Talk:Mike Rann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

intro[edit]

The introduction of this article is far too long. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seriously the introduction is far too long and you don't need a long list of "achievements " . Look at intro of other long serving Australian premiers Bob Carr, Peter Beattie , Anna Bligh , Jeff Kennett, Richard Court , Neville Wran. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this nonsense. Look at featured articles Don Dunstan and Thomas Playford IV... the longer the article, the longer the lead can be. And wrapping up government achievements taken from the entirety of the Rann Government article and wrapped up in to one summarised paragraph for the Premier's page is eminently suitable. Both articles have been large on quality and quantity for a long time, and everyone is happy with it. Surprise, "LibStar" isn't. At least you're now taking your issues to talk, no matter how futile said actions are. Timeshift (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

eminently suitable? And uncited pov statements such as "Rann was often the most popular Premier in the country, with his approach to government generally moderate and crisis-free." Which unless you can provide citations should be removed under WP:BURDEN and WP:POV. I have given comparable Australian examples which simply choose to ignore. LibStar (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, eminently suitable. For the cites, I already said, you'll find them at Rann Government. You particularly might be surprised, but what you quoted is a direct quote itself! Go to that article if you want the cites. I've already said this here. You're clearly just trying to put articles of your political opposites in to disrepute which I won't tolerate, all your attempts will be futile. Finally, the comparable examples are Don Dunstan and Thomas Playford IV (READ AGAIN - FEATURED ARTICLES!) as those articles are of similar length so provide a guide for similar lead length. The longer the article the longer the lead. You claim i'm ignoring your examples. I'm actually ignoring you. It's very clear you have no idea what you're on about but you don't plan to let that stop you attempting to trash another article. Just give up. Everyone is happy with the article. Timeshift (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
an editor does not need to seek permission on a talk page to add citation tag. That's unless some one owns the article. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know where the reference is, i've told you repeatedly. But you don't care about looking at Rann Government, you only care about adding cite needed tags to throw the article in to disrepute. As it's clear you are only here to cause trouble, I take no issue to removing your attempts to trash the article with cite needed tags when you already know where the cite is. Just give up, particularly when you know you're wrong. When you're wrong you cannot win. Timeshift (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "Rann was often the most popular Premier in the country, with his approach to government generally moderate and crisis-free" I specifically question is sourced from this https://books.google.com.au/books?id=QqtinbjO0oEC&pg=PA565&dq=mike+rann&sig=ACfU3U1NETsoUm2qUe6bQNrl3_hVT3RyeQ&hl=en

. It is still a pov statement and the sources does not appear to fully back the claim. Readers should not have to rely on other articles for sources of unsourced Articles in one article. Aggressive accusations of "you're wrong " just demonstrate deep WP:OWN. LibStar (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was just taking your word for it (silly me). Sentence "During Rann's first and second terms, Rann was often the most popular Premier in the country, with his approach to government generally moderate and crisis-free" is already cited at Mike Rann! You were attempting to claim that content in the lead also requires citation. If you stopped throwing around irrelevant WP:WIKILAWYERING and spent some time learning how wikipedia works, you might actually learn something useful - like that an article lead does not require any citations at all as long as they are repeated in the article body with a citation there. In a perfect article, as this article is closer to than most, the lead also makes up part of the article body with the lead kept free of citations. Notice how the same applies at Don Dunstan and Thomas Playford IV? Again, they are both featured articles so if any article is correct, they are the ones to look at. Read up on what a featured article goes through before it gets the title. Perhaps you can do some helpful reading now so you can actually be of use as a knowledgeable editor in future? Lastly (thanks to edit conflict) a citation doesn't require the text to be provided to you online for it to be valid, the text can be in a book only available in hard copy. It is still just as valid. How can you have been a wikipedia editor for 9 years and not know this bread and butter stuff? There must be a lot of articles out there you've been incorrectly altering. Seriously, just go away before you embarrass yourself further, if thats possible. Timeshift (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
by the way your comments have a reverse effect only motivate me to stay up late and examine this article further. Thanks LibStar (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So now we also have a clear admission that you're just being POINTy. I've provided more than enough evidence here to cease wasting any more time on this talk page. I'll be reverting your changes and making no further comment here until another user or two, or administrator, comes along and sorts you out. So tired of this type of pointless activity on wikipedia. I only leave good faith at the door on rare occasions, and each time I continue to be proven right. Timeshift (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
your aggression continues "sort you out" I suggest you remain civil otherwise you'll embarrass yourself further.LibStar (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Adelaide airport[edit]

There is no citation in this article or Rann Government that the state government provided funding or instigated the upgrade for the airport. But Timeshift will not allow anything to be questioned. LibStar (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why hasn't the Rann Government expert answered this? I'm surprised the owner of this article has not explained why this claim has no citation. If there is no reply I will remove this claim under WP:BURDEN. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed this change, there is no citation for this here and in the Rann Government article. the South Australian government did not fund the redevelopment. insisting of inclusion of this is putting falsehood in article. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Festival of Arts[edit]

Because all edits must be pretty screened by amother editor. The article implies the Rann Government introduced this festival. It started in 1960 and should be rewritten as the Rann Government increased funding to it. Normally anyone can make this change directly but the article is currently vigorously guarded. LibStar (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

another error in article[edit]

The Rann Government did not introduce Adelaide Festival of Ideas. This was in 99 under Premier Olsen. But again no one is allowed to question or edit the article right now. LibStar (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as stated above, my edit was to correct this error in article. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World of Music, Arts and Dance[edit]

Again not introduced by the Rann Government. I would have changed the wording myself and put in citation of involvement of Rann Government but currently only one editor is permitted to edit article. LibStar (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

possible link rot[edit]

The Clem Macintyre quote comes from a now deadlink citation. My own searches now finds only WP mirrors. An actual citation is needed . If I find one I'm not allowed to include it due to the desires of another editor. LibStar (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A news article only needs to be referenced, the contents do not need to be readily available online to be a valid citation. But i'm pulling up the link without issue, though there is a 30-60 second delay. Refer to my contributions above regarding only one editor - you. But kudos for you feeling compelled enough to actually change from fly-by cn tags, to something that resembles research. Maybe i'm not completely banging my head against a brick wall after all? Timeshift (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
why aren't you responding to my other concerns? It is compulsory to obtain your permission to make edits. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lowered unemployment[edit]

Statement is actually not specifically cited here (not permitted) but also neither in Rann Government. I actually found a reference but since I've been told several times rudely to go away and not contribute to this article ... LibStar (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"increasing Aboriginal employment " claim[edit]

Not cited here nor in Rann Government where I was told I could anything not cited here. Rather embarrassing. LibStar (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no citation here, could Timeshift please provide citation or it should be removed under WP:BURDEN. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Timeshift or anyone else can't find a source I'm removing this claim. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted User:LibStar's edits again[edit]

Not a trace of consensus discussion from other users on article talk page! Considering the repeatedly mischievous and POINTy history of this user with this article (see article edit summaries and article talk page contributions) I will continue to revert until such time. Timeshift (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained above. the airport claim has zero citation, the South Australian government did not introduce these festivals but increased funding. these are facts. you are displaying clear WP:OWN. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you don't need to wait for other editors or your approval to correct clear factual errors in the article. I've asked you multiple times to respond, and now you want to WP:OWN this article. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
unless this article has full protection, there is no editing restriction on waiting for other users. the insistence of Timeshift for his prior written permission, is WP:OWN if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Not a trace of consensus discussion from other users on article talk page! Considering the repeatedly mischievous and POINTy history of this user with this article (see article edit summaries and article talk page contributions) I will continue to revert until such time. And who have I reverted? Only you. Hardly WP:OWN tenancies when only one so-called contributor is being reverted. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
do you need consensus to correct clear errors of fact, you never responded to my explanations of this article. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am disputing your changes considering your repeatedly mischievous and POINTy history with this article (see article edit summaries and article talk page contributions). As your changes are disputed you require a consensus. If you believe your intentions have been and shown to be consistently pure and you have displayed required valid corrections, then perhaps you should wonder why nobody else has come along and agreed with you yet. Where's the consensus replies from other contributors that you believe you deserve? "Build it and they will come"... or WP:DONTBEADICK and they will come? Clearly you have not convinced anyone... perhaps you should reflect on your behaviour as to why this is. Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is it true or not that the Rann Government established the festivals (Festival of Ideas, WOMAD, the Adelaide Fringe Festival and the Adelaide Festival of Arts) as the article claim (which is not backed by sources or increased in funding. which is correct? LibStar (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From ANI: I can't believe this contributor is so one-eyed! I am disputing the changes considering their repeatedly mischievous and POINTy past-few-days-of-history with the article (see article edit summaries and article talk page contributions - ensure when doing this everything is noted rather than skim-reading it and forming a potentially misguided conclusion). As their changes are disputed they require a consensus. If they believe their intentions have been and shown to be consistently pure and they have displayed required valid corrections, then perhaps they should wonder why after all this time, still nobody else has come along and agreed with them yet. Where's the consensus replies from other contributors that they believe they deserve? "Build it and they will come"... or WP:DONTBEADICK and they will come? Clearly they have not convinced anyone... perhaps they should reflect on their behaviour as to why this is. Their initial attempts to make changes were met with evidence to the contrary, having to correct them around six separate times for six separate wikipedia guidelines! It is clear that once this decade-long user experienced six guideline corrections in a row, they turned very POINTy. Again, to anyone who looks in to this, I implore them to read the article edit summaries and article talk page contributions to see how much this user continued to change trajectory after each guideline correction. Massive glass jaw/pride it would seem... it's clear they just cannot handle being corrected, particularly repeatedly. Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again because you keep avoiding. is it true or not that the Rann Government established the festivals (Festival of Ideas, WOMAD, the Adelaide Fringe Festival and the Adelaide Festival of Arts) as the article claim (which is not backed by sources in this article or Rann Government or increased in funding. which is correct? LibStar (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, you completely ignore and miss the point. My issue with you here goes beyond any one particular contribution, and you know it. You have failed to acknowledge a single POINTy wrong despite the fact you have made many, and each time you were corrected, you kept dodging to another potential area of the article to challenge. I implore those interested to read the article edit summaries and article talk page contributions to get the full picture of this user's actions. If you truly believe you are right and I am wrong then why not wait for the result of the ANI that you created? Were you hoping I wouldn't put in the effort to add the other side of the story to your ANI? Don't you have the faith of your convictions? And who else have I reverted in the article history to indicate any WP:OWN? Only you. Hardly WP:OWN tenancies when only one so-called contributor is being reverted - you. If a user accused of WP:OWN doesn't have a history in the article's edits except for the one user making WP:OWN accusations, it's a very safe bet that WP:OWN is being used as a smokescreen and is not the issue. As your edits became increasingly POINTy it was made abundantly clear that your edits were made as such, and therefore can and are being reverted due to being POINTy. When an editor is clearly doing that, reverting of edits until talk page consensus is gained can be done without any further justification. If you're right you would get that consensus and this would all go away. So ask yourself why that hasn't and isn't happening...? Timeshift (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
your above response says it all. refusal to even discuss my proposed changes. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Adelaide Oval claim is clearly sourced. As for introducing/increasing funding for the festivals, neither of the disputed versions match up with what the current source says which is;
  • He invented the Festival of Ideas and Adelaide's Resident Thinker.
  • He invented the idea that film festivals fund movies (Look Both Ways, Ten Canoes, Samson and Delilah, Snowtown, Forbidden Lies).
  • He swelled universities, subsidised theatres, added Guggenheim galleries to the life of the town.
  • He made WOMAD, the Fringe and, lately, the Adelaide Festival annual.
The "Adelaide Fringe Festival" and "Adelaide Festival of Arts" aren't even mentioned. Unless sources can be found these claims should be removed.SPACKlick (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From my talk page: "Thanks, but WP:POINT says to wait for consensus. The onus is on the content changer to wait for consensus before re-attempting to make that change. I'm not going to play their game and run around looking for and presenting references just to have them move on to another one without so much as an acknowledgement. Despite a few days having passed, there is still a complete lack of any users agreeing with LibStar's raised points on the article's talk page. If their changes are so black-and-white correct then I would have expected several Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics users to have agreed with them by now and a consensus formed. Not a single ozpol user, or even a single user at all for that matter. I note that despite LibStar raising the ANI, you warned him first - was that just random?" Don't you get it? I'm not going to play your increasingly tedious games. I corrected you on the first six issues you raised with the correct guidelines - six times - which you didn't even acknowledge each and every time, and became increasingly POINTy which is clearly observable on the article's talk page. After the first six times correcting your incorrect understanding of wikipedia's article guidelines which made you increasingly POINTy, I had every right to disengage. I don't deal with tantrums nor should I. If you're so sure you're right and you're not being underhanded then you should be able to easily manage consensus without me. As you're so sure of yourself, you shouldn't have any issue waiting for consensus from other users - very reasonable. I drew the line and refused to continue to play your increasingly tedious games. After I provided half a dozen corrections to your first half dozen issues, you admitted you were encouraged to look deeper/be POINTy. I'm not going to and am not required to continue playing your games. I'm not going to go around playing your reference games. If you're right you'll get consensus from others. But it won't be from me which all things considered is justifiable - if anyone disagrees, just read the article's edit summaries and article talk page contents. No reasonable person would continue to hit their head against that particular brick wall. Timeshift (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're not replying to me despite your indentation indicating that you are. Just out of interest, where have you presented references for the current content? I'd appreciate seeing the history of this as it doesn't appear to be on this page. SPACKlick (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have read the username but got used to just the one user. If you had read the article edit summaries and the contents of this talk page, you would have already read that more-or-less anything not referenced here is referenced at Rann Government. If you're willing to submit to LibStar's fishing attempts, I would more than appreciate a more level-headed user such as yourself (assumption but a reasonable one) assisting them. I'm sure I would be happy with your level of correct guideline knowledge and assisting LibStar with finding references at Rann Government, and for the odd occasion where a claim isn't correctly referenced, help them to find a reference which does confirm the content or rephrase the content to match the reference. If you're willing to, all the luck to you and I wish you all the best! Timeshift (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on the mistake. That said, references ought be in the article where the claim is. The claims about the various festivals are all cited to one abc article which doesn't even mention half of the festivals. If there is a better source you're aware of on another article could you drop the link on talk here and I'll whack it in the page. SPACKlick (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same issue, could not find actual citation and neither in Rann Government. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, i'm not going to let myself get entrapped in to LibStar's attempts any further. I'm sure I would be happy with your level of correct guideline knowledge and assisting LibStar with finding references at Rann Government, and for the odd occasion where a claim isn't correctly referenced, help them to find a reference which does confirm the content or rephrase the content to match the reference. A good job had been done in the Government article to try and ensure all claims were correctly referenced, so if you come across legit issues please ensure you do try and find a suitable reference. If you're willing to, all the luck to you and I wish you all the best! Maybe you'll get lucky and get some consistency out of LibStar now that he is under the microscope...! But can I ask that you only put cite needed/failed verification tags in the article only after you have made genuine attempts to find references rather than beforehand? This is the best way to go about it, you're not seen as tag-happy while still ensuring claims are referenced which might involve googling. Adding tags before looking for references just copies part of the behaviour that in part caused this in the first place, despite having no value to it. Adding tags before reference searching is analogous to shooting first and asking questions later. I can guarantee you that LibStar made no effort to look for references either on the Government article (or on google) whatsoever. The proof of this is in the article edit summaries and on this talk page. Part of my initial good faith responses included providing him the associated ref from the Government article even after telling him that's where they could be found. There was literally no effort. Please ensure you set a good example so in future it gives him even less of an excuse. I hope you will make a genuine effort to search google before adding CN tags. LibStar didn't and doesn't, so when he says he finds no evidence, take that with a grain of salt. Again, re-read the edit summaries and the entirety of this page to see how flippant he has been. I'll disengage from this for now, and I hope for everyone's sake that upon my return, I see at least some references were found and added. Timeshift (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, looking at the other page isn't helping as it has the same claims, in the same wording cited to the same source. These claims are not reliably sourced and should be outright removed until a source is found. SPACKlick (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to edit on Timeshift9's above comment. I did google, and I did search the other article. I likewise assume that when you saw content removed for a lack of citation you did a reasonable google search and found a citation before restoring content that is not in the citation given? In fact, the citation given directly contradicts part of the existing claim. By the time you return the claim will either be sourced or removed. SPACKlick (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
also yes I could not find a source on Rann Government either, and like you believe the claim should be removed hence my edit today. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, similarly for the claim on Adelaide Airport in this article. All i could find was it was funded and instigated by the Federal government and the private owner (consortium) of Adelaide Airport. I found zero evidence of any role of Mike Rann. LibStar (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

regarding this edit, I could not find anything about Rann Government involvement and Adelaide airport after 6 days including today, in the absence of sources and lack of response from Timeshift to my question posted on this talk page, I believe it could be removed under WP:BURDEN. my edit summaries reflect this. no citation was provided here or in Rann Government. LibStar (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post a list of claims you think we don't have sources for because it'll be easier to search in bulk if I can see them in one place. SPACKlick (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hi, it's listed in sections above this discussion. we've addressed the festivals issue but there are a few uncited claims. Timeshift only responded to one. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources about above topics that I've got so far. Struggling to find anything specific on the employment issues but I'm not overly familiar with the topic area. (other users can feel free to edit other sources into this list ignoring any rules against editing others comments)

  • Adelaide Fringe Festival
  • Adelaide Festival of the Arts
    • Rann made it annual from 2012 [1]
  • WOMADelaide
    • Rann made the existing festival Annual (existing source)
    • Rann granted funding to make it biennial [2]
  • Adelaide Airport
    • Rann announced investment into rooftop solar [3]
    • Rann anounces plans to solar panel the roof [4]
    • Significant investment for StormWater recovery [5]
    • I've seen Several sources saying the airport redevelopment was being funded by the airport. The claim in the article looks truly spurious.
  • Lowered unemployment
    • source in article seems to verify that unemployment hit record lows in Ranns first term, doesn't attribute it to Rann nor does it justify several other claims in that long puff piece of a sentence.
  • Aboriginal employment

SPACKlick (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I've tried extensively to find sources. The article wording claims that Rann Government established several festivals, they in fact increased funding. the establishment of many of these festivals pre-dates Mike Rann's term as premier. I did not think one needed several editors to comment on this to change a clear error of fact in the article. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where a fact is disputed, other than a BLP violation (i.e. a claim about a living person themselves) it should be left in the status quo while it is discussed on the talk page. Bear in mind that it can take several weeks for editors to get eyes on a discussion and there's no rush to fix minor issues. What makes you think Rann provided investment to the festivals? Do you have sourcing for even that? I'm really struggling here because as with all politicians some articles will use their name, some their title, and some nebulous terms like the government or even "South Australia"SPACKlick (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked further, I can't find any more sources. Not just no reliable sources, no sources that aren't copies of the wikipedia article that make the claims on this page. If nobody else can i suspect they should be removed both here and at the government page. SPACKlick (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Timeshift has claimed there are sources so now is the time to show them as several editors are questioning this. I raised this 7 days ago. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly nobody is googling[edit]

Adelaide airport remains grounded: 7:30 report ABC 31 Jan 2006 - there were delays which the state government was criticised for, why would it be Rann and not Howard being criticised if it wasn't a state-based project and/or a state responsibility? It was built by a private company however the state government contributed a $12m loan. This googling took me barely one minute, and I found a source indicating state government funding and state government criticism of delays. In anyone elses language, the airport should be part of the list. Now I just did this to make a point, if the biggest one you two could comment was this, well the reference proves you need to put just a little effort in. It's not hard, but i'm not going to play LibStar's games. Try and put some effort in please. Timeshift (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you both that you agreed to disengage and of WP:AGF. I have been involved in this topic for less than 2 hours and so have not had as long as you to become familiar with the sources. That said, the source you provide makes no mention of who provided the funding for the airport. It even calls the glory of the expansion reflected glory. If you are going to provide citations please make sure they contain the claims wikipedia is making. SPACKlick (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should not be adding CNs without googling properly for references first. That reference I found in less than a minute. There were other references regarding the state Labor government's (Rann's) $12m funding too, and also joint-funded studies conducted between the govt and the contractor. But you'd know this if you googled. So yes, you haven't been involved in this long, so please cease the CNs and do more googling. You chose to get involved and everything that came along with it, so please, no offence, but don't half-arse it now. You committed yourself so now you should invest the time to find references you feel are needed. I was going to disengage but I couldn't let the no airport ref myth keep going, so now you provided an example which i've found a ref for, surely you can keep doing the same. I am now disengaging for at least a few hours, maybe longer depending on the quality and effort of the progress made. Please try. Timeshift (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were other references Provide them or they don't exist. I have googled. I found nothing relevant. I spent significant time googling for a reference for the festival issue, found nothing justifying the claim as written, added the tag. The airport, I've spent less time on but the reference you've provided still doesn't support the claim so it will require more time, I haven't added a tag as I haven't spent time on it. You talk about these refs as if you know they exist. If you can find them, point to them otherwise stop assuming other editors are failing to do the basic work of a wikipedia editor. Engage in the discussion or disengage, stop sniping. SPACKlick (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes $12M of a $260M project (4.6%) and the putting it in the Premier's WP article implying that this was a state government project is synthesis when it was funded by 95.4% from other sources. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look again for sources, but like you I struggled to find sources, I was told several times to look at Rann Government but no citations there either. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

another uncited statement[edit]

vigorously opposed the privatisation of water services and electricity assets. Assisted by Liberal government leaks he exploited their internal divisions. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mike Rann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mike Rann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Chantelois[edit]

Why does the name "Michelle Chantelois" never appear in the article? 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:483F:6824:35DC:F7D7 (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Rann&oldid=1205966456"