a side issue, i'd already asked Rocksong but as you're online - when a page has multiple templates (ie: the SA, VIC or QLD election pages) at the bottom that have a state govt template as well as the politics of australia template, is there a way to get one or both of them to show? I personally happen to find it annoying that a single template on a page will show, but two templates on a page will shrink themselves and must be expanded to be viewed. Any ideas? Timeshift 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misanthrope00

I was planning to put a block notice on her page but real life intervened and i was away from my computer for an extended time - my apologies. Also, there is no guarentee that if i unblock her that she will not return to her image stealing copyright infringing tricks - i've been with this project for nearly five years and know how much trouble such people can cause - DW for example - in these circumstances it is better to be safe than sorry. PMA 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fred Nile Page

Please stop engaging in an edit war and start talking to other editors about the changes you are making to the article.

Everything added to Wikipedia needs to be have sources and be neutral. Thus, your additions need to be from a neutral viewpoint (and not sympathetic to any) and have sources (in the form of references from books, websites, newspapers, etc).

If you do not heed these suggestions, you may end up being blocked.

Do not hesitate to ask me for any help. michael ^talk 06:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gday Michael,

Thanks for your correspondence.

May I start by stating that I have taken great care to adhere to the rules, both stated and inferred, of Wikipedia. In the aforementioned case (Fred Nile) I have endeavoured to post non-subjective data / non-qualitative information. All this data can be verified by the website of the Parliament House NSW, NSW Legislative Council, Nile's published biography and political website (both linked at the bottom of the page). However, data is continually removed without a tenable reason given.

Unfortunately, due to political nature of this individual, I believe certain editors, who obviously wish as little said about this individual as possible, have sought to continually vandalise / remove data, that for some reason, they have taken a personal dislike to. I can only guess that these individuals wish the subject to be only depicted in a certain light and will thus wilfully remove any data that doesn’t suit these ends.

I humble ask for your assistance in ending this chain of events so that Wiki users get the most accurate, extensive and up to date information they can from the system, devoid of censorship for personal political tastes, preferences and bias.

Regards Dave

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association

Hi Beneaththelandslide, I was just looking at you recent edit to Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. I saw that you replaced a previous edit with this paragraph.

Teenagers and women dominate membership and this to a large extent explains why leadership change is rare: the executive positions, often held by middle aged men, often go unchallenged because of difficulty for a person not backed by the 'machine' of the union or the ALP to challenge for office. Another reason for the constant leadership is because of the high turnover of membership, a reality because of the retail environment, which makes challenging for union office difficult.

Could you provide a reference which establishes that teenagers and women are a legitimate explanation for continuity of leadership? It seems more than a little sexist and presumptive. Thank you.--Bookandcoffee 15:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's hard to know how to balance things, isn't it. I don't know anything about the SDA either - but I'm going to remove the first sentence, it just sits funny in my throat. (As you may have noticed :)--Bookandcoffee 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gday

rvv; dave -- you can take this oppourtunity right now to present a draft on the talk page and work cooperatively, or you can continue to be a nuisance and get blocked -- your choice.)

Michael,

Have you read what I have posted on the Nile talk page and to the other editors involved here? Have you read what I previously posted here? Can you please explain why I am the "nuisance" ..for wanting to add data to Wiki? Without the community adding data, Wiki is nothing.

No offence, but all I did was add data (No Qualitative Comments Were Made). I have communicated my intention at every point. I have tried to work with the others, asking what exactly their objections were and even included part of their previous edit. What do I get?... the continual removal of data without explanation, personal accusation, a revert ban despite actually editing rather than reverting, and now getting bounced by you..

Fair crack of the whip mate! This is ridiculous.

Rearranging the SA election page

Why scrap it? I would have definately been open to suggestions/changes :-) Timeshift 17:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busy with the council elections eh? Good luck with it :-) Timeshift 07:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do realise you're very busy with council elections, work, school and the like, which I fully understand and respect, but was hoping to find out an approximate time when you might be able to assist in getting the article up to FA status? I am still relatively new to wikipedia and believe I contributed to the article as best I could as seen through my constant contributions. You appear to be a veteran and a well respected one and would very much appreciate your modifications to bring this article up to standard. Also, on a seperate topic, would you be able to help me with my user page? I have added some userboxes to my page but I want to have them on the left with my awards on the right. At the moment the awards are on the right but a fair bit down. Would you be able to help me or edit the page to get the userboxes on the left and the awards directly to the right on User:Timeshift9 ? I'm not all that great with coding. Cheers if you can help. Timeshift 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use on images

You've done more rationales than anyone else I know... do you have any suggestions as to how can I get around the problem with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Peter_Beattie.jpg ? Timeshift 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image_talk:Peter_Beattie.jpg Do you have any other suggestions or are we doomed to have all our politician photos deleted? Timeshift 01:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gday Michael

Updated the Fred_Nile/draft for your perusal.

Regards dave

2006 Victorian election campaign article advice

Hi Beneaththelandslide, you may like to add your opinion the discussion about the article format on Talk:2006 Victorian election campaign Peter Campbell 05:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Natasha Stott Despoja

Okay, I'm new here so perhaps I'm missing the point.

Why label as "vandalism" and "media's class-war crap" information about a retiring politician's pension entitlements?

If it doesn't belong here, that's fine. But I'd like to understand the reasoning so I can soundly apply the logic elsewhere. MirDoc 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I'll add the same question about the 'far right' revert in One Nation Party. Maybe the expression is an insult that doesn't belong in the article, but I don't think you should have called it vandalism when you removed it. It wasn't my addition, but it looked good faith to me. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I'm still in the dark about this. Any chance of getting some feedback? MirDoc 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, why have you ignored my questions here for 19 days, but took only four minutes to reply to discussion I raised over on the Natasha Stott Despoja page? If the payout is the largest in history, is that not noteable in its own right? -- MirDoc 03:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playmander

The reason I put it in there though is because the current election outcome was the largest win for the ALP in history and it gives the impression of a completely unbalanced electoral system to someone unfamiliar with SA politics. The purpose of the 1993 outcome was to show that it is not. To me it almost feels like the article and/or picture justifies the playmander electoral system. Timeshift 06:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you have access to any detailed population information for SA in regards to the image on Playmander? I'm giving it population perspective but was unable to find any information on the population of SA around 1965. Timeshift 16:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I didn't want to contribute to discussion, I was instructed to contribute to discussion, and it was all due to mistakes by others. I made an edit which I will now assume that everyone accepts was a simple non-controversial factual correction (I have to assume because it seems that no one will ever admit it). There was nothing to discuss until other people made mistakes. I got stressed because I was subjected to a series of attacks, and still there is no sign of sympathy. 82.18.125.110 13:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one in particular is attacking you. This tiny, petty little debacle is here simply because of things people are used to (the bizarre and unwritten conventions of Wikipedia... ). Articles are vandalised frequently, and it is almost always by an anonymous IP; editors will often revert changes in haste without a thurough inspection of the changes made. I know that your changes were appropriate and I didn't want it to seem as if there was any machinations against you, hence why I added my voice.

If you do want to actively contribute to Wikipedia, I would recommend registering. Doing so will avoid most of the problems that have occurred today. If you do register, I would be glad to assist you in any way possible. michael ^talk 13:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you remove all the unpleasantness from my talk page, including the warning, I will think about it. I would like it returned to where it was yesterday, but if I do that myself I will get a ban or something. Otherwise I will just forget about editing. I am under no obligation to edit, I am doing it as a public service, and it has not been fun. 82.18.125.110 13:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't offer to help if you don't mean it

Like most sensible people I will not bother with Wikipedia. I did not ask for thanks I asked for a small courtesy, in response to your own offer to help me. I now fully understand why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation and will avoid it like the plague. 82.18.125.110 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Well, how did it go? (I just noticed the sign about it...). Anyway, when you have time, you can get stuck into Wikipedia:Peer review/Ian Thorpe/archive1...don't worry about my feelings...I have a very thick skin....Anyway, all the best for your exams. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finished my exams last year....That makes things worse though, now that I have to do original research.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. I hope the exams went well. I was wondering if you could be the fresh set of eyes that Tony was alluding to to examine my prose. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Good work on the GIHS article, beating back those morons Paris

SA election

Thanks for the offer. I'm always open to changes to be made to the article, they can always be changed. When you say overbearing and complex, i'm not sure. Anything besides the pendulum? Of course, it does need to fit FA guidelines to be appropriate to a worldwide audience, but to what level should things be taken? The vast majority of people who click on the page from google would be from south australians. Perhaps the pendulum needs explaining in terms of Malcolm Mackerras? I do think it the pendulum is an important and easy way in the way our democracy works to show the balance of power in the lower house of parliament who make up the government, ie: how Labor won government with 1 independent seat or how they were reduced to only 10 seats at the 1993 election. What i'm disappointed with is the lack of response I got when I lodged it for FA status. I tried a fair bit on the suggestions given but there weren't many. WikiProject Australian politics used to be a bit more active, but some of the more active people are online less now due to life/work commitments, it seems theres little contribution by anyone at the moment! Timeshift 14:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a colour change? Make the red and blue lighter? Colour the text differently? Timeshift 14:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going from the small amount of responses albiet helpful, what else do you think needs to be done to make it acceptable of FA status quality? Hiding the pendulum isn't going to do that... Timeshift 15:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.Timeshift 16:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas why nobody seems to want to respond to the request for FA status? Its been a few or several days and no replies as yet. Timeshift 16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Craigie

Thanks for the feedback. I was just looking at the article today and wondering where I could get an image of him. Cheers. --Roisterer 08:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Thankyou Gnangarra 12:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

This is inactive discussion. Please do not edit it.

Editor Review request

Hello, I noticed you've edited the Editor Review page, and I'm trying to get some feedback on my Review from admins/editors with experience. I wouldn't normally solicit, but it appears Editor Review doesn't get nearly the attention RfA does (and understandably so). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading. --Bobak 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email

Hi Michael: I've just sent you one. Tony 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

art gallery of south australia

I actually work for the AGSA and am trying to improve the pages with some of our standard information which we also publish on the SA Great website. Somebody seems to think we are just copying it from there. What do I need to do to actually get acurate info for which we are the source onto the Wiki? Kaj —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kajinoz (talk • contribs) 06:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Kevin Rudd

I understand if you thought the section was crap, but I think that it isn't an inappropriate idea, and I found your comment upsetting. See my comment there. Leon 06:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]