User talk:Peter Campbell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1 | 2

---

Contents 1 FF and Greens 2 Tasmanian forests 3 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Campbell 4 My references 5 Meetup in March 6 Tasmanian Election 7 Greens categories 8 Thanks!!! 9 Victorian legislative election, 2006 10 Robert Doyle 11 Upper house candidates tables 12 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 13 Candidates of the Queensland legislative election, 2006 14 Mary Wooldridge - political candidate article 15 G4 16 Web 3.0 article 17 Chris Gymer 18 80.75.34.13 IP address edits 19 Melbourne meetup in planning

[edit] FF and Greens

The point was that Bob Brown got elected when the Greens got only 1% more the FF got for Fielding's election, also from the flow of ALP preferences, yet there is no similar type of analysis there. If you do a preference deal which backfires, you can't go crying on about it. Both sides in the deal gained preferences, but only one could get the seat. Xtra 05:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bob Brown has always got a lot more votes than Stephen Fielding in every election he has contested, so your comparison is not appropriate. More analyis can be added, I don't see this as a reason for excluding any information sourced from Antony Green. Who is crying about preference deals? I don't think emotive language like that is appropriate. Peter Campbell 05:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In the 2001 Federal Election, Bob Brown got 8.68% of the Senate primary votes in Tasmania. Stephen Fielding got 1.77% in 2004! Peter Campbell 06:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. Xtra 06:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have data on the Seantor elected with the smallest primary vote in Australia's history? Xtra 06:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

A good question. I don't have the data, but will look into it. Peter Campbell 10:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tasmanian forests

Please don't take me for a fool, Peter. Your addition about the Tasmanian forests issue was referenced, but the two references had absolutely nothing to do with your spurious claim that the seats would have fallen anyway. You cite no evidence for that - which goes against the opinions of just about every political commentator that I've read.

Not only that, but your assumptions don't necessarily add up. Firstly, you're assuming that there was a universal swing across the country, which was far from the case, as shown by the several seats that fell to the ALP. Secondly, you're not taking into account that both O'Byrne and Sidebottom were reasonably popular members; O'Byrne is widely considered a near-shoo-in for the 2006 state election for that reason. Thirdly, you're not taking into account any of the opinion polls that suggested that both were set to hold their seats right up until the last minute (when the forests policy was announced). Your assumption that the seats would have fallen anyway thus seems to be baseless - or at least not based on any actual evidence that I can see, apart from looking at the margin and assuming that it must instantly have been in danger. That is the reason why your edits were reverted. Ambi 12:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ambi, I don't take you for a fool. Regarding the loss of Bass and Braddon, here is a poll that predicted this prior to Latham's forest policy announcement [1], so I don't think your claim that all polls showed Labor winning Bass & Braddon prior to their forest policy launch is accurate. Peter Campbell 10:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The APH source makes for interesting reading; had you cited this with the edit, I mightn't have been so quick to revert. Nevertheless, there is quite a bit in the way of contrary views, so both should really be represented there; your version comes fairly close to stating the APH summary as the definitive account. The Examiner poll is fairly worthless, though; even the people who did it admit that the sample size was small enough to question its accuracy. Ambi 11:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Campbell

Hi, Peter. Per the results of the AFD discussion, I've moved the article in question into your userspace; you can now edit it at User:Peter Campbell/article. If you have any questions, please ask me. —Cleared as filed. 21:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My references

• User talk:Peter Campbell/References - how to cite references (examples)

• User talk:Peter Campbell/sandbox - testing sandbox

[edit] Meetup in March

I see that you are listed as a participant in the WikiProject Melbourne. If you are a Melbourne resident I would appreciate your views on the suggested Meetup in March . Please give some indication of your interest, or otherwise, in the idea. Even a simple "No thanks" with your user name would be welcome and assist in assessing the level of support for a meetup. Thank you.. Cuddy Wifter 06:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tasmanian Election

You removed the statement. 'The Liberals gained a 4.5% swing, despite making no real gains in the election'. Why was that? There is a minor chance the liberals could pick up the last seat in Franklin and a very small but (possible) chance they could take Tim Morris's seat in Lyons but overall it seems the status quo is likely. So the liberals have increased their popular vote, but haven't made much difference in the election. They would still need a 15% swing at the next election to govern in majority, which would take a very large effort. I'm not disputing your removing the statement, but am interested to the reason why you believed it should be removed. Kyle sb 13:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kyle, I removed that statement because the Liberals did make a "real gain" in the election - their primary vote increase. The amount of swing they got is specified elsewhere in the sentence "The Liberal primary vote rose by 4.5% to 32%." so it did not need to be stated twice. Also, speculation about them possibly picking up a seat (slim chance) could conflict with the "no real gain statement". Peter C Talk! 06:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats fair I just wanted to see what your point of view was. It might sound weird but I just wanted to make sure, you weren't trying to push an oppinion that the Liberals have had a succesful election. And I think it was right to remove 'no real gain'. Thanks Kyle sb 06:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greens categories

I've got no objection to re-merging the Greens WA members if you want, although it isn't technically correct with regard to Chamarette and Vallentine, seeing as they never represented the Australian Greens. Like Xtra, I really don't think there's a need to split them into states, but if you must, please make sure the category makes grammatical sense. Ambi 06:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!!!

Peter, thanks. As you can probably tell, I go for tables, graphics and then some. I think they aid understanding so much. I'm thinking we need a little introduction on how the Victorian electoral system works, plus about the reforms to the upper house. Maybe we can cut and paste the government section from the Victoria article, which I wrote?? Artemus Jones 12:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victorian legislative election, 2006

I think it should be split. Put all the districts in a separate article and only have a general overview in the article proper. Xtra 12:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. If I arrived at a site about an election and then had to go to another site for the results, it would seem to be a little illogical. In any case, this is not a results list. We can remove the retain/gain section from the table and then create another site for detailed results, if that is your intention. I don't think it should be cluttered with specific results. But this district list contains the members of parliament. Pretty essential information I would have thought. Artemus Jones 13:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should keep the maps in the main article, and shift the full district list to the results article. This seemed to work OK for the Tasmanian legislative election, 2006. Suggest shifting this discussion to the article talk page. Peter C Talk! 13:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is currently an information overload on that page. I am not suggesting that no results go on the main page, but I am suggesting that the detailed district by district results, etc be moved. The page also generally needs to be drastically curtailed. Xtra 13:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with shifting the districts & their results. I don't agree with drastic curtailing - if the article ends up the same length as Australian legislative election, 2004 that will surely be OK?

I understand where you are coming from Xtra. We have put a lot of information on this page but I think it's essential information. Overloaded, no - comprehensive, yes. I totally agree with you that specific results should not go on this page. Therefore, the site you created is a great idea. My only quibble was the removal of the district list and the maps. The district list really only contains the incumbents' names, their party, district and margin. All bare bones sort of stuff. Therefore, I don't see how you can remove the "detailed district by district results", as you call it, because one doesn't exist yet. Detailed results, for me, would be all the candidates for each district, votes, margins, swings et cetera. Certainly - a table/list of that nature should not be on this page but on your results page. Artemus Jones 05:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't split it either. It's a fantastic article - particularly so far out from the election - and most other election articles this length aren't split (though this may be different if things like a candidates list are added later). A couple of things, though - firstly, would it be possible to have information on preselection challenges (as with the 2007 election)? Secondly, it could be useful to have an expanded Legislative Council section, covering the new provinces and likely results. Apart from that, this is one of the best election articles I've ever seen. Ambi 01:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Doyle

Semi-protected. :) Ambi 04:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upper house candidates tables

Peter, I knock up the tables using the Wikipedia table language. It is sometimes cumbersome and arduous (especially when I wrote the Legislative Assembly table for the main article) but it does turn out visually appealing, which is where I am coming from. I think there is nothing wrong with the table you added to the new article, save perhaps Liberals getting upset that you've put them at the bottom :). People could also assume it's modelled on some ballot paper and that the order is of particular relevance.

I wouldn't mind seeing this article based on the eight regions rather than candidates. That way you could explain which party is likely to claim the region's seats and so forth, rather than the other way round. That would also allow you discuss the communities that come under the regions, the nuances of the campaign in each region (i.e. Liberals vs Nationals in the three country regions), and maybe criticism expressed in submissions to the VEC about region borders. I'll leave it up to you.

In terms of the existing table, I could just add formatting to make it more colourful and that would be great. Artemus Jones 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete any of the other candidates running for the upper house - it took me 1/2 hour to put them on. If you have a problem - pls email me catonbishop@lycos.com 136.186.1.193

I'm not sure what you are referring to - I did not delete any of the candidates Peter Campbell Talk! 06:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Dennis Jensen Korea Greens Young Liberals (Australia) Steve Georganas Division of Menzies Rose Bay, New South Wales Division of Isaacs Rainbow and Greens Surveyor-General of the Ordnance Gunns The Greens (Israel) South Australian legislative election, 2002 Green Party of Pakistan Bordertown, South Australia Green Party of the Philippines Chloe Fox Ray Groom Green Party of Iran Green Nepal Party

Cleanup Coral Sea Islands Fenner Hall Mark Birrell Merge Pacific Solution Gifted Wisdom Add Sources University of Sydney Students' Representative Council MV Tampa Hugh Victor McKay Wikify Pierre Coupey Brazilian Army Aptronym Expand Demographic history of the United States Austrian Empire Robert Harvey (footballer)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candidates of the Queensland legislative election, 2006

Check out Candidates of the Quuensland legislative election, 2006 (made a spelling mistake - don't know how to change it)

It's a WIP

Pls assist - you're good at this stuff

Cheers CatonB 08:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Caton,

I don't see a spelling mistake on this article. You can edit the article by clicking on the "edit this page" tab at the tab of the article. Otherwise, let me know which part needs fixing. Peter Campbell Talk! 10:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any chance you'd be able to update the campaign section for the Victorian election article? It seems to have fallen a few weeks behind. It might also be an idea to start summarising some of the older material, as the section is getting pretty long. Rebecca 10:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have saved several recent articles on the election and will add more content soon. The 100 days to go milestone has attracted some attention, and the campaign is new moving into a more active phase. --Peter Campbell Talk! 12:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter Trying to upload pictures of pollies and candidates and it is displaying no copyright. But I've put the source of photos. Please assist Scorpio80 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Scorpio, I don't have much experience uploading images. Check out WP:Image and WP:Uploading images for more information on policies and procedures. You could also add {{helpme}} to your user page to get assistance. Peter Campbell Talk! 11:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)`

[edit] Mary Wooldridge - political candidate article

Rebecca, Mary Wooldridge looks to me like a recently created article profiling a "not notable" political candidate. I am considering nominating it for deletion. What do you think?

Also, I have added some recent content to the Vic state election article. --Peter Campbell Talk! 12:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete Mary Wooldridge on the basis that she's near-certain to be elected in November. It's already not a bad start to an article, and I think we'd be better off making sure we have a useful article for when she is elected. Thanks for updating the election article, anyway. Rebecca 23:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is she is not currently notable. There is no certainty she will be elected - but it would be appropriate to have an article if she is. In the meanwhile, the article is fairly clearly an attempt to build her profile during the campaign. I understand that political candidates are generally not considered worthy of articles (with very few exceptions). Peter Campbell Talk! 23:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G4

Recreation of deleted material.:

WP:CSD#General_criteria.Geni 12:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web 3.0 article

That's a good question. I tagged it for merging with another article, but that article looks like it's gone too. Someone mentioned merging it with Semantic Web. Maybe that's where it went, but the old articles should have remained as redirects. I don't know what happened exactly. --Cswrye 13:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked the deletion logs - its was a speedy delete. I have requested that this be reconsidered here. You may wish add your opinion Peter Campbell Talk! 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Per the request at WP:DRV, I've copied the deleted content to User:Peter Campbell/Web 3.0. Thryduulf 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add some of this content to the Semantic web article --Peter Campbell Talk! 21:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The history of the article has also been restored. I take it that covers your request and I'm closing the nomination now. Best, trialsanderrors 05:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, this is all I need --Peter Campbell 05:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I noticed you are into cycling. I've just invested in a Cannondale Rush 800 mountain bike and got rid of my car to force myself to bike to work (and for fun) for better health.

Good move. I mainly road race these days (with the Southern Veterans Cycling Club (Melbourne, Australia)) on my Look KG381 which has been a fantastic bike. My MTB doesn't see much use at present. I commute into Melbourne about 3 days a week on my old MTB

As far as the Web 3.0 article, I believe strongly that without the Wikipedia 3.0 vision (and the blog reference, which has been quoted by over 750 sources, including Wikipedia's own Signpost) that it will lose a key part of its purpose (or soul), at least for me. Regardless of the how many logically inhibited, primally driven arguments others make, there will always be a sufficient number of logical thinkers who would support the inclusion of the Wikipedia 3.0 blog article as a reference. It was added a few months ago by someone to the Semantic Web entry and no one has objected to it in that camp.

There seems to a negative vibe coming from a number of the participants in the AFD debate for Web 3.0. I think the AFD process attracts some people who spend a lot of time criticing and trying to shut things down, rather than just getting on with adding good content.

Feel free to chat on email if you have any feedback or questions (marc.fawzi @ gmail.com)

Will do.

Enjoy the cycling

I did a 210K ride today down to Sorrento and back (informal participant in Melbourne's "Ride around the Bay". Over 15,000 participants this year, and some idiots throwing drawing pins on the road (I got 2 flats). Eddy Merckx was in Melbourne yesterday - I took some photos when he visited a cycling shop and spoke to him. He is a great guy and very friendly.

Marc fawzi 05:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Indented responses added by Peter Campbell 08:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the Wikipedia 3.o article will be added to that page again by another person since it shows up in all search results for Web 3.0 on Google and other places.

Marc fawzi 22:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Gymer

There's a AfD nomination for Chris Gymer (which is the correct procedure for article deletion; admins will not use a talk page vote to keep or delete an article). Also note that Mary Woolridge has been speedily deleted under the A7 criteria. Please feel free to comment on there. ColourBurst 02:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I have voted to keep this article unless the Mary Wooldridge article is also deleted - it has recently been "unspeedily deleted". In the interests of balance and fairness, either they both stay, or they both go. Peter Campbell 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 80.75.34.13 IP address edits

Dear Mr. Campbell, I recieved a message from you at User talk:80.75.34.13, requesting me not to post nonsense on Wikipedia. Since I have never edited or posted anything, I would be very interested to know what inspired you to send me this message. Thank you, K. Knaus

There have been recent edits from the 80.75.34.13 IP address that have added dubious content, hence my message. Unfortunately, you appear to be sharing this IP address with the person who has made these edits - which can happen when IP addresses are allocated to users in blocks by their ISP. The way around this is to open up a Wikipedia account to edit or access Wikipedia with. Peter Campbell 08:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne meetup in planning

Hello, you've indicated that you're interested in future Meetups in Melbourne on this list, so I'm giving you this message to remind you that Melbounre meetup number four is currently in planning. If you haven't already, please go to Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne to suggest possible dates, times and locations. Thanks --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)