User talk:Beneaththelandslide/Archive6

Heya - apart from expanding and finishing the rest of the tables for the electorates which aren't on the page anyway, I'm thinking that perhaps any concerns over it's suitability for FA status might be apparent to you? The intro looks a lot better now IMHO. Timeshift 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too am disappointed at the general lack of reviewing/criticisms of WP users and the lack of politics-orientated Australians on WP in general... any suggestions as to how we can overcome the barrier to make it achieve FA status? Timeshift 07:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jägerbombs are fantastic :-) Hope it was a good one. Thanks for your words, but where does that leave the article? It's stuck in a void IMHO as I believe it represents FA status and feel like i'm a bit stuck between a rock and a hard place with what to do. Timeshift 14:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice on the last comment for round 1, Tony was pointing out an objection due to 1a and 1d, being (a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).

Ok, so perhaps the prose isn't "brilliant" but I happen to think it's well written, and that it gives neutral and NPOV information to people. Would you agree in that Tony's issue has been addressed or do you think words being used need somewhat of a re-write? Timeshift 15:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, i've acted upon suggestions and was hoping for a second look at it. Also, if you're able to make a suggestion for the citation issue im having as per my comment on the above linked page, that would help out as well. Thanks for your continued input! Timeshift 16:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy again, anything else you can see that would prevent the article from becoming featured? Timeshift 09:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, as per the fac page, issues are again being raised, "Neutrality of some points, lead section and writing style (standard of prose needs to be "compelling, even brilliant") need work"... who was it you said that does proofreading and rewriting for people, as this is obviously a sticking point with some people. What sentences do you believe in particular are not neutral? I thought I had done a very good job with that... Timeshift 12:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :-) Timeshift 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey michael, can I get you to have a look at the latest objection on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/South_Australian_legislative_election%2C_2006 ? Most references cannot be found in hard copy, I think this user's objection is absolutely unreasonable. How can I resolve this, is there an admin I should go to, to get a judgement on this? Timeshift 08:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaargh, I really can't be bothered. I know that sounds lazy, but i've put so much work in to it, I really can't be stuffed going through all 80 references and finding them in hard copy/on the news lookup website. I don't spose you wanna do this bit for me, as I have done most of the improvements and fixes for the page before and after becoming an FA candidate? I'd be in your debt and you'd get a lovely barnstar from me ;-) Timeshift 08:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - this is a message being sent to all who have contributed comments in regards to this page becoming a featured article. I believe appropriate modifications have been made, please contribute any further comments you may have toward it's improvement, otherwise hopefully we can get some support comments happening! Thanks for your hopefully continued interest toward advancing the article. Timeshift 18:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! I can't believe it! Finally, after all those long nights of trying to keep everyone happy, it's there! It's my first featured article! :D Now I just need to find a new project... Timeshift 06:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'd invite you to reread my edits. I didn't claim that FF weren't environmentalists. I merely noted that they hold positions that are strongly opposed by "green activists" (and many more moderate environmentalists, for that matter), and pointed to their policy documents to demonstrate.

All political parties in Australia (with the possible exception of the DLP) are environmentalist to a greater or lesser degree. It's like claiming that all of them are in favour of the free market. What is of interest is how they stand in comparison to community attitudes and other political parties. --Robert Merkel 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey michael, just wondering if you got that book back to check on the historical SA population? Timeshift 11:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress? Timeshift 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does it contain historical population information? Specifically, the population of SA in 1965? Timeshift 04:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just said! The population of SA in 1965! The reason why is because for the Playmander districts picture, we have the metro and rural populations for 2006, but only the metro population for 1965, not the rural. If I can get the population of SA for 1965, I can subtract 0.7 mil from it to extrapolate the rural population. Timeshift 05:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :-) Timeshift 05:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This book that you have that's very detailed, I don't spose it contains upper house results for the SA elections during the 60's and 70's? Cheers for any info you have handy. Timeshift 12:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the case it doesn't have it, any other sources you could think of? The 1965-1977 senate elections are non-existant to a mess, i'm thinking it's really as far as I want to go with them, given the lack of online info... Timeshift 13:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Updated the elections as appropriate. Timeshift 14:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really nice to see you back and working on a new project again - I was afraid you'd joined the many FA writers who've quit over the last year. The article is looking fantastic so far - I'll be looking forward to reading the finished product. Rebecca 07:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. If you don't need the history of your edits thusfar to be in the main history, you can just add it over the top. Otherwise, I guess you'd have to get an admin to do a history merge, which I'm not sure how to do, but someone like Cyberjunkie might.

While I'm here, one of the things I've noticed about the Playford article is that it doesn't seem to say a whole lot about his social policy. We get his rise and fall, and his successes in industrialising the state, but I don't know if we get the rounded view of his time as Premier that we did in the Dunstan article. Rebecca 11:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for redirecting this article to Demographics of the United Kingdom. Maybe I should have been more "bold" myself. Anyway, good work. Alun 11:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice of you to say so, but I hope it's not true. I'm learning new things all the time, and others have their own critical contributions. I'm very busy in real life at the moment, but will try to have a look soon. BTW, I went to univ. college with one of his offspring. Feisty lad he was. Tony 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo. Great job on the Playford IV article andd I could find little to fault it. Other people might be more pedantic though, so I'll mention that some people may not like the red links. When I wrote the original article, I tried to hunt down information to create articles on the electoral districts he represented (Albert & Gumeracha) but without success. We may have to rely on newspaper reports for these. I also note the issue of mentioning the second Thomas Playford as "Thomas Playford I" and so forth. I understand why this is done but I can guess that many wouldn't. I'm unsure what we can do to solve this but I'm willing to hear suggestions. Finally, while this isn't important, I always liked the story about how Playford would find out that the PM of the day would be passing through Adelaide on a train bound for somewhere else. The train would usually stop for refueling at some ungodly hour of the morning and the PM would find himself woken up by Playford who would then harangue him for more funds. The PM would agree just to get rid of Playford and get back to sleep. I thought the story illustrated well just how dedicated Playford was to working for South Australia.

Anyway, well done on a fantastic job. Cheers --Roisterer 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work on your new project so far, already it is looking like a very good piece. We now have in place a very good source of information on South Australia and it's political history on Wikipedia, probably more so than any other source, except for disputedly the Parliamentary website itself. With 1965-current more or less now wrapped up, your contributions on Playford (not to mention Dunstan) to cover a few decades before that is really turning this in to something good :-) Timeshift 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - just need to find a length of time to have a good look. One thing I would suggest from the outset though is to include a table containing each of the elections he ran in, the two party preferred % and the number of seats won. If available though. Timeshift 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our friendly Adelaidian and Arbitrator Blnguyen pointed me to you when I asked him about this. I would be eternally greatful if you could. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so, so, so much! That completes the article, basically (except I need to find a PD picture of Sir Samuel Davenport, but you can't take a photo of him :P) Cheers, and thanks again, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*stammers more thanks* By the way, could you see my talk page - I asked a question about one of the images. Cheers - Beaumont House article is looking great now - and thanks again, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I advised an admin and they didn't seem very interested. The short answer to your questions, would be yes - it'd be nice to have an admin pay attention. The difference this time seems to be that the vast majority of his edits are to certain pop culture articles - a particularly odd obsession with B-grade female film stars. And horror films. Ie, apart from the odd change to Canadian articles he is not being a major disruption. He loves to dab London by adding England after it (ie, London, England), but will often remove Australia from Sydney. I spent a lot of time following his edits and reverting MOST of them as they were predictably poor. A minority were OK and I left them. But i soon got tired of this, particularly as he would just reinstate the changes, i had no interest in Chloe Seivgny or whoever! I built a lot of evidence. But I don't know what to do, he's currently just a poor editor, not a major disruption like beforeMerbabu 08:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I've created this page of evidence and poor editing, but i stopped collecting recently. [1] Merbabu 08:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Small Text[reply]

How can an article boast about spending 33 of its 40 years in power when there is no mention of the Playmander? Timeshift 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you are so adamant in removing it. As I said, the LCL would not have been in power for 33 of 40 years without it. An article cannot boast it without reasons for it. If you plan on redesigning it anyway, what difference does it make leaving the link there until then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Playmander - I hardly see it like confetti. It's linked where it matters. Timeshift 04:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I attend Blackwood Hills Baptist. Rocksong 04:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted you on Jack van Tongeren. Racism in .au is an appropriate category for that page. I'm inclined to think it's also appropriate for a couple of the others including Lambing Flat riots which was an anti-chinese riot. Sydney gang rapes was sort of reverse racism but I've left your edit in place. Freedom Ride (Australia) was very much a race issue. Also Fight Dem Back. I've reverted those two, and some others. I'm certainly didn't mass revert you. When in doubt, I left your edit in place. Other people will no doubt replace more of the tags before this all finishes. I guess my point is that even if the category was wrongly added sometimes (eg John Funder), that doesn't mean that every instance of it was wrong. Cheers, Ben Aveling 10:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I was wondering if you could make any comments or suggestions on the article I have up for FAC, on the Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Railway line in Sydney (see here); you commented on the peer review for the article, so you may like to do so on the FAC now. Thanks for any help you can give. JROBBO 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I prod'd this article because I don't see how it's notable. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. I've merged your drafts page into the article. Great article; should become FA with little effort. What article can we next expect to receive your Midas touch? And thanks for the well-wishes; Europe is wonderful, and it's finally snowed-over, after a long stretch of mostly mild winter weather. Happy editing, --cj | talk 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have called for Adam Carr to be blocked from Wikipedia. If you do not support this, I ask that you challenge it LibDeepThroat 05:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael - I agree with you 100%. But I don't need people like Adam Carr to discourage me from assisting you guys with Wikipedia. I don't need to be called a troll and a grub, just for asking a question and/or playing devil's advocate on Labor MP Michael Danby. Is it forbidden for me to inquire about Michael Danby being a former member of the Liberal Party. I was a former member of the Liberal Party, and I recall a former Liberal MP telling me that Danby was a Liberal before becoming Labor. I wanted to find out if this was true. I posed this question on Danby's discussion boards, and what do I get from Adam Carr that I'm a troll and a grub. I ask you Michael, is that a nice thing to say? I'll leave it at there. Open to questions. LibDeepThroat 05:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced Hon Geoff Connard, a former Liberal MP. I was stating a statement and questioning on it's validity and hoping someone who is a Danby supporter would bring some light to it. All I got was insults. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LibDeepThroat (talk • contribs) 05:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Less-than-congenial"? I'm shocked, deeply shocked, that anyone could think this. :) Adam 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Adam Carr's comments - what is he saying? Is that sarcasm? LibDeepThroat 10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I was hoping you might be able to offer your opinion for the MPL issue on this page or this page. Cheers. Timeshift 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any further opinion is welcome on this issue as it does not appear to be going away. I feel I am justified in this. Timeshift 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really pleased to see the fantastic work you've been doing over the last few weeks - I'd gotten so disenchanted with this place, and seeing some really good new articles appearing in my area of interest inspired me to give things another go.

One query with the Bannon article, however - it says that he was elected president of NUS in 1968, but NUS as we know it didn't exist until 1987. Was this the AUS instead, or was there a predecessor organisation also called NUS? Rebecca 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of the over-combative culture of this place, and persistently having to argue with ignorant fools. I'm also more and more frustrated with the endless bureaucracy, and the ongoing drift away from actually writing articles, as the number of bureaucratic-types we get start to even more vastly outnumber the people capable of actually doing really good work.

This, for me, came to a head in December in the form of a few bureaucrats - people who couldn't write even a good stub if you put a gun to their head - trying to chase off no less than five excellent FA writers, because they had, at some point, somehow pissed the bureaucrats off. I hold little hope that anything much will improve across the project, either - the project has passed the point of critical mass, and at least in some cases, the fools are running the asylum.

Despite all of the noxiousness, though, I do enjoy the researching and the writing process, and it allows me to do research into various areas of interest and actually put it towards some useful purpose. (As irritating as it is to work on, Wikipedia is still one hell of a resource.) I'm inspired to keep going, too, by the good work of others, particularly on Australian topics. I guess the one saving grace with my areas is that the noxious atmosphere hasn't really infected the Australian articles as such, but I've been dragged into it on meta-issues too often not to be bitter. Rebecca 04:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we need people like you Michael, to be admins. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But that's fun and often needed ;-)--cj | talk 10:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rebecca 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi michael, can you confirm that the LCL did indeed become the LPA in 1973? Timeshift 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article so far, and quite informative. Any thoughts on whether this might be a future FA for you? It would be a fascinating topic to research. Timeshift 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The LM's colour, purple, was described by observers as "LCL blue with a dash of Labor red", signifying the faction's location on the political spectrum." Are you just temporarily removing this quote as a part of the wider improvement of the article, or did you plan to remove this alltogether? Timeshift 02:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. After looking at this again I realised that it had only been moved. I'm not fully with it today, please accept my apologies. Timeshift 02:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Adelaide town hall 1950.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 88.134.44.28 15:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi michael - if I upload (with a fair use rationale) this and this picture, do you think you might be able to re-place the images on Don Dunstan to fit them in? I think the photos are rather good IMHO... Timeshift 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone gets old :-) He does look old, but there is something quite gentlemanly about him in them. Dunstan1997a.jpg and Dunstan1997b.jpg - hopefully you can squeeze the photos in to his page. Timeshift 22:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the elusive hunt for a good contemporary photo of Dunstan, I happen to find this one amusing on multiple levels :) - is it worth adding this and this as tribute links to the bottom of Dunstan's page? Timeshift 08:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might pass. Interestingly, unlike almost any other webpage like it, there is no copyright, or disclaimer, or any other sort of rights reservation by the owners of the site, on *any* part of the site. In the absense of any copyright warnings, Image:DunstanIn1973.jpg :-) Timeshift 08:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep me updated via my talk page on news related to the Sarah Hanson-Young article, whether it is put into userspace, or deletion overturned or endorsed, please let me know. — coelacan talk — 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Records here are a bit hazy, especially for the upper house due to the various electoral changes that occured and the LM etc. I wasn't sure I had the results right, I notice you just made a change. I'm not saying you're wrong, I hope you're right, but just wondering where you got the info? One of the new books you have perhaps? Timeshift 09:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it say exactly? I can't figure out how in the LC, the ALP goes from 4 to 10 with only 6 elected (2 members terms would have expired), with LIB going from 16 to 9 with only 3 elected (8 members terms would have expired)? Timeshift 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words ! Got some more work before it flows for me as well as your effort on O-Bahn Busway, but I hope to have it up for consideration for a star in March...unless this addictive site leads me astray in the meantime- Peripitus (Talk) 05:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When should we expect User:Beneaththelandslide/drafts/Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study to replace or merge with Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study? It's already a lot longer. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your version already looks more comprehensive. Maybe it's time to tidy up and merge into article space, even though you know there's still a lot more work. Quick merge would be keep the existing article as lead section of the merged one. There's a few dodgy bits at the top of your Modbury Freeway section (from Elizabeth along the Torrens? - with no metric length). Apart from that, the history needs a couple subheadings, and the empty sections need to be commented or deleted. Then nominate it for WP:ACOTF to get help :-) --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words! I know there is a WP style guide, perhaps I'll make some suggestions one day. Rocksong 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Victorian election campaign. Grumpyyoungman01 04:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! a vote for delete! You rebel you :-) Grumpyyoungman01 08:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A big congratulations on Tom Playford getting FA. Any thoughts on what you will turn your impressive writing skills towards next? --Roisterer 09:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's the Liberal Movement page. Timeshift 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not implying that the Australian Greens are deliberately vandalising Family First articles. I think the reason is simpler: there are more Christian-bashers than Greenie-bashers in the online world, and so more childish vandals target Family First and the like. Nothing more than that. Don't judge any group by the behaviour of their idiots. Just clean up and move and on. Rocksong 03:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Adel panorama.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. KFP (talk | contribs) 21:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the life of me, I cannot understand how you could possibly think leaving an article talk page comment like this [2] is within the realm of acceptable. You were warned twice and I don't care if you think a person is the scum of the earth, speaking to another editor like that will not be tolerated. You have the night off, on me, and please don't come back until you are willing and able to collaborate productively with other editors and treat them with some basic human dignity and consideration. If I ever see anymore of your unpleasant or otherwise disruptive messages or personal attacks directed at any editor, I will block you for a longer period of time. So don't say you haven't been warned. And if you don't want to be spoken to like you're a nasty spoilt child, don't act like one. Sarah 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not unblocked within 24 hours I will not be returning to Wikipedia. This is an absolute joke. michael ^talk 04:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Whilat I think it was a bit extreme to block michael considering his long-standing contributions to the wikipedia community, he did perhaps get a bit too angry and subsequently used a couple of golden words in frustration. I think everyone needs to take a step back - for the record, I do see where michael is coming from in regards to the ways admins carry themselves on here, but a few choice words used by michael did not advance the case. I suggest we all take a deep breath and move on - the last thing we need is another person to stop contributing to Australian politics, especially michael. Timeshift 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why it happened, and agree solidly that the comment left was entirely unsuitable, but it would probably not be an action I would have taken. Michael and I have had the odd runin in the past but he's an editor of good standing and considerable ability who has contributed several FAs. While this should also not be a "get out of jail free" card, I think it should be taken into consideration. As Blnguyen says below, some articles are hotter than others (I've just come out of the steaming ghetto that is what may well at one stage have been the Stephanie Adams talk page and this stuff is mild by comparison :) Orderinchaos78 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and get an unblock. The Pauline Hanson talk page has been the source of some heated comments by many people, including one guy who keeps on referring to his opponents as "Hansonites", and another user who also used the word "mongrel" in an edit summary during the revert - in general I find that Australian editors, and particular on politics articles, including admins, do tend to make frank comments. I think they were in poor taste and unhelpful, but I don't know how a straight block on a person of your contributions is either, as it wasn't to the level of being disruptive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed Sarah regarding this. Daniel.Bryant 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye! michael ^talk 12:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, if you are still here, you have been unblocked per consensus. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of with this sort of fucking bullshit. Michael's persistent abuse of other editor's should be unacceptable. He claims he has a free pass on behavioural policies because he doesn't intend to RFA and I guess he's right. I've had it with watching abusive people given free passes because they happen to be mates with the right people. If you wanted to help Michael you'd tell him that his abuse is unacceptable. You can keep your abusive editor. That's it from me, I've had it. Sarah 01:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound like a prick, but didn't you use language in that post for which michael was blocked for? Timeshift 10:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could very well be why "cooling off" blocks are not encouraged.MikeURL 00:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble's a'brewin... Timeshift 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rann will become the longest serving truly democratically elected premier of SA myself :-) Timeshift 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't go on "anti-Lib trips". It's not my fault the Libs are as you put it "fucking themselves up" and Labor are reasonably clean in comparison to other state governments, i'm just the messenger. Nothing forced me to add the $700 million Workcover liability to the SA article, I always try and maintain to be unbiased. Timeshift 09:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Clipsal_500.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Iamunknown 03:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Adel Convention Centre.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 04:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Adelaide_panorama_hills.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 04:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Adelaide_City_Torrens.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be most happy to help you out, just bare with me a couple of days I am a bit busy IRL at the moment.Teiresias84 14:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post on CJ's talk page and thought I'd give it a quick look over. It looks fantastic, but I've got a couple of suggestions.

1) Would it be possible to get a full list of the LCL reps, both from when it was a faction and then a separate party, perhaps at the bottom of the article?

2) I wonder if the "Background" section couldn't be made a bit clearer as to the internal tensions pre-existing the battle over electoral reform; as it stands, its very Millhouse-focused, and I think it would be handy to explain more clearly where his support came from.

3) Some of the grammar in a few places is a touch strange; it might be handy to have someone run through and do a copyedit.

4) You explain the ideological issues quite well at the time of the LM still being a faction, and I did notice the paragraph about the LM's 1975 platform, but I still think it could be clearer as to if and how the LM differentiated themselves once they became a separate party - perhaps more detail would come in handy.

5) I wonder if it couldn't be expanded a touch in a few places, especially the sections covering the period between the split and the re-merger.

That said, as usual for your projects, it's an excellent article, and feel free to ignore any of the above. :) Rebecca 10:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi michael - as per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rocksong&diff=113841491&oldid=108982689 I was wondering if you could also take a quick look at the content. I have had a good read of the Liberal Movement... it is very solid on quality as you are well known for, but I just feel as though it doesn't get deep enough in to personal politics with people concerned as was previously mentioned, which you say is hard to describe as it's hard to get a NPOV form with that area. Is there any way to, because really, personalities, especially within a small party, is more often than not what defines a party. Timeshift 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Also, would you mind assisting me to be a third party? I've had it with Joestella. I'm not going to get in to another war, but it looks like he wants to get rid of all the leader tables for historical elections too and put that bloody redundant results box there which is simply repeating info further down. do you have a suggestion/compromise/something to come to the table with? Cheers :P Timeshift 07:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]