Talk:Iain Evans

message: TS, this just seems like an anti-Lib trip. I'm not denying that it's true, by all means; I just question the value of having one third of the article about Evans, one third a quote from our friend William Bowe, and the remaining third on how the Libs are proper fucked and tearing themselves apart. Seems a tiny bit unbalanced. michael talk 06:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will never censor any information, be it good or bad, as seen in the SA election. I add the negatives regardless of the party. I think what's been added is rather central to the person. What do you suggest should be changed? Timeshift 06:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're on the subject, Timeshift asked for a ref for Evans' claim that he said "if" not "when". I think I heard it on a sound grab for the Radio 891 morning show (if you're a listener of the show, you'll know that they use bites from recent interviews as their "lead in music"). So it might be hard to track down, but I'll work on it. Rocksong 06:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't, as I said, that it wasn't true. It was a question of balance (and, to some extent, relevancy). I'll get some more information and rewrite, trim and reorganise as appropriate. But at this stage it is unbalanced and easy to see so. michael talk 06:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: btl - I never said that you were disputing it's truth. Simply that I don't censor info and add negatives of all parties, and that the info is central to the person. rs - Ah yes, i'm aware of those grabs. I mean, i'm sure he like any politician would have corrected himself, regardless of what he really meant at the time. I simply just haven't seen the correction anywhere. Timeshift 06:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried a minor trim. Feel free to improve. Rocksong 07:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice you were quick to get rid of Robert Gerard :P Timeshift 07:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Puzzled expression) I just thought it wasn't relevant. Rocksong 07:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When a man who has business interests bankrolls the party, and stops bankrolling the party allowing for only the most basic of election campaigns due to his resignation from the Lib-appointed RBA seat due to tax avoidance issues known prior to his appointment, all of which is to do with Evans not backing the plan to regain funding therefore continuing to leave the party broke (allowing Labor to become complacent), then IMHO it is relevant. A government is only is as effective as it's opposition. I'm going to make a few changes and add to the RG article, see what you think. Timeshift 09:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, put it back in if you're convinced it's important. (Oh wait, I see you have, at least partly). I'm never offended when my work gets reverted. Well almost never :), but I certainly wouldn't be in this case. Rocksong 10:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It wasn't an accusation at yourself and I don't want to start hurling shit all over the talk page. If my words came off as brash, I'm sorry, but there was no negative intent. I will make changes when I have time and completely rewrite the article in detail. michael talk 09:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest additions 

message: One of the strongest Labor swings was in this seat - Belair actually voted Labor off an 8 percent two-party swing!! Hawthorndene also had an 8 percent two-party swing away from the Libs. Other nearby booths also swung at around 5% 2PP to Labor. Does anyone know of any local factors at play here? Timeshift (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davenport 2014 - can anyone explain? 

message: Can I start creating one now? If so, would Davenport state by-election, 2015 be appropriate? The article can always be moved should the need arise, but based on Evans' "within 12 months" it is logical. Timeshift (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davenport by-election article