![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I don't recall giving anyone permission to reproduce maps from my website. Dr Adam Carr
Yes, and you're one of the reasons I left Wikipedia. However, I won't object provided to them being used provided they are credited to my website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.81.49 ( talk) 06:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Adam. We'll ensure credit is given. – Moondyne 06:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you have become more useful and less obnoxious than you used to be. I hope so. Citizendium was a complete failure, thanks to Larry Sanger's authoritarian behaviour. I'm not sure which is worse now, Wikipedian anarchy or Sangerian dictatorship. Anyway I don't contribute to either anymore. Thanks for crediting the use of my maps. AC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.81.49 ( talk) 06:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Adam Carr! If you're still out there, may I just say I love your psephology page. I'm a political geographer, and it's great to see someone else into the things I like to study, and in that depth. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 22:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift has now deleted my attempts to provide Dr. Carr with credit on the page itself for the extensive use of his maps. I don't know why someone would think it's appropriate to use someone else work all the way up and down the page and hide the credit for that work, making it so you have to click on the pictures in order to see who made them. The "external link" credit for Dr. Carr's archive, from whence all the maps were taken, is I think the least we can do to ensure people know who made these maps - as well as point out that he doesn't only do those maps for Australia, but to generally to represent election results all over the world. I knew who Adam Carr was long before I got involved with editing Wikipedia because I'm a political geographer. His maps are major resources in my field of study, and editing out a link to his terrific and informative archive because a Wikipedia editor doesn't get on with him is reprehensible, in my view. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 18:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Right now we are talking about the external link you just deleted. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 18:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
We're in the process of changing over the format for the reporting of the results of Australian elections. We had originally made a decision on the Australian federal election, 2010 page to change the format to provide clearer information about which parties were in the Coalition and to make clearer the voting relationships generally. However, at the urging (I use that word guardedly) of Timeshift, we are now in the process of changing over the other Australian election pages in order to ensure a standardised presentation across all Australian elections.
The new format is now shown on this page. Probably there will be some tweaking necessary - mostly in terms of how we want to represent states where there was only one Coalition party running, and in terms of whether we should relegate strong "third party" forces (I'm thinking of the Greens here) to the "Other" column; I followed the previous tables for the norm for this, but perhaps that's not reasonable. If we can't show the Greens in states where they got no seats, how can we show the state and territory where the Coalition got no seats? Also, we may want to order these in the direction of which party got the most votes in the state. This was the way it was previously on the page, but for simplicity's sake I presented the parties in the order on which they appeared in the pan-Australia table. It doesn't necessarily have to stay that way, it just made it easier for me to transfer the information. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 22:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think if a party is shut out entirely in a state or territory, then it's not a "major party" in that state or territory. But as we've been saying, the whole issue is moot because when the votes are all in, we're listing all parties. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 16:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I don't recall giving anyone permission to reproduce maps from my website. Dr Adam Carr
Yes, and you're one of the reasons I left Wikipedia. However, I won't object provided to them being used provided they are credited to my website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.81.49 ( talk) 06:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Adam. We'll ensure credit is given. – Moondyne 06:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you have become more useful and less obnoxious than you used to be. I hope so. Citizendium was a complete failure, thanks to Larry Sanger's authoritarian behaviour. I'm not sure which is worse now, Wikipedian anarchy or Sangerian dictatorship. Anyway I don't contribute to either anymore. Thanks for crediting the use of my maps. AC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.81.49 ( talk) 06:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Adam Carr! If you're still out there, may I just say I love your psephology page. I'm a political geographer, and it's great to see someone else into the things I like to study, and in that depth. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 22:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift has now deleted my attempts to provide Dr. Carr with credit on the page itself for the extensive use of his maps. I don't know why someone would think it's appropriate to use someone else work all the way up and down the page and hide the credit for that work, making it so you have to click on the pictures in order to see who made them. The "external link" credit for Dr. Carr's archive, from whence all the maps were taken, is I think the least we can do to ensure people know who made these maps - as well as point out that he doesn't only do those maps for Australia, but to generally to represent election results all over the world. I knew who Adam Carr was long before I got involved with editing Wikipedia because I'm a political geographer. His maps are major resources in my field of study, and editing out a link to his terrific and informative archive because a Wikipedia editor doesn't get on with him is reprehensible, in my view. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 18:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Right now we are talking about the external link you just deleted. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 18:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
We're in the process of changing over the format for the reporting of the results of Australian elections. We had originally made a decision on the Australian federal election, 2010 page to change the format to provide clearer information about which parties were in the Coalition and to make clearer the voting relationships generally. However, at the urging (I use that word guardedly) of Timeshift, we are now in the process of changing over the other Australian election pages in order to ensure a standardised presentation across all Australian elections.
The new format is now shown on this page. Probably there will be some tweaking necessary - mostly in terms of how we want to represent states where there was only one Coalition party running, and in terms of whether we should relegate strong "third party" forces (I'm thinking of the Greens here) to the "Other" column; I followed the previous tables for the norm for this, but perhaps that's not reasonable. If we can't show the Greens in states where they got no seats, how can we show the state and territory where the Coalition got no seats? Also, we may want to order these in the direction of which party got the most votes in the state. This was the way it was previously on the page, but for simplicity's sake I presented the parties in the order on which they appeared in the pan-Australia table. It doesn't necessarily have to stay that way, it just made it easier for me to transfer the information. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 22:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think if a party is shut out entirely in a state or territory, then it's not a "major party" in that state or territory. But as we've been saying, the whole issue is moot because when the votes are all in, we're listing all parties. Zachary Klaas ( talk) 16:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)