Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:30, 30 September 2007

WikiTownsvillian - Wikipedian since September, 2006.

Archives

1. Archive 1 - September 2006 to April 2007
2. Archive 2 - April to May 2007
3. Archive 3 - May to August 2007

Prester John

Hi WikiTownsvillian. You made a comment about Prester John's conflict of interest. Did you mean to say Peter Ballard? I think Peter Ballard may be a member of Family First. Lester2 11:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I don't at all mind that the above issue was raised in the Request For Comment section on the John Howard page. You probably saw there is another issue being discussed there: The issue of some editors quickly deleting content without following the guidelines here -> Misplaced Pages:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting.... Those guidelines seem to suggest that 'useful content' be retained (and not just deleted entirely), either by leaving it, moving the info to the Discussion page, or as you suggested to move it to a new article. I wondered if you also have an opinion on this to leave in the Request For Comment. Seeya, Lester2 00:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

One other thing: A five minute Google reveals more than one person with political affiliations who edits the John Howard page. I see a former Liberal MP, a current Family First member, and a former Canberra branch president of One Nation! Amazing! Lester2 09:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And a one-time independent candidate for parliament, if you include me. That's the problem with us political editors, we tend to like to get involved in the process. :P Orderinchaos 14:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

;) yes I see what you're saying, it's a fine line, but it's where someone is editing on wikipedia for the sole purpose of pushing an agenda where issues really come up, as I said to Lester I don't think being a member of a political party is really too much of an issue as there would be tens of thousands of members of parties, being more aware of issues within a party and being well connected to get good sources would be an advantage. it just seemed to me that PJ is pushing a partisan line on these pages which really should not be welcome. WikiTownsvillian 14:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know, my contribution to this particular conversation was only half serious :) I think one can be really anything as long as they abide by Misplaced Pages's rules on editing. I'm aware of a quite fanatical Nationals member for example preparing to produce a set of articles on past National leaders and as he got the info from solid reliable sources and painted a fair picture, I didn't have a problem with it. When certain editors get carried away with party (or, in my view even more worryingly, pressure group) POV, then we have a problem. Agreed re the current circumstances, it gets tiresome and annoying. Orderinchaos 15:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(BTW - by pressure group, I mean ALOR and PYF and all them.) Orderinchaos 15:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be because it's late but I have no idea what those two are :) perhaps Exclusive Brethren? WikiTownsvillian 15:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Australian League of Rights and Patriotic Youth (Front/League?). And yep, them too, although I don't think they'll be a problem on wikipedia :P Your idea is fantastic btw, along the lines of what I've been thinking is necessary for a long time. Orderinchaos 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You're a genius

Well done :-) Btw you might want to fix the Howard government redirect :P Timeshift 09:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all the same, but I might be holding back from any of that type of edit for a while. Read my user page. Timeshift 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your email? Timeshift 11:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just used the function for the first time :-) Just emailed. Timeshift 11:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Still there :P Timeshift 11:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian politics (diff; hist) (+5,168)... having fun? :-) Timeshift 06:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very motivated to discuss how an article on Howard should proceed. I think i'll keep sticking to the more dosile historical edits... apart from things like the edit I just made to the 2007 election article. :P Timeshift 06:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

... Yes, and no. Yes, in that in theory I agree with it, and No, in that I don't think any of us including me would put in nearly enough work to make two seperate distinct articles of a reasonable length for all the PMs. Pessimistic, perhaps... Timeshift 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Hey WikiTownsvillian, my apologies for unnecessarily giving you a new message banner. I just accidentally reverted your talk page and so I reverted myself. Sorry about that. The rollback button is rather inconveniently placed when it's after 2:30 in the morning and you keep falling asleep. I guess that's why you shouldn't be a bloody idiot and edit while drowsy! My apologies again. Regards, Sarah 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Marr

Thanks for that link. Interesting read, must have not read Crikey that day. I agree that the more blatant ideologues need labels. The thing with Marr is that he has been more a journalist, and only sporadically writes opinion pieces. In the last couple of years he has become somewhat of a cultural warrior, but if he becomes a regular part of the commentariat then he may need labelling. Also, most right-wing journos are described as "conservative." Any alternative for "left-wing?" Recurring dreams 12:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyall Howard

Hi WikiTownsvillian. Did you read the Lyall Howard article? It's up for deletion on the AfD list. What do you think? Does the article have any value? Should it be changed? Do you like / dislike it? Should it be deleted from Misplaced Pages? Thanks, Lester2 20:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why cant I ask whats FFP policy on hunting is, someone said they wher epro hunting before, I was asking for clarification

--Polygamist times 4 13:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Costello is new ACOTF

Hi. You voted for Peter Costello to be the Australian collaboration. The article has been selected for the next two weeks, and unprotected. Please help to improve it in any way you can. Thankyou. --Scott Davis 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Images over 50 years old of Prime Ministers

I'm looking at adding them to wikimedia commons, however I just want to check your opinion on how well the Images over 50 years old of Prime Ministers thus copyright-free line will hold up over there. Timeshift 00:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Newspoll

Indeed :-) Timeshift 14:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And a primary of 51%... holy crap... Timeshift 15:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Time

No, I'm arguing the reverse. Joestella's edits make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

As for the Gillard article, I simply felt the edits made the article more biased - they seemed aimed at tying her as closely to Latham's legacy as was possible with the effect of attaching some of that mud to her. Rebecca 13:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the point. I think some comment on this would be perfectly fair in the article, as she was one of his strongest supporters. However, to say that it was a big factor in her rise isn't, I think, that true - she was a rising star in the party well before Beazley took over, and indeed, Latham shifted her from high-profile immigration to lower-profile health. I just felt the specific edits went a bit overboard in that regard - it really did look as if the author was going out of their way to tie her to his legacy. Rebecca 13:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See here... we really do take it for granted when things on wiki are (relatively) peaceful, don't we. Timeshift 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jealousy?

The tables have turned. I'm jealous of a woman premier :P Timeshift 07:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm convinced Wiki's servers get mangled. Happened to me before, one makes a simple edit and it makes random unrelated changes. Orderinchaos 11:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

Yeah, images on wikipedia are a minefield, usually its US admins that come along and delete their images and technically they are right as they are still seen in public occasionally but very rarely. But my new photos all but solve those issues :-) Timeshift 06:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite an action shot, (ever seen Will and Grace? heh @ Annita) but thought it would remove any POV created by Howard's US pictures and Keating's asian pictures ;-) Timeshift 06:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A present dear Queenslander :P Timeshift 09:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically it's now the 13th :P Timeshift 15:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that :) Timeshift 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm kidding! I'll leave the finer details of QLD politics to you :P Timeshift 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just came across the QLD Premier template and saw Borbidge Beattie Bligh... bet you can't say that fast and five times over :D Timeshift 09:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Bligh

Yeah, I know, 10.30 tomorrow... I don't think these things happen at midnight, and I agree with you on technical accuracy of these things. I suppose you're talking about the succession box, I thought I was fixing it up but I guess you hid the word "incumbent" to be technically correct? --Canley 15:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, and I completely appreciate how frustrating it is watching Wikipedians "jump the gun" as it were like it's some kind of competition to be the one to add some recent news detail! I have certainly done that on occasion, and while I was trying not to here, that's how it may have been interpreted, and I apologise for any hassle. Anyway, I guess this will all be a moot point later this morning and we can concentrate on gathering some more references, which as you say will be plentiful I'm sure! Take care, --Canley 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the Gold Coast Bulletin article? If it's about her descendence from William Bligh, I would hazard a guess it wouldn't be relevant beyond a brief mention as it is at the moment. --Canley 22:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a fucking idiot mate! Stop fucking up other users contributions! 149.135.41.151 01:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK... I'll take that on board thanks for the feedback, but just for my info what contributions that I fucked up might you be referring to? WikiTownsvillian 06:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re your talk page post to me - a question - does Queensland have a book of the respectability of A New History of Western Australia (this book was contributed to by almost every historian of note from Perth in 1981 and, while slight on details in parts, is a very solid introduction), or any decent books covering a reasonably wide era in politics? I found the journal refs in the WA ones invaluable, and sort of went almost tree-like into the structure and now have literally hundreds of pages on which to improve Western Australian articles. This may be the way to go with Queensland, especially if you've got access to a uni library with generous lending terms like mine. If I had a bit more time I'd grab a couple of books on the ECU shelves about QLD and check - that may have to wait till December though. I agree that most politics stuff on Misplaced Pages is prone to both polemics and recentism - either overly pro or anti and ignoring the past. I actually intend to get Brian Burke to FA one day, before he became the devil (in Western Australians' eyes) he was one of our most high-rating and popular premiers ever, did a lot for the development of the state and for infrastructure and had 9 years before becoming premier as an MP. Orderinchaos 12:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough :) I get what you're saying now. Right now's a bad time for me as I'm buried in assignments, and probably will be for another week or two, but I'll be happy to cast a sideways glance at it and offer an outside opinion. Orderinchaos 12:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Interesting developments! Orderinchaos 05:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Fisher passed! Thanks for your offer anyway, always appreciated :-) Newspoll 55% ALP... as long as it sticks to the 55-57% average and doesn't drop below that (minus Galaxy), i'm happy. Timeshift 10:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious... Timeshift 07:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

To be sure I restored the images and checked again. The Anna bligh looks like a copyvio of . The other image from the same uploader I tagged as possibly unfree, I couldn't find the source anymore and assuming good faith here. I also left a message on the uploader's talk page. After I deleted the images I had to leave and did not had time to leave a message. Garion96 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Palm Island, Queensland

I agree, but expansion is the last thing the article needs! :-) Good luck with the FA attempt and if you want a fresh set of eyes to have a look at it at some stage please let me know. -- Mattinbgn\ 10:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cairns population

Hi mate how have you been, (I like the new user name) just wanting to know if you can help me out with something?. this User:Fosnez keeps changing the population figure of Cairns from the one on the ABS website to one from the Cairns post (over 140,000) and we all know that this is is not correct. So can I ask for input, as you have the brains needed to explain this to the user where as I don't know all the Wiki terms and links etc thank you Thuringowacityrep 10:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi TCR, thanks for the question, I've been watching the debate back and forth with interest.

The best tactic would be to open up a discussion on the talk page, two words of advice, your last edit summery comes a bit close to a personal attack for my comfort, you and I know well how easily things can deteriorate once discussion is reduced to non-constructive personal attacks, it's always to your advantage to maintain the higher ground.

Secondly, if he reverts you again, do not revert him otherwise you will breach WP:3RR and yet again loose the higher ground, there is no harm in the figure being 10K people off until we sort out on the talk page what is correct (there are way more controversial things out there!) ;-)

Your argument is that the ABS is a more reputable source. For example (from WP:SOURCE): "As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." You could also argue that the Cairns Post is not a neutral source on the issue of Cairns population as they have a vested interest in talking up Cairns, as does the Townsville Bulletin with regards to Townsville/Thuringowa.

Now as much as you and I can say that the Cairns Post is not neutral, it could also quite easily be argued by others that you and I as Thurvillians are also not neutral on this issue.

Your best bet would be to open up a discussion on the talk page and also at WikiProject Australian Places which will canvass the opinions of more people who will join the discussion without the discussion getting too heated hopefully! Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Want a funny pun as subject

Read away: . I've said SFA, and am as delightfully ambiguous as the rest of the media. I've reverted, saving us from possible litigation. Michael 09:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Think I should see an admin about permanently deleting the history? Wouldn't be a bad idea, although I don't *think* I could get into the brown stuff. Michael 09:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

LOL! And I thought she looked like a union hack before I knew who she was! That photo is gold. An excellent image of Rudd has been gained from it - pale Rudd no more! Timeshift 11:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agenda pushing

Would you care to explain this edit? You seem to have deleted this information for Paul Keating yet have left the exact same information intact for John Howard. Why is it relevant for Howard and not for Keating? Please try to apply some consistancy to your edits and DO NOT edit to advance a POV agenda you might have. Prester John 02:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Prestor please stop your trolling. It is obvious that he does not agree with the addition of monarchy-related, non-PM related information for any of them. Just because he does not go through every article removing it because he knows the argument must be won before he can make systemic changes, does not mean he has the same intentions you do. Short leash Prestor, very short. Timeshift 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)