User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2010 03

PD

Hope you enjoyed the MAWA PD where I'm told you met my better half, small world isn't it? --Hughesdarren (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I know!! I did enjoy (and learned a lot as well). It is a small world indeed! Orderinchaos 10:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FF

Many thanks for helping clear that up. Another possibility with the SPI is USydPolitics (talk · contribs) (not sure how to add it to the SPI myself). Frickeg (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear

Have wandered into the WP Politics Project page viz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Politics my feeling is that blood has been spilt in there :| - any thoughts of which or what is the state of things in that realm? Its just that the whole kaboodle is horribly under-tagged vis a vis project tags - offline response is preferred - cheers SatuSuro 06:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:LandInfo WA borked again

I'm not sure if you're already aware, but it seems that Landgate have restructured their webpages about town and suburb names again. Now, as far as I can tell from the Perth metro suburb names page, it's impossible to link directly to a particular letter, much less a particular suburb. Maybe it's possible with bookmarklets, but JavaScript is not one of my areas of expertise. I'm not sure if anything can be done about this, but I thought I'd let you know. Maybe a temporary solution would be to just link to the main suburb/country town pages and let the user find the letter and place name that they want? Graham87 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Graham87 05:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) Sorry I didn't respond, I've been snowed under with non-Wiki related work. Orderinchaos 13:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

122.107.175.135

Could you block 122.107.175.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as they continue to add flagicons (example) after the warnings and first block but have been at it again. Bidgee (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Crook/WA Nats

Do you have a view on this? Timeshift (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Greengobbie92

Can you give Greengobbie92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a short block as they keep adding OR and copyrighted content to articles? I've already warned the editor for uploading File:Australia and tasmania climate map.png and adding OR and copyrighted text (twice not just once[1][2]) from the DECC's NSW climate page. Bidgee (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor is back and yet again continues the OR (sources used don't even state the content added) and re-added the copyrighted text but trying to hide it by using a fake source (IE: Not the true source which it was taken from and it is also unreliable). Bidgee (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - have investigated and now set a longer block, with an option for him to get unblocked sooner if he agrees to reasonable conditions. Orderinchaos 01:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

They are at it again! Also they have admitted to be the sock of King kong92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is a pity they seem to think they are not at fault when they are clearly adding copyrighted content with a fake source and adding fake sources to cite OR. Bidgee (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Unrelated to the socks, and pre-that; my involvement comes before (I think) most of the socking. Give me a link to the SPI and I'll try and leave any relevant comments/info I can think of. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Godwin Grech

Hi Orderinchaos. Having looked up what information there is on Godwin Grech, and read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin Grech, I think that Godwin Grech should redirect to OzCar affair. What do you say? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you but a better place to ask would be WT:AUSPOL. I'll forward it there. Orderinchaos 19:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Did the one conversion as requested. The other was done a while ago. Imzadi 1979 → 07:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Margins are not percentages

Hi, it's inconvenient, but mathematically necessary, to avoid expressing percentage points as percentages. "Percentage of what?" is the question. Of 100, in this case, not of the incumbent's percentage of the vote. That is going to get us into a fix. I appreciate that it wasn't the most aesthetically pleasing change, but may I ask whether you think the tables should generally be revamped? They're used in all state-based articles, it seems. The colours are pretty garish, aren't they? And the columns really should be headed with descriptors, especially for foreign readers, who might not understand immediately that "ALP" et al. are parties. The "v" is US legal terminology for "versus"; I don't think it's good here.

What do you think? Tony (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The reversion was just an "ouch, my eyes!" reaction. There's probably a solution which would involve omitting the suffix entirely as the lead for it clearly says that the figures are percentage points.

I personally think the tables suck as an idea, so I'm not the one to ask - the creators know my views on the subject :) As I recognise though that they will likely stay on current election articles, I'd be in favour of using more natural colour and using the word "Labor" in place of ALP. Whoever put the "v" there was copying off [3] - I'm not actually sure what it should be. I'm not sure how headings could be accommodated without cluttering it. Orderinchaos 14:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TheScream7

A second look at TheScream7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) shows that it is unlikely that he had sockpuppet accounts associated with the other accounts investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MileyFan1990/Archive#Clerk.2C_patrolling_admin_and_checkuser_comments. The problem of him editing Bob Day as part of a group of associates who were editing that article remains. I am not going to unblock him without discussing the matter with the community and his editing with him. Fred Talk 18:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm happy for him/her to be set aside from the sockpuppet issue - I was surprised by the link, and I'm still inclined to believe they're a different person, so we can deal with them as such. This person didn't engage in the crazy attacks on the other editors and did engage in good faith with suggestions made. Orderinchaos 05:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

• If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
• If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

• You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Rose Park & Toorak Gardens Ward

Re the matter on my talk page

If you wish to challenge the guy's Arbcom ban under the terms of WP:AE, please take up a case there. Otherwise, I'd note that I actually kept several articles written by this guy because they seemed to be on reasonable topics and were likely to be maintained, even though I would vote for their deletion at AfD personally on the usual notability grounds, and deleted more than 100 redirects many of which had nothing to do with Burnside. I was acting to circumvent obvious disruption, and it's incumbent upon me as an admin to do so. But I don't understand what that has to do with the two simple questions I asked you.

I will not be engaging further on the matter of the ward redirects. Orderinchaos 02:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you two simple questions. You have half-answered one of them, and ignored the other.

You have also said a LOT of other things that I don't understand, and although I'm sure it is important stuff, and I don't wish to devalue its importance, it is of no relevance or interest to me.

Hence, I have NO idea what you are talking about.

As I've already said, I'm sure you are quite right. But what you are saying means nothing to me - I don't know anything about the background or context of this situation, and in any case, it is only vaguely and peripherally related to the two simple questions I have asked you.

Just in case you need some reminder of my questions, (which I hope is unnecessary, but never-the-less ... ), I have asked you:

• 1) What is the "implausible typo" you keep referring to, but never explain?
• 2) What is it about the "Rose Park & Toorak Gardens Ward" page that led you to delete it?

You have answered, to question 2), "It was a redirect, not a page".

Thank you. I found that somewhat informative and somewhat helpful. So I asked for clarification:

• 2.1) What did it redirect to?

I continue to await your answer to question 1, and I await your answer to question 2.1 Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you want me to respond to your other comments or not.

If you don't, then I've mis-understood you, and I'm wasting my time.

If you do, well, here goes:

If you wish to challenge the guy's Arbcom ban under the terms of WP:AE, please take up a case there. - I'm somewhat confused by the fact that you have made this comment.

Quick respone: No, I don't wish to, and I never have wished to.

Longer answer: I do not understand how you have extrapolated from my two simple questions to that comment. I have NEVER said ANYTHING that might even vaguely imply that. I just don't understand you on that one.

Otherwise, I'd note that I actually kept several articles ... - Well good on you! Well done! But I don't understand what that has to do with the two simple questions I asked you.

I was acting to circumvent obvious disruption, and it's incumbent upon me as an admin to do so. - I agree. As you say/imply, that's the responsibility you took on when you accepted adminship.

But I don't understand what that has to do with the two simple questions I asked you.

I would strongly advise ... if you feel the City of Burnside article is in need of ... - Sorry? Now I'm completely confused! I don't understand what that has to do with the two simple questions I asked you.

this is the normal place in which ward information would be stored. - Have I as last identified something relevant?

Is this all about: "These additions are in the wrong place?"

If so, I think I now understand, and if I do, I agree with you.

If not, well, I continue to be confused.

I will not be engaging further on the matter of the ward redirects. - That's fine by me, because I have never come even vaguely close to that topic. The questions I have asked you have nothing to do with "ward redirects", whatever that might mean.

Meanwhile, I would really appreciate a useful and relevant answer to:

• 1) What is the "implausible typo" you keep referring to, but never explain?
• 2.1) What did it redirect to?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The amount of energy you have channelled into this issue suggested to me that you were seeking to enable the other user's disruption. That was my biggest concern. In general over the times we have interacted at various places I have found you to be a good faith user and in part this is why your approach to this has utterly confused me.

I have already answered question 1 several times. I'll attempt to do so more clearly. There was a walled garden of redirects - over 40 related to this one Burnside topic alone. This is a common tactic practiced by disruptive accounts because they count on us not watching what's going on. New article patrol only picks up newly-created articles, so what they do is while they have the chance they sneak a bunch of redirects in under the radar. They get blocked, the articles done under their own account get nuked, but they've quietly set up the situation where rather than creating a new article and getting detected, they can edit an existing one (i.e. a redirect) into a page. Given that we're dealing with a hardcore serial offender with about 1.5 years experience and about 200 detected accounts and a history of highly combative editing, blatant BLP violations (several of which ended up on OTRS a few months ago) and even physical threats to one Wikimedian's place of employment, I am not going to give them an inch. I've watchlisted the articles I decided to keep, I've deleted *all* of the redirects without exception (it took me quite a while to do), and as far as possible have blocked all detectable accounts which the checkuser people hadn't already blocked. They'll be back, and trying to do more, I'm just ensuring by doing what I have done that it gets picked up quickly by the people running automated checks meaning that not-often-here Australian users don't get landed with some massive problem or, God forbid, we start getting legal threats from Burnside councillors or staff via OTRS. If you're not getting it at this point, I may deliberately have picked a less controversial/inflammatory deletion reason with an awareness of WP:IAR given the rather unusual situation which applies, especially since I couldn't completely prove until some 28 hours after the deletions that I was definitely correct about the users' identity as they'd used some previously undetected accounts (although it was beyond certain due to MO). Orderinchaos 14:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and in reply to one point, yes, the City of Burnside page is the best place to document wards, especially if the page is heading towards B/GA/FA standard. A discussion of present wards and some history from published sources (or even official publications such as Government Gazettes or other official records) makes for an interesting addition to the primary topic. Orderinchaos 14:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, it's amazing how easy it is for humans to fail to communicate.

The more I experience it, the more I gain respect for ambassadors who are doing it in a foreign language!

(But that's another story. If it's of interest to you, drop me an email ... )

The amount of energy ... - Hmmm. What can I say? "Appearances can be deceptive"!

and in part this is why your approach to this has utterly confused me. - I'm still puzzled by that. I thought I asked two pretty simple questions. I still think they are pretty simple questions. I now understand that there is/was a LOT going on in the background, and it is/was that "stuff" that you were/are focussed on. But I still have difficulty understanding how you put so much baggage on top of two such (seemingly to me) "simple" questions. I'm not going to push it any further, but I'm wondering if you realise that you still haven't answered the questions. Given that you have gone to SO much effort to explain the context and background to me, I have great difficulty understanding why you haven't answered the questions. This isn't any sort of attack or request - it's simply an observation that I felt may be of interest to you.

No. Sorry. I can't resist it. Which article did it redirect to?

I don't want to be or sound too cynical, but my reaction to the rest of your response is: "Why would ANYBODY willingly want to become a WP Admin?" I'm not soliciting an answer, but if you wish to provide one, I'll be fascinated to read it.

Thanks for perservering with this. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to the last bit, I sometimes wonder myself, and it probably explains the decreased number of active admins and the almost complete decline in people putting themselves forward for RfA nowadays. I nominated at a much easier time in WP's history (2007). In 2007, my state project was the place to be - around 15 active users, constant activity, new topics appearing out of nowhere, reasonably frequent meetups. Now, almost everyone has either retired, cut back their activity, or still edits but not on WA topics. Aus Politics used to be a hive of activity, it's one of the few places where there still is activity, but it's pretty much five people. I'm hoping that my sharing of sources (by the old fashioned method of CD-ROMs in the post!) will help that project at least. Oh, and I really got my eyes opened when I got access to OTRS, which is like Wikipedia's "back of house" email system where people write in and make confidential requests - while many of them are rejected due to not being actionable things, I have seen some incredibly sad and disturbing examples there of how this thing we all do for a hobby intrudes on people's real lives. Also what I'd call examples of organised sockpuppetry which exceed anything that was going on when I became an admin in sophistication - much of it related to the Scientology area. Although less active than I was (due in different parts to offline activity but also a level of burnout), I keep my bit for the same reason I nominated - basically to help out where I can. I apologise for my testiness in earlier correspondence - that too comes down to human factors - I'm tired, I'm stressed and I'm busy, mostly for reasons entirely unrelated to WP, and I seem to (as usual) have ended up helping at a time when I had the time and energy, and being asked to account for that help at a time when I don't. (At least it's not like the times I have blocked or unblocked people and watched my talk page go into meltdown and seen dispute resolution measures breeding more quickly than flies - that's an unbelievably common occurrence for some admins, but thankfully I've mostly avoided it.) I'm waiting for an email back before I respond to the original questions, although I must admit I don't understand the need for an answer to them. Orderinchaos 16:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens! It would seem "I don't know the half of it"! Both fascinating and disturbing at the same time.

I'm waiting for an email back before ... From me? Or are you talking about someone else? If me, that implies you have sent me an email - when did you send it? (I don't seem to have received it.)

FYI, I've decided I need to go on wikibreak until the end of the month or I will NEVER get the family's income tax returns done in time. Talk to you next month. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Woo Hoo! Finished last night!! 3 days before the deadline!!! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Falling rain

See User talk:Xeno#Falling rain. People are still continuing to use the data from that site which is obviously grossly inaccurate. The attempted listing was declined which is an extremely clumsy decision given that we know falling rain to mostly be false and have evidence to prove it. What do we do? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WAM Userbox

User:VirtualSteve has retired from Wikipedia and deleted his user content including User:VirtualSteve/WAM that you and I were also using. Seeing as you're an adminstrator could you undelete it and/or put it in your user area, or elsewhere. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Done - thanks for bringing it to my attention. Now at User:Orderinchaos/WAM. Orderinchaos 20:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Western Australian state election, 1993

1. You haven't cited any source.
2. Why do the sources differ? They're covering the same election.
3. I suppose the WAEC source you're referring to is this. It doesn't give any primary vote counts by party. I have no idea where the primary vote count comes from.
4. The primary votes don't tally; they add up to 911,095, not 911,478. The UWA source does add up to 911,478.
5. The Liberal percentage in the election result infobox really is closer to 44.1, not 44.2. 402,402 divided by 911,478 is 44.148%.

Miracle Pen (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look it up at the State Library again once I have a chance. It may have been an issue that I was going off a bad photocopy of the publication when I was doing the work from it (the publication being the official return from the WAEC which is not online anywhere). The UWA source is occasionally way out of whack (I've got numerous documented incidences of that) although is usually on target. Orderinchaos 02:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to put a timeline on this, it won't be this week as I have a list of offline stuff I must attend to before Saturday pm. My guess at this stage is Monday 11th. Orderinchaos 16:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Tusmore

Thank you. My apologies. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It was my mistake - I'd seen the edits and mistakenly thought them to be by one user when they were actually by two, so I inadvertently wiped out a correct, good faith edit by a regular user along with a watering-the-walled-garden edit by a sock. Orderinchaos 14:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GPT Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GPT Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Help needed - Australian Labor Party split of 1955

Hi Orderinchaos,
Thanks for your improvement to the article. "The Split" is arguably the single most important event in post-federation Australian politics. For example, if it wasn't for The Split, Tony Abbott may well have lead the ALP to win the 2004 Federal Election. I would argue that the article is just too important for one user - my training is in Languages and Literature - to work on. That said, I have a store of paper and online references ready to go. Could we possibly work together - along with every other wikipedian who choses to add their help, of course - on the article?
Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You wrote

What I've always found most odd about the 1955 split was that although it had major impacts with the creation of a conservative "balance of power" federally, it only seriously split the Labor Party in one state - Victoria - and had almost negligible impact in Tasmania and WA where Labor were at that time in government (the WA Labor Party were dominated by economically left wing, socially conservative Catholics so there was no obvious point to split on, and I suspect the same was true in Tasmania.) Queensland was its own weird case where long-running tensions over whether the Premier or Trades Hall should lead the party split it in two. The national splits were always weird - the 1916-17 split completely bypassed Tasmania while the split in WA was not even over conscription. One other odd thing while it occurs to me, is that the two splits, while damaging in the short and medium term to the ALP's prospects, made it into a more unified party. At each stage, they lost conservative, right-wing elements who had drifted into the ALP through unionism rather than ideological sympathy. In Victoria the size of the split drove the remainder of the ALP so far to the left that the Federal party had to take it over in 1970 to make them electable nationally.

And every single point you make (with appropriate refs, of course) should be in the article. When it was still in my sandboxspace, I asked Jack of Oz (I'm sure you don't need a wikilink to know who we're talking about) about it, and he was as surprised as we are that there wasn't already an article about it.

I think "Australian Labor Party split of 1955" may well be a shoo-in for a GA, and quite possibly may be a FA candidate, considering its importance + the refs + pix and everything else available.

But where to start? The article is potentially:

• very compact - Title=Australian Labor Party split of 1955; sections = 1954, 1955, short-term consequences
• compact - Title=Australian Labor Party split of 1955; lead; sections = background, Chifley, 1954, 1955; short-term consequences; long-term consequences ...
• huge - Title=Australian Labor Party split of 1955; lead; section = background
  subsection = formation of the Labor party and Catholicism,
  subsection = "Rerum Novarum" and the labor movement in Australia,
  subsection =Mannix and conscription,
  subsection =Scullin and the Great Depression;
  subsection =Formation of "The Movement"

... and so on.

I'm looking round for an article that could be a good template to start with.

--Shirt58 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Whyalla

FYI, I agree. Soliciting your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Vic elections

Extended content

I don't think anybody wants the stale uninformative old Victorian results infoboxes. Can you gain consensus before deviating? Timeshift (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Better factually correct than wrong. And the situation's ridiculous - it exposes the fact all our photos of Victorian premiers suck. Orderinchaos 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC) What's wrong? The situation is not rediculous. And "photos suck" is not a reason either. PM and opposition leader images used to suck too. Then the non-free ones got removed. And during all this time, sucky photos and image placeholders is what got federal elections to where they are today. Good quality, free images for every single election except for Hewson/1993. Timeshift (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC) The state situation is unlikely to ever change - there isn't the critical mass in each state to make it happen (hell, we hardly have the critical mass at federal level any more as you know, just that we did at a crucial time in the last couple of years). The situation is blatantly ridiculous - the new box refers to "elected Premiers" which do not exist in our jurisdiction, ignore the multi-party nature of Australian politics, give a misleading impression (the WA 2008 election = a classic case) and like I said are ugly. Orderinchaos 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC) And while you're sitting here arguing with me about this, the Victorian 2006 election article is a complete and utter dog's breakfast for reasons entirely unrelated to its infobox. It's a hangover of the same mentality that produced the Victorian election campaign article (now deleted) and it's embarrassing as the article's now getting significantly more hits than it was. Orderinchaos 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Your lack of good faith by describing my wanting for the best encyclopedia it can be as "sitting here arguing with you about this" is disappointing. You cannot use other bad areas as a justification for including more bad. In terms of which parties are realistically capable of having a Premier in their party, there are only two. If you have an issue with "elected Premiers", then change the wording. But you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I suggest you come to the table and discuss this without malice. Timeshift (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Seriously, you don't see that this is exactly the stereotype Wikipedia stuff that gives it a bad name in academic and other circles? I am here during the middle of exam prep trying to help the encyclopaedia with the little bit of spare time I have by fixing a horrendous article which is high-visibility, and my time is being wasted over a stupid infobox. Reminds me of the arguments over at John Howard back in the day where people would get themselves blocked over a single line or placement of an image in an article. And the whole "discussion" thing is silly when basically you, me and maybe Frickeg are probably the only people who will have an opinion on it - I doubt anyone else cares. Orderinchaos 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Please wind in your attitude. I want a better encyclopedia. The newer infobox gives an entire summary of the article - major parties, leaders and their images, dates, seats, 2pp, which premier came out victorious, etc. If your infobox was better then wouldn't it have gained consensus for federal? Otherstuffexists is not valid. You say you're in the middle of an exam and that you're wasting your time over a stupid infobox, and you appear to be giving angered emotional responses. To me this seems like a contradiction. Maybe let the state infoboxes be consistent with the federal ones if it is wasting your time over a stupid infobox and you have exams to do? At the least, let the discussion occur without heated responses. Please. I want a better encyclopedia. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Please stop bothering me on my talk page. It's now seriously getting in the way of my efforts to improve the encyclopaedia. The 2006 article is an embarrassment and this morning's the only chance I have to fix it before the election itself (my last exam is the 26th) Orderinchaos 23:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Poor form. Timeshift (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC) And in 40 minutes, I've managed to look at the other window containing Vic 2006 just once, and haven't even read the PC for it yet. Seriously, *no one cares* about your infobox crusade, which I've been forced to waste that limited time on. What people *do* care about is content. And when our efforts are being dismissed by staff of key decision makers as "Wikipedia's election articles are like a bad high school essay" (an actual quote from a Facebook PM), I don't know about you, but as someone that has worked to increase the quality and professionalism of articles on the topic (as I know you are also), that really rankles, and I can't actually argue this point because he can take apart the article in question so easily. Orderinchaos 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC) If nobody cares, then why are you the one (and only one) leading the anti crusade? It's the infobox used on all federal elections, and after extensive debate! Your heated emotional responses are very disappointing to me, especially as you are an administrator. I am unsure why you are not able to debate this rationally and without emotion, and why you seem to have an irrational hate of the new infobox, and use fallacies to try and prevent it's use. I'm at a loss. Timeshift (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I started to edit the article, noticed the infobox had been changed and the new one was a monstrosity, and fixed it. Soon realised it extended further back than 2006, so fixed the others too. Took me about 5 minutes. Timeshift, you are so unbelievably distracted from what actually matters on this project that you can't see the forest for the trees. Please let me fix the Victoria 2006 article!! It's now getting ridiculous - if there was a "block" button on this thing as with Facebook, I'd be hitting it right now. Orderinchaos 23:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC) So far, you're the only of the commenting editors to take your position, and you're debating with heat and anger. You're an administrator. Take a step back. I'm extremely happy with what i've contributed to the project over the years. I think it's much much better than it's ever been, but nothing is perfect - continuous improvement. I tinker far more these days because so much has been added, everything I want is there. All SA/fed elections, leaders, good detail, etc. But just because I want to change more over to the fed election infobox, is no excuse for you to smear my intentions or types of contributions. Timeshift (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I never criticised your contributions on state election articles in SA - we both have a lot to be proud of, as do Frickeg and Canley. I am talking about your behaviour now (and it wouldn't be the first time that you've started wildfires for no better reason than lulz). What this has to do with me being an administrator is beyond me. Orderinchaos 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC) The new infobox is far better... it's on the fed and SA elections, the Vic elections came, some had already been converted. I improved them all up to near-acceptable-standard. You came along and reverted back to the old infobox with primary votes and seats and nothing else. Then our exchanges started, and anyone reading the chain of events can easily see our attitudes, responses, and emotion, particularly yours. Read what's been posted. I don't get where you're coming from, you have one or two correctable issues but you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You whack me down with anger. Plainly simple as that. I don't get it. And I demand you back down on your continual bad faith accusations of "starting wildfires". I want the better infoboxes because they are better for the encyclopedia. This is why I mention you're an admin, it is not good behaviour. How about we just stop responding here, and let the discussion on the election talk page take its course? Timeshift (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I am frustrated because I came here this morning, with limited time available, to fix a festering wound on the skin of WP:AUSPOL. You have successfully wasted most of the time I had available for this with an inane, WP:POINTy argument about an infobox. The Vic 2006 article probably won't be fixed now, the staffers can keep on badmouthing us to their mates, and nothing has been achieved. I'm not sure why you're so proud of that. And LOL - anyone who knows you or has ever worked with you on here would agree with me on the wildfires. I've had many a discussion over the years with other editors (not just Australian ones) about it - in many of which I was trying to defend you. Orderinchaos 23:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC) It's really very simple. I want the better infobox. So do the others editors who have commented so far. You are the one that has chosen to get involved in keeping it off. Nobody stopped you from improving anything - why/how can't you work around an infobox that you for bizarre reasons object to - and only you? I don't tell you what to do, you tell yourself what to do. You have some very bad faith right now. I just want a better infobox as do others. I'm at a loss as to why you're in such vehement continual objection with emotional random esoteric arguments. Timeshift (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC) On what basis are you reverting? You do not have consensus. You do not have anybody supporting your position. Your opinion does NOT count more than others so please do not force your opinion and view on articles, especially when not supported by others, or consensus. Please allow the infoboxes to stay there until you can change consensus. Timeshift (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) How long are you going to be disruptive, Timeshift9? You already successfully wasted an hour this morning which I had intended to dedicate to improving an article. Are you aware that senior political figures in Victoria think we're a joke? And here you are arguing over a gaudy infobox. As one of my old workmates used to say "either give us a hand or get out of the ****ing way". Orderinchaos 03:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Nobody wasted your time except you. You have no valid response. Accept it. Timeshift (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC) There's nothing valid to respond *to*. You've made various questionable global points on the back of absolutely no evidence. There is no consensus on any of this, and your behaviour is simply about timewasting and obstructing the encyclopaedia. On the only talk page - V2010 - on which there is any discussion at all, there is a diversity of opinion which does not unite in any one direction, irrespective of your selective reading of it. Orderinchaos 03:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC) On what basis can you argue you are allowed to revert? We have a global election template. Consensus 1. We also have people on talk pages saying they do not want your old election box, they want the standard global box, and customise the wording and components to it as required. On the basis of these two, you are not in any rights to insist on your version. You simply cannot answer this. Timeshift (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC) You obviously need a new dictionary. Consensus means agreement. People don't agree, which means there is no consensus. Consensus is built on the back of mutual compromise. All I'm seeing from you is bullying, not compromise. Therefore a consensus which is acceptable to both you and I is unlikely to be formed. The people at the talk page are all saying different things - one even wants to get rid of infoboxes altogether. Orderinchaos 03:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC) You seem to be of the view that your infobox should exist while consensus is thrashed out... on the basis of what? The new box is the global box, and nobody is advocating removing it except for you. What is it about this basic wikipedia process that you do not understand? Timeshift (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC) And nobody's advocating removing the old one except for you... See this is where we differ. I actually understand the dynamics of the situation and see no need to be inventive in support of my own cause. There is no consensus. Not for me, not for you. There's like about 5 or 6 people in the conversation, precisely two of whom actually care about the end result. And my picture of the ideal end result is not "my way or the highway", my picture is "this is what we have, what can work better?" As long as a new model does the things the old model did and does them better, I'm happy to change - you probably realise that I was against this infobox originally (it was a Joestella creation) until major changes were made to it. It's served us for 3 years and served us pretty well, and at least to some extent anticipates the complications inherent in the Australian system. The "global" one is not built with Australia in mind - there are two different election models in the world, neither of which is in effect in Australia, and it's not at all unreasonable to suggest Australia should have a model which suits its own needs and that of its readers. Orderinchaos 03:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC) And when you form consensus rather than unilaterally force your version despite 4 unwarranted reasons not to, i'll be happy too. Timeshift (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I argue debates on their own terms, not on someone else's artificially constructed terms. Sorry to disappoint. Orderinchaos 03:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry, i'm not quite understanding. I've listed 4 reasons why you cannot revert but instead form consensus. Why do you think you can dictate your version? Even without these four reasons what would give you the automatic right to revert? You simply cannot answer this question, all you do is tip toe around it. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC) WP:V for one. Undoing a WP:POINT, for two. Orderinchaos 03:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC) What isn't WP:V? Nobody understands what you mean. And WP:POINT is derived from your lack of WP:AGF. Right from the start of this issue you've been very angered and emotional. Timeshift (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC) There's no good faith to assume. You're bored and looking for lulz. Orderinchaos 03:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC) You're disgusting in your attitude. Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to even try to get into all the stuff above, but I would like to say that the 2006 Vic election article is certainly awful and if you want any help on that one I'd be glad to oblige. Frickeg (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think about 75% of the content could go without any damage to the article - certainly anything unverified or speculative - and I was going to use the Political Chronicle to establish a baseline for the narrative and Factiva to clarify the narrative where necessary (also to avoid copyright issues with PC :P). I was also going to ask Timeshift to look at the polling section as he's pretty good with making those and could bring it into line with other articles, and it's a section I have little interest in. Orderinchaos 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not wrong - there's a very large amount of rubbish on that page. If it wasn't the election page, it would almost be better to use the "unsalvageable" argument we used on the campaigns and start completely from scratch, which I daresay is pretty much what it will take. As a start I'll sandbox some proper results tables (interestingly missing from the main article, although there are some old ones on a rather dubious dedicated results page) - it may take a little while since I'm in exam mode at the moment too. Frickeg (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Page 17 of this pdf has the results tabulated, the only thing missing being the seats held in both houses in 2002. Orderinchaos 02:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Motorcade

User:Garabook has been adding unsourced content in Motorcade and basing it on just one YouTube video but I also feel that Echobase121 may have unintentionally breached WP:OUTING by posting a link to Gargabook's twitter page. Bidgee (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Windell Land District

Hello, minor change to your edit as Kundra, Meda, Kwinana seem to have vanished- not listed by [Geoscience]- suspect they may never have existed but I am trying to find out. Cheers(Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)).

I might have a look at the 1950s era map series and see if I can find out what was going on :) (my Windell edits came from some research I'm helping a friend on with Wittenoom). Orderinchaos 08:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

UC/Ls

This is a link to several files, one of which is a complete list of Australian UC/Ls. I couldn't find a list that included populations. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

54% Lib 2PP in WA in 2010?

Noticed your comment about a 2010 54% Lib 2PP in WA... it was 56.41 to 43.59... the worst for Labor since Whitlam[4] Timeshift (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was getting confused with the metropolitan figure. The statewide one is slightly odd as O'Connor is counted as ALP vs NAT for the 2PP, not ALP vs LIB, hence ignores voting patterns in this state. Orderinchaos 00:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Australian adoptees

I noticed you deleted this back in 2007 citing WP:NOT#IINFO. I'd like to recreate it as I believe that being adopted is important enough to serve as the basis for categorising people. Judging by the content in Category:Adoptees, many would seem to agree. What are your thoughts? Regards, --Saforrest (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I deleted it after my attention was directed to it by someone else. I'll copy it to WP:AWNB which is probably the best place to get opinions on Australian stuff these days. Orderinchaos 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Lands administrative divisions of Western Australia

Hello, perhaps you could have a quick look at this article; the redlinked districts with coords come from [[5]] but added w/out a lot of academic rigour. I assume Perthshire etc are now land districts but I have added with no better evidence than it is a DI with no further qualifier on the listing; same for the one around Roebourne. I will add more to these in due course. Cheers (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)).

This SRO map (which I used to add a few bits to the base map yesterday, but is very difficult to read) identifies: Balwina, Delisser, Giles, Hann, Milyuga, Tugaila, Wells, Yamarna. All of these were created between 1909 and 1949 hence why they don't show on the NLA map. Perthshire and Helena are somewhat uneven sub-districts of Swan (Perthshire doesn't even have a united area, it pops up randomly throughout the Stirling/Wanneroo area) and not actually land districts. Wanman exists - I see gazettals from 1988 onwards, but no idea where it is. East, North, Yowagla, really not sure. Orderinchaos 12:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

wow

some companies arts seem to slip through - watcha think about my pruning [6] - not too harsh? - also companies project seems close to dormancy - so tagging for parent project - amazing how many projects go to sleep  :( SatuSuro 12:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Victorian Election and Margaret Tighe

A person on the Right in the Victorian ALP has written on the Tasmanian Times site that Margaret Tighe determined the Victorian state election. She's a right to life lady.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/margaret-tighe.-the-most-powerful-woman-in-victoria/show_comments

What do you think? Even people on the right think it's nonsense, as a lot of other factors were in play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.32.232 (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it was roads, railways, power prices, a few random local issues in certain seats and the usual sort of things that generally determine state elections that determined Victoria. I doubt moral issues played a significant role outside some very narrow sectors of the community, many of whom probably already voted for the Libs anyway. Reminds me of when the NSW Right was so keen to jump on leaks and Latham to explain 2010, rather than examine their own failings. Orderinchaos 13:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please

Do me a favour and delete the csd tagged my - user pages I have just tagged? cheers SatuSuro 23:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - might clear some more later - trust all is well - cheers SatuSuro 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry to bother added some more :) SatuSuro 00:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) Managed to score a heap of gazettals for land districts, as you can probably see. Lands administrative divisions of Western Australia is surprisingly almost complete. Orderinchaos 00:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ecellent - well done!

btw - find of the day - merge/or delete IYHO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremantle_Port_Swimming_Club  :| SatuSuro 00:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC) ahah - thanks for that - oh well some cleaning up to start the day- thanks again SatuSuro 00:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC) sorry to interrupt your hard work - another few to go please SatuSuro 00:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Who did we upset?

I'm referring to these:[7][8] I suspect I know who it was and what it's related to. It's just too coincidental. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

nown

You don't know, nor should I expect you to understand my infamous string policy. I would have dabbed this as an Empee, but there is already a string like that. Thought I should let you, while the billy boils ... cygnis insignis 10:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)