Sunday, November 04, 2012

Timeshift, a warring wikipedia editor

His opinion;

User:Timeshift9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abbott's brown face sans white rings around the eyes... it adds to his... uhh... mystique? I can't get fishnet stockings out of my head now LOL! :D

So Don Farrell has given up number one on the Senate Labor ticket to Penny Wong (like it mattered either way)... will we now see Cory Bernardi give up his number one on the Senate Liberal ticket to Simon Birmingham? LOL! :D

Err, has someone told Zed that Labor and the Greens are on 39.1 percent and 11.0 percent? 50.1 percent combined. 49.9 percent voted for someone else. Only 38 percent voted for the Liberals. So, err, who was rejected? And they have the arrogance to treat the Greens like scum for the past four years but then they expect them to back a Lib govt for no reason. Weren't the Greens rejected? So on principle alone...
Principle aside, Zed's words on election evening removed any remote chance there was of the Greens backing the Liberals. What is it with Liberals and alienating crossbenchers? They seem to enjoy cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
So many delusions, where to start. Poor Zed. And poor The Australian... "Triumphant Zed". I'd love to know in what sense they consider him to be triumphant... a Lib leader rather than an ALP leader?
How can one claim that the ACT Libs' 38% primary vote at this election was their highest ever? Yet another spin lie by the Libs and their media mates. Zed makes it up and News Ltd just trust him and don't even bother to fact-check it (that alone speaks volumes). For a parliament that began in 1989, they sure didn't do their minute of research. The 1995 ACT Lib primary vote was 40.48%. So, will we see factual corrections run, or even just a genuine desire to not to deceive in future? Like Alan Jones, the brief answer is no.
Well that didn't take long, though it's a shame Australia has to rely on one man to reliably set the record straight. Though i'm sure it's too late for that, the misconception is well and truly out there by now.
In the end, Zed said that less than 0.1 percent of the ACT population should have more sway than 10.7 percent of the population. It's like he hasn't heard of Hare-Clark before. But then again, he hasn't heard of the 1995 ACT election before if his statements were anything to go by. Sour is the understatement of the year.

Typical News Ltd rubbish. The ACT doesn't want a government? "The hurdle of a multi-member three-electorate system, which is usually rigged against majority government"? Rigged? You've got to be kidding. Define rigged...?

Business leaders supportive of Mr Hamilton-Smith told the Sunday Mail they would reconsider donations if Ms Redmond won, but declined to be named for fear it would hurt their business interests.
"Isobel was great against Rann but she has not laid a glove on Weatherill, and as a donor to the party I am not going to throw good money after bad if they re-elect her - it is just untenable," one said.
Proof that big business controls the Liberal Party, despite the all-too-regular protests to the contrary.

Nothing but lmfao!... Lib challenging their leader to block Alexander Downer... gold! I wanted another 'things that batter' leadership-shattering moment from him, their self-destruction is always entertaining. I wonder how the rusted-on SA Libs are going who kept commenting on The Advertiser website that this was all a beatup by a paper with a supposed left-wing agenda... LOL! News Ltd? Delusional... :)
Having said that, News Ltd continue to turn to pure rubbish. 6-6-4? Where's the 17th seat? How can anyone take News Ltd seriously when they cant even get a basic fact like that right. Poor democracy.

SA desal plant... let me get this straight. The SA Libs proposed the desal plant in opposition, the SA Labor government took that idea up and built it, then they criticised the government for stealing their policies (or listening to people depending on your view) and said they would release policies much closer to election day, and now that the desal plant is being mothballed until the next time the state is in draught, the SA Libs want to attempt to spear Labor for it? Rank hypocrisy.

To date the Republican campaign has been frustrated with how willing much of the electorate has been to accept that the fault for its grim fortune lies at least in part with the previous administration.[1]
Uh... why? Does the truth hurt?

Speaking of which... Qld State Polling and Bad Analysis.
On a slightly related note, who was it that said to me that vote and approval ratings aren't linked to each other? Another interesting read I saw.

Despite a significant fall in satisfaction with Ms Redmond's performance late in the quarter, a strong performance early in the quarter means that her average satisfaction level for the three months is largely in line with the previous Newspoll. Across the period of this poll, Labor's primary vote has recovered significantly. The average is not telling us the true story of how they went this time around, and we have got a very sharp fall-off in personal ratings towards the end of the period for Isobel Redmond. Ironically, while the Liberal vote looks quite strong, it was a lot stronger at the beginning (of the three-month poll) and would have given Labor the fright of its life if they had stayed in that position. But the Liberals have gone backwards with these gaffes that Redmond has made.[2]
- Martin O'Shaughnessy, Newspoll CEO, regarding the latest SA state Newspoll (to view the above ref, enter the URL in to news.google.com.au).
Something to be said though... the dodgy in-house tiser's poll gave the Libs 53-47 but only 49-51 in the metro area - another loss. I'm not sure why the people who published it can claim a loss to be a win.


When Tony Abbott lost the University of Sydney Students' Representative Council presidency, he allegedly approached the woman who beat him and, leaning into her face, punched the wall on each side of her head.[3]
He came down to the SRC and kicked a glass panel on the front door in. Not that he meant to, mind you, things just seem to happen to Tony.[4]
Some viewers have asked us over recent months why Lateline has not interviewed Tony Abbott. Despite consistent requests this year, he hasn't agreed to an interview since last year. - David Marr on Tony Abbott ABC 10/09/2012

Disgusting... every single last word.

Debt: Does getting a personal or business bank loan mean i'm living outside of my means? If Australia's debt to GDP ratio remains one of the lowest in the world, does that mean Australia is living out of its means? People like Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce seem to fail to grasp this. They also fail to grasp that the Coalition said their proposed stimulus plan would have also put is in to debt, just "not as much". And according to Abbott, climate change is crap and we need direct action to combat it, not a simple tax that he suggested in 2009 before Gillard did. Notice some big logic gaps here on their two big criticisms?

Ratings agency Moody's says there is nothing surprising in the federal budget and has no reason to change its outlook for Australia's AAA credit rating ... and said the budget maintained Australia's financial discipline.[5]
We even hear this positivity from Abbott when he's overseas addressing overseas people. But at home? A completely different and disingenuous story is being told, and built on by News Ltd. It is a shame.

Abbott harks back to the Howard days as if they served the country well. They didn't.

What did a current Liberal Premier say recently?
people should do without their Foxtel and air-conditioners before whining about electricity prices[6]
Yes ladies and gentlemen, this is how the Liberal Party are when they're in power.

The opposition and media go to the extraordinary lengths of claiming the government has killed people and houses have burnt down as a result of the stimulus, when infact the CSIRO demonstrates that the pink batts program actually drove the statistics down. Where's the articles now? Are the batts really burning? No, but the right-wing media are.

===
His talk page

Slipper

[6] Teh lulz! The sweet, sweet lulz! My favourite part was the confected moral outrage against misogyny while defending misogynist text messages --Surturz (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
LNP ;) Timeshift (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I particularly liked Abbott saying what terrible judgement it took to elect Slipper Speaker, when the LNP has been preselecting him for parliament for almost thirty years now. Frickeg (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
And now Abbott wants Slipper's crossbench vote, LOL! Abbott says and does anything, he'd have introduced a carbon tax in 2010 if that meant being able to form government. All bluster. Anyone who supports his party has no moral compass. Timeshift (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
My favourite part is that the man who has been the loudest in calling for Slipper to go has go to be the most disappointed he actually did because that cudgel is much less effective now he's gone. Worse yet for him, he probably won't get anything out of it because Gillard's speech is the thing people will actually remember about all this and it hits him where he's particularly vulnerable. Poor Tony. -Rrius (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
He'll go down as the most memorable Prime Minister Australia never had :) PS. For once, semi-decent article hereTimeshift (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) And she's made it to Gawker now. By the way: "most memorable Prime Minister Australia never had". Care to make a small wager on that? (I mean the not being PM part, not the being memorable part.)--Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure. In 50 years, people will remember that late 2009 was when Australian politics descended in to farce. Timeshift (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh wait, I read it wrong. What makes you so sure that the current opposition leader will win the next election? What are your markers? Certainly not the polls, if that were the case, Howard would have been gone in 2001 (lets just forget 1998/49% 2PP :) Timeshift (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Secret Liberal bid to woo Craig Thomson's vote - not a tainted vote!!! The lulz keep on coming :) Timeshift (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
What?! A government with a one seat majority that won't sack an MP who has committed fraud? Oh, sorry, it's a can-do-no-wrong morally-correct Liberal government. How foolish of me :) Timeshift (talk)

Health Services Union expenses affair: Updated

You have new messages Hello. You have new messages at 220 of Borg's talk page. Message added 23:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC).
Symbol opinion vote.svg Unless I am mistaken, you tagged the page as {{outdated}} 11 days ago here. Just letting you know I have acted on the tag, and ensuring my updates are what you meant. Face-smile.svg - 220 of Borg 13:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Welcome, highly capable NEW user. I'll keep an eye on you... :) Timeshift (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Boy, it's tempting

I note your observation on Pete/Skyring at Talk:Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). I'm being a very good boy and avoiding commenting, despite massive temptation, as I promised after my recent discussions at AN/I.
I wonder if his non-constructive and bigoted editing will ever attract the attention it deserves from those here who can actually do something about it? HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it won't - he knows how to play his hand. Comment if you wish, just: ensure your comments remain free of expletives (they substract from, not add to your arguments, not to mention people who may share the same opinion may unfortunately think twice about commenting in such an atmosphere), see through what he writes, assess the situation, then you can hold your ground. If he changes something that you don't agree with, you can revert and comment for a consensus to be sought while the status quo remains. If his disputed change doesn't have legs, it will drop off the radar. If he's simply provoking and not changing anything, the best thing to do is ignore it. Others are there and observing too. If its disputed, a change away from the status quo, and requires consensus, even Pete cannot simply defeat the system - though he does try. Any given issue, without a constant back and forth, will take more than a day to resolve. But that's ok - it's usually how it works. Just keep your patience and stick to the rules in order to succeed. I thought it was harder than it sounds at first too, but these days i'm cool as a cucumber... usually :) Timeshift (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right. They are the (largely unwritten) rules here. And lying is OK too, so long as you do it politely. (Am I sounding cynical?) Unfortunately, my recent big drama with Pete started with what I still believe was an unacceptable repeated removal of text without discussion, and where nobody else seemed to be watching, where he even broke 3RR, but suffered no consequences. It gives me the shits. (Oooh, did I day that?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The rules are there and written. The problem with rules, like many things, it is very much open to interpretation. Yes, it's not in the spirit of the encyclopedia when Pete insists on his disputed change away from the status quo. If you're looking for someone else to do one of the reverts so that only Pete breaks 3RR, just let me or someone else know and obviously we'd consider our own view. Wikiproject australian politics talk and wikiproject australia noticeboard talk are also good places to request assistance. It is by far the best option if you don't see activity from others. The worst thing you can do is act before you think and say or do something you might regret, when a little extra time and other editors can more than help. And once you've requested help, resist the temptation to come back for a few hours and in all probability it will have already been solved, but without your time and energy. It's far easier, honestly. Don't let things give you the shits, and don't try to sneak a semi-swear... it doesn't help anything :P Timeshift (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Mate, I'm sorry, but "gives me the shits" is an incredibly common expression where I work. It's not uncivil at all. It's part of normal, quite polite conversation. I'll just make the point again that what Wikipedia demands is a particularly middle class version of civility. I have the flexibility to (usually) adapt, but it's obvious that a lot of people I know could never contribute here due to the only language they know not being "nice" enough. That's a loss to Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. But you're referring to Australian verbal sayings, not Australian English text on a screen, on Wikipedia with overseas editors (with admins who are potentially looking for a reason, any reason). Context and local sayings are often not conveyed when online. Do you think using 'shit' on this medium achieves anything? Does it detract from anything? The answer should be pretty commonsense. There's nothing to gain and potentially an account to lose, and it's not worth it over the use of swear words, regardless of it's use. Keep your powder dry, especially over something so trivial (i'm not having a go, i'm trying to help you...) Last but not least, it's not so much 'gives me the shits' in itself, it's that you've recently been swear capsing, so it can bring attention to you that otherwise wouldn't come your way. Timeshift (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to jump in, the best way of dealing with generally civil but problematic editors is to amass evidence and then start a RfC/U. ANI can't handle complex issues (or any issues at all on many days), and the format of a RfC/U works well in highlighting problematic patterns of conduct. I agree with Timeshift's comments on the need to be civil yourself (and the point about Australian language not going down well with editor from other regions is well worth noting - remember that a good admin and an editor in excellent standing lost the admin tools earlier this year for, in large part, calling another editor a "koala" when the Arbitration Committee somewhat mysteriously decided that that was a grave insult [the fact that the editor in question was swearing his head off didn't worry them so much - which will be guiding how I vote in the ArbCom election]). Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
... Koala? You're kidding. This place can be very weird sometimes. BTW HiLo, Pete is compiling an RFCU, which came about after Nick-D's advice here. I would not be surprised if there is a bit of beating to the punch going on. You're a long term editor who knows they've done wrong and have learnt, if you swallow your pride and just go with the flow, i'm sure it will come to nothing. Whatever happens, don't react and give fuel.Timeshift (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI, after responding to what I realised was a five year old thread on the talk page which had since been added on to, and how much irrelevancy there was on there, i've archived it. I think we can all agree and appreciate that the article/talk will function better now. Timeshift (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
That archiving was a good move Timeshift. Thanks. Don't worry guys, I'll be working hard to play the game. I ignored some nonsense he posted in a couple of threads this morning, and made comments of a more general nature relating to what others had said. I think it annoyed him more than if I had responded to him. As for an RfC/U, I really can't be bothered. I'm not the kind of person who compiles dossiers on other, nor do I enjoy reporting others. And I don't believe there is any hope of a reconciliation, especially while his goal is clearly to get rid of me, and I just cannot comprehend his thinking style. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
[Posted the above with an Edit conflict. I now see the post from Pete below. Good luck!] HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Quickest. ANI out of the blue. Ever. I think I might log off for a while. Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
And have you guys caught up with this one yet? We're famous! HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Tag-teaming?

As per your suggestion, I've raised the matter of the Alan Jones talk page blanking on ANI. Thanks! --Pete (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Your work with Ddball and Collect is not tag teaming Pete? Interesting. As for the ANI, it is archiving, not deletion so you have already misrepresented the situation. Good start. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why i'm being accused of tag-teaming. If it's in reference to what I said to HiLo, if you read it properly, I said "just let me or someone else know and obviously we'd consider our own view". I'd appreciate a more civil and good faith attitude on my talk page please. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

ACT election

The discussion on the article's talk page is getting a bit off topic, so I'll post here instead. I suspect that the tone of the Liberals' comments last night reflected their much better than expected results (for which I think that they can thank the Canberra Times poll as it enabled a protest vote which probably explains some of the apparent flow from the Greens in 2008 to the Liberals yesterday). The small increase in the ALP's vote is a good result for the party considering the age of the government and the various stuff-ups which have dogged it since the last election. The Greens result reflects the protest vote moving elsewhere, as well as the laziness of the parliamentary party since 2008 (their entire attitude has been to try to take credit for Government programs rather than advocate anything new) and their amazingly low-key campaign. The Liberals should really be disappointed with the result - about six months ago they were in the box seat due to widespread dissatisfaction with the government (which had suffered a number of scandals), but they threw it away due to an overly simplistic and negative campaign - most Canberrans know the difference between an independent report and an actual government policy, and trying to confuse the two made the party look shifty. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep agree. Something that annoys me is that the little-known Patterson publishes a poll which appears wrong (can never be proven as a poll looks back, not current/forward) and suddenly everyone comes out saying it categorically voids any and all polls. I'd like to see Newspoll start to do Tas, ACT and NT... but i'm no doubt dreaming. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
If you want to read some serious nonsense on the ACT election, look no further than today's editorial in The Australian. Apparently the message from the swingto the ALP (which, according to Antony Green may now translate into an extra seat at the expense of the Greens; not too shabby for a 12 year old government) is that it should shift to the right and considerably change the way in which it governs. Sure. Tony Abbott is also talking total nonsense: "I think the people of Canberra don't want to see more Labor-Green coalition government" despite a clear majority voting for exactly that. Facepalm3.svg Facepalm Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It's like the 2010 federal election rubbish commentary and coverage all over again. Timeshift (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jones edit war

Could you please have a look at the current edit war going on on Alan Jones as Skyring and his crew are deleting material without consensus again. Is there anything we can do about this kind of behaviour? It is simply un-Wikipedian! (last to be read in voice of Pauline Hanson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Because his behaviour tends to bring out the worst in me, I've promised to not engage with Pete/Skyring. He really is playing his merry games again. Help please. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that talk page comment is a unconstructive waste of time and should not be there, was it the best things for you to remove it? Ie, given your history with a particular editor (and it's actually far from "history"). lol. Just saying. I didn't like it either, but didn't remove it. Anyway, see what happens - perhaps the two editors will be glad someone removed it for them??? --Merbabu (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I certainly was glad it was removed. I should be above rising to his childish baiting, and so I re-deleted it when Skyring put it back. You were right HiLo, it had absolutely nothing to do with the article or anything that matters except someone's ego. I must make more effort to ignore his constant petty sniping. A logical discussion is so very much more useful. Djapa Owen (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Now Skyring has reinstated his original little pot v kettle comment and hatted my reply. Such manners. I am standing out of this one as this kind of nastiness serves no purpose. Djapa Owen (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of interest, is there a RFCU on Skyring under development somewhere? If so, I'd like to add thisNick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Would WP:BOOMERANG apply? Of course, telling editors to F-off, etc, is certainly not on (and I didn’t look into why there wasn’t action against HiLo for that). But the polite incivility served with a snide smile is more insidious and usually has a far more toxic effect on collaboration. Unfortunately, a case against it is much harder to make, and its perpetrators know and use this to their advantage. --Merbabu (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
As I see it, the actionable issues to be covered in a RFC/U are a) POV-motivated editing b) any examples of bad-faith behaviour (such as that I've posted above) c) repeatedly inserting irrelevant political statements into talk page discussions despite being asked to stop this and d) ignoring repeated requests and warnings (including the ANI thread a while ago in relation to his edits concerning Craig Thomson) that he cease these activities. The RFC/U would take time to develop, but its the weight of evidence which counts in cases such as this. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but I'd add a good dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the list of infractions mentioned above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Guys, ignoring him NEVER makes him go away. I Wikilinked 100% clear policy when I deleted an off-topic irrelevant thread, and didn't mention any of the editors who had contributed to it. I won't do it again, but I appeal to you others to not let him get away with it. That's a big problem here. If he swore, the conservatives would be all over him, but because he hasn't sworn, you're letting him free? Please don't. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey all, I thought you should know I have put a message on Skyring's talk page about his poor conduct:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skyring#Hostile_conduct_and_random_accusationsDjapa Owen (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Skyring has responded and then deleted the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skyring&oldid=519853114 Djapa Owen (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
As his is right per WP:TALK. For better or worse. I know I exercise that right from time to time. --Merbabu (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course it is, which is why I am not entering an edit war with him. I posted the above comment and permalink so those interested could see what I said and his response (I paraphrase: "LOL"). Djapa Owen (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia ideology

You need to stop the games.
I requested the unlock because the talk page broadly speaks against saying the party is liberal conservative or conservative liberal and because the edit is trivial because Wikipedia's policies say the "lead" should not contain anything not cited in the article.
Again, review the operator's comment on the article's talk page. Wilbury said, "I'd also advise a review of WP:LEAD; you shouldn't be calling the party centre-right or right-wing or anything else in the infobox and lead unless it's covered and sourced in the body". I also think I will report you for resuming this.
101.172.255.248 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.255.248 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, IP. Please read up more on how wikipedia operates, because one definite way it doesnt work, is forcing your view straight after a long-term article lock has been lifted. You are obliged to engage in talk and not start changing the article again. It is to be left as status quo until consensus can be saught. Thankyou. 20:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
You are continuing being unhelpful. Again, read what people wrote. Read what the operator wrote; it is not my "view". 101.172.42.158 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia edit tussle

Can editors please comment on the article talk page and reinforce the fact to the IP(s) that the article has just come off a long-term edit lock, are incorrectly attempting to force their disputed view against the status quo, and are not engaging in article talk page discussion? It's getting pretty annoying. Timeshift (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Omissions do not express views; Erasing incorrect information is not forcing a "disputed view". Your favoured position contradicts Wikipedia's policies, but you ignore this and the talkpage that says the information is wrong. Please cease being unhelpful. 131.217.255.209 (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
131........ - Take it to the article's Talk page, not here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Everything takes time, HiLo. 131.217.255.209 (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Greenwich

Hi Timeshift9, you seemed to be slightly upset at the template. I do apologise, I thought i was doing the correct thing. I am not sure what your comment "get over the loss" I was attempting to help you build the page...I have no opinion on the subject what so ever? Lgbtoz (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up my typo of "the Hon." that was a mistake...In NSW MLC's are also The Hon. But i forgot Sydney was in the Leg Assembly now COuncil. Lgbtoz(talk) 09:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I was of the belief that the IP added the three templates. If I got that wrong, I apologise. Timeshift (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
| I dont think i did...If i did i apologise. The page does need more information. I have looked but can not find any. I still do not know what you meant by "get over the loss" ? I dont care if the templates are gone...Lgbtoz (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to this edit by the anonymous IP address. It is not uncommon for IPs to come along and slap a bunch of tags on a page without leaving a talkpage comment just because they want to lessen the article's credibility. It was not directed at you. :) Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Post a Comment