Talk:Jay Weatherill

Premier-designate?

You've got to be kidding. We're two months out from a leadership transition and nothing official has happened, no election has occurred, Rann still holds the office of Premier, and the governor has done nothing. How can we possibly get this far ahead of ourselves at this point? Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of precedents on here to show that we should not be infoboxing him as Premier-designate yet. Even the term designate is disputed in itself. I ask that that change be reverted. Timeshift (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Has he even been elected leader by the parliamentary party? If not, remove it. Hack (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Meant to weigh in myself. Agree with Timeshift that this is premature. May be mentioned but infobox is so concrete. Just revert for now and will be simple to reinstate should things go to plan for Weatherill. There are of course many reasons why this plan could easily be thrown on its head. Donama (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on those precedents? There are many going the other way, which is why the |succeeding parameter exists in the first place. -Rrius (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just look at the history of every state and federal major party leader and election page. There are precedents everywhere. What doesn't ever end are these circular arguments about -elect and -designate. Every time... every time! Timeshift (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed - my understanding is that the succeeding parameter is for e.g. US Presidents-elect, where the "system" dictates that something will happen. It's incredibly premature to call someone the Premier-designate when the choice of Premier is the exclusive decision of the Governor, who has said nothing. He has not been elected leader of anything at this point, I believe the story amounts to some backroom/factional agreements (obviously non-binding) and Rann's commentary. That's to say nothing of the fickle nature of Australian politics - 2 months is a long time... bou·le·var·dier (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ministry list?

Does anyone know where one can be found so the infobox at the bottom can be updated? The Premier website list is down for maintenence. Timeshift (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Sky - IN: Chloe Fox and Ian Hunter; OUT: Foley and Rann. [1] Hack (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Even better from The Australian a full list Hack (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DOB

I can confirm his birth year through this source. The exact date, however, came from an IP and I can't find confirmation anywhere as yet. Frickeg (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Page 11 of the 22 October edition of The Australian has a profile containing the DOB 10 August 1964. Hack (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they have 10 April, the same date that was on Wikipedia, and possibly copied from there. Need an earlier or an official source. Mewulwe (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I had someone else in mind when I typed that. The construction of the piece suggests it owes a lot to Wikipedia... Hack (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Kazimir Kowalski allegations

Please see paragraph 11 of this judgment The Supreme Court of South Australia court file 501 of 2011 contains many documents backing up the facts I added in the article. Blue J did not need to mention what he did in paragraph 11 and he did not need to publish the judgment on the internet. The allegations are not proven, but do exist - much the same as allegations against Craig Thomson, Peter Slipper, Julia Gillard, Bernard Finnigan and Mary Jo Fisher. I would like someone not from South Australia, or not from Australia to intervene on this. I have seen the court file and could provide the evidence that the allegations DO exist. Philiashasspots (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Philiashasspots. There are a couple of problems with the addition - the short version is that if Jay Weatherill is that allegations on their own that haven't received wide coverage aren't particularly significant. Thus adding them here places undue weight on the allegations, especially given that the allegations themselves seem quite minor (especially compared to the examples you raised above). If he ends up being convicted it may well be worth adding the conviction here, and if these allegations get wider coverage then there would be a case for including them, but we need to wait to see how things pan out. - Bilby (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, The fact that "the allegations have not received wide coverage" is (in my opinion) the fear of the media in going first in publishing them. Blue J after many many hours in court in 2012 and seeing all the facts has decided that in his SIXTH judgment to publicly state the allegations in paragraph 11. Stealing $2,000 is not quite minor. I would call the charges against Mary Jo Fisher of stealing less than $100 of groceries, and then the Supermarket not wanting to press charges as "quite minor", but it turned into a media circus and cost Mary Jo Fisher more than $200K in defending herself. Compare this to Jay Weatherill where in the current circumstances there will never be any conviction or even trial or hearing in a court of law because DR A.J. Cannon DCM on 7 October 2011 extraordinarily ordered that the Criminal Information of Mr Kowalski against Jay Weatherill not be accepted by any SA Magistrates Court Registry. Also the Attorney-General of SA has taken the extraordinary step of trying to have the Supreme Court declare Mr Kowalski as a vexatious litigant. I will wait to see if the allegations get wider coverage...Philiashasspots (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Bilby. Btw, a lot of things can turn in to a media circus, but can also allow WP:RS to be met. Timeshift (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift9, I'm trying to understand the issue. Even though I could provide links to primary source documents like the list below you still claim I have an WP:RS issue?

• the 15 November 1995 disputed invoice from Weatherill;
• the 14 February 1996 correspondence to Weatherill;
• the 28 March 1996 trust account statement from Weatherill confirming the $2,000 was taken out of the trust account on 16 November 1995;
• the 29 April 2010 correspondence from the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board about Weatherill;
• the 16 August 2011 correspondence from the Crown Solicitor about the charge against Weatherill;
• the 26 August 2011 correspondence from His Excellency the Governor about Weatherill;
• the 27 September 2011 Information and Summons filed in the magistrates court against Weatherill;
• the 7 October 2011 Reasons for Ruling in the Magistrates Court in Kowalski v Weatherill;

Is the issue mainly that the media have not picked up on the story yet?Philiashasspots (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Timeshift (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift9, What I tried to add to the article is not Original Research. It is from a Reliable Published Source. Have you seen paragraph 11 of the 31 October 2012 judgment? It says "By Information and Summons in the Magistrates Court, Mr Kowalski alleged that on 15 November 1995 he was wrongly billed $3,120 by Lieschke & Weatherill and on 16 November 1995 $2,000 of funds held by that firm in its trust account on his behalf were wrongfully appropriated by Mr Weatherill towards payment of that bill. Mr Kowalski submits that the audited trust account statements for Lieschke & Weatherill are relevant to the issue whether that prosecution was vexatious for this reason."Philiashasspots (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You're putting forth what you believe to be a fact. Being factual is but one element for inclusion. What other sources do you have? Timeshift (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift9, Would you like me to provide links to the 27 September 2011 "Information and Summons" and 7 October 2011 "Reasons for Ruling"? Maybe I should just escalate this to WP:BLPN and have some non-biased people take a look.Philiashasspots (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Philiashasspots (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Court documents are generally specifically disallowed as sources in Wikipedia, and especially on articles falling under WP:BLP. Claims must be based on reliable secondary reports, which appears to be a problem here. Find a newspaper which found this information important enough to print. Collect (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Collect, I am not referencing a court document, but a court decision from a very reliable source - a Supreme Court Judge - who would be considered by a normal person to be much more reliable than any newspaper reporter. Court decisions can be considered primary and secondary sources. The paragraph referenced was written by the judge after careful consideration of the evidence before him. Wikipedia has templates for citing court decisions [2] and AustLii and WorldLii are reliable sources.Philiashasspots (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to ram home the point more than adequately made by others -- just because someone makes a claim against another person in a court does not entitle wikipedia to report on it. I note that the court is yet to decide whether the claim made by Mr Kowalski is to be dismissed on the ground of it being vexatious. As above, these claims should only be reported if reliable secondary sources publish them. The court's judgment is of course a primary source. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mkativerata, Not exactly correct about waiting for the court to decide to dismiss the claim. The court has effectively stayed the Information that was filed by Kowalski and made orders to not allow the Information to be filed at any other Magistrates Court registry in SA. Blue J in the current 501 of 2011 action is being asked by the Attorney General to order that Kowalski is vexatious to prevent him filing ANY court action in SA for the rest of his life. I disagree that a court judgment is always just a primary source. Yes it is a primary source for the judges "decision" findings in the court judgment, but it is also a secondary source of a reliably vetted summary of the evidence put before the court. All this primary and secondary argument does not mean good or bad source. Blue J has published as a reliable secondary source the primary allegations of Kowalski.Philiashasspots (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if there is no secondary coverage then it has no place in the article. While there is no doubt that Kowalski has made these allegations, nobody has taken notice of them, which is the threshold for inclusion here. Kevin (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, You are wrong that no-one has taken notice of them. Blue J has taken notice of the allegation and decided to publish the extent of the allegations. Blue J has not been asked to make any decision on the allegations against Weatherill, except look at them amongst many other cases that the Attorney General has put before the Supreme Court to put forward a case that Mr Kowalski is vexatious.Philiashasspots (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

By secondary coverage I mean the media, who have not taken any notice whatsoever. The court documents you cite are indesputible evidence that the allegation was made, however what we need to decide is if the allegations are important in the context of this article. The way we determine that is by seeing if a source not connected to either Kowalski or the court, such as the local paper, have reported this. In this case they have not, so we do not include it. Kevin (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Have we answered your query Philiashasspots? Timeshift (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift9, No not yet. Would you like me to provide links to the 27 September 2011 "Information and Summons" and 7 October 2011 "Reasons for Ruling"?Philiashasspots (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Philiashasspots, the "decision" you are using as a source is not, apparently, what you think it is. The ruling does not rule on whether the facts are correct. It is merely a decision on a pre-trial issues as to whether a subpoena ought to be allowed to force parties to produce certain evidence and for a particular person not to have to testify. None of the underlying facts of the case was decided. After there is an actual trial, the judgment will be an acceptable source for what the court decided, but it is likely there will be other sources anyway. -Rrius (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rrius, I am aware that the main ruling of the "decision" is nothing to do with the allegations, BUT the "decision" does summarize "as a reliable secondary source" evidence that has been seen by the court. Yes none of the facts of the Weatherill case have been decided (because the case was stayed) and if the Attorney General gets his way these allegations will never be answered by Weatherill.Philiashasspots (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to this process and thought the discussion was happening on the BLP Noticeboard that is mentioned above. All I want to add to the Weatherill article is that the allegations exist - using the wording of Blue J. And maybe a note that Weatherill has never answered the allegations. Philiashasspots (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift9 said about Philiashasspots...

Philiashasspots - Vexatious litigation. It would appear as though you have a WP:SOAPBOX/WP:AGENDA? Timeshift (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Then Philiashasspots changed it to the line below by replacing the comment with ((RPA}} and responded below

Philiashasspots - (Personal attack removed) Timeshift (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift9, WP:NPA Can you please explain your allegation about me over on my talk page? Philiashasspots (talk) 8:25 pm, 6 January 2013, last Sunday (1 day ago) (UTC+11)

Philiashasspots, that was not even remotely a personal attack. Please stop changing other users' comments. It is perfectly civil to ask whether you might have ulterior motivations here, especially considering this is apparently your only area of interest on Wikipedia. Regarding the material, I concur with everyone else: true it may be, but notable it is not. Frickeg (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Frickeg, I have responded below. Philiashasspots (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Then Timeshift9 added back and reworded his comment about Philiashasspots...

Philiashasspots - Vexatious litigation. Considering most of your wikipedia contributions are about this, and you failed to have it added here so you decided to add it at the vex lit article, it would appear as though you have a WP:SOAPBOX/WP:AGENDA? Please don't alter other peoples comments, thankyou. If you disagree, then feel free to talk some more here. But it seems people have already made up their minds based on the above, unless anything new comes to light. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift9, Please don't alter other peoples comments, thankyou! You undid a change where I reformatted my own comment and added the missing signature to it. You also completely deleted my comment where I request no personal attacks and for you to explain the allegation over on my talk page. I only altered your comment by replacing it with a {{RPA}} because I believe your comment was a personal attack on me. You have again made another misleading attack on me saying that "most of my wikipedia contributions are about the Kowalski allegations against Jay Weatherill." Can you please back up that claim or withdraw it? How many of my edits have been directly about the allegations against Jay Weatherill and how many about Kowalski? How many have I done in total? As for the vex lit article all I did was undo what I considered a wrong deletion of the list of SA's vexatious litigants. I did not even write that list. It was only deleted when I expanded on the Kowalski section. I would not say that "people have made up their minds". How many people? Bilby, Timeshift9, Collect, Mkativerata and Rrius never responded to my reply comments. I have no intention of adding the allegations against Weatherill until they appear in the local paper or something - as suggested by Kevin. Philiashasspots (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Timeshift9 and Frickeg, can we continue down here???

Hi Timeshift9, Can you please point to evidence suggesting your claim that I have a WP:SOAPBOX/WP:AGENDA? I wanted to discuss this on my talk page, but you want to continue here. You still have not answered my other questions from above about your allegations about me. Can we start getting constructive and discuss the article and you stop attacking me. I'm not even interested in discussing my allegations against Jay until the local paper picks up the story. I'm just defending your allegations against me. Philiashasspots (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Frickeg, Please don't alter other peoples comments, thankyou! You completely deleted my 07:54, 7 January 2012 comment responding to Timeshift9! I'd have thought that after 6 years of using Wikipedia you would know how to use the "view History" and "edit" tool. Or was it accidentally on purpose? Please tell me where I have changed a users comment, except for replacing it or the one occasion where I replaced the text with {{RPA}}, which I understood was the way to do it. I'd like to ask YOU what your ulterior motivations are here. Can you please back up your spurious claim that Jay Weatherill is my only area of interest on Wikipedia? Philiashasspots (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Philiashasspots, I apologise that I removed some of your comments, but it wouldn't have happened if you hadn't completely deleted Timeshift's remark and erroneously labelled it a personal attack. I copied your comment across from an earlier reversion and missed your changes to your previous comments, since I had to go back to the reversion where you removed Timeshift's remarks. Generally, it is a good idea to make any amendments to your thoughts as a separate comment below rather than adjusting what you have previously contributed, outside typos; it avoids mistakes like this occurring, and lets others clearly see the new thoughts you have added.

You replaced a perfectly legitimate comment with the {{RPA}} tag, which counts as changing it. You should read the WP:NPA page before you throw allegations around. As for ulterior motives - I actually care very little about what's going on here and was trying to stay out of it before foolishly getting drawn in (and I intend to go right back to staying out of it after this). In the places you have popped up on my watchlist you have been dealing exclusively with this lawsuit; perhaps this gave me a misleading impression. Although, looking at your contributions, almost all of them deal with this matter, especially before yesterday. It's an understandable question.

Either way, I think everyone is agreed that there is nothing to be added to this or any other article. Would you dispute that? If that is the case, we may as well all be on our merry ways, and not let this develop into further drama. Frickeg (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. What about you Philiashasspots? Timeshift (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I am happy to assume WP:GOODFAITH but still don't like the claim by both of you that almost all of my contributions deal with this matter/lawsuit. I have made many constructive changes to the Jay Weatherill and Vexatious litigation articles. Only 2 of my edits are still reversed because they detail allegations about Jay Weatherill that mainstream media has not picked up on. I have made big contributions to the South Australia Courts Articles that it appears no-one has been keeping up to date. I have no interest in politics and if the allegations were against Isobel Redmond I'd have put them on her article and we may have been talking on her talk page. I'd appreciate other editors assuming WP:GOODFAITH about me and not assume I am some sort of vexatious vandal looking for a soapbox. I've got better things to do. How about one of you give me some feedback on getting my first article added to Wikipedia. I'm trying to get the red out of Moon Mason by this. Philiashasspots (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"because they detail allegations about Jay Weatherill that mainstream media has not picked up on"... unfortunately to me this appears to indicate you still do not understand contribution guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Timeshift9...... *sigh*...are you going to revert this change just made about Peter Slipper? Were you reverting changes about Mary Jo Fisher's unproven criminal charges in July 2011 and June 2012? No you defended them being there and went further and added speculation about If found guilty on either charge, Fisher would lose her seat in the Australian Senate. In that context can you PLEASE explain why it "appears to indicate I still do not understand contribution guidelines"? Philiashasspots (talk)

Schools and sex abuse and coverups

Does that single sentence really need 10 references? I would have thought that 1 source that provided a decent summation would suffice. Kevin (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, I was just following the example of Timeshift9 on the Isobel Redmond article where he added 28 references from July 2012 to October 2012. Maybe I should add more sentences to cover the different details of the alleged coverups etc. Philiashasspots (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the one sentence is about right to describe these events, I'll see if I can pick out one source from that lot. Kevin (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Cockroach comment

Timeshift9 this was national news. What else did Weatherill do last week? Philiashasspots (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking back at it a few months on, it doesn't seem particularly significant - a couple of mentions in the news and then gone. I wasn't sure if it would have a lot of impact, but it doesn't seem to have had much. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually think it highlights the turning point of "greater civility and respect between members of Parliament" which was getting out of control.Philiashasspots (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems like three of us have objected, so I've removed it again while we work out how to proceed. In regard to it being a turning point, are there any sources which make this connection? As far as I can see, this wasn't a particularly significant event, and if we want to include all the times a leader insults the opposition leader, Keating's article would get buried under quotes. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I only count two objections. Bilby and Timeshift9. Is it encyclopedic that Weatherill "has been a regular patron at the Alberton Hotel in his north-western suburbs electorate"? In the dead link ref that I've just fixed you can see that Weatherill was trying to set new standards of civility in parliament. Weatherill said in his first question time as Premier "Civility is perhaps a quaint notion but civility in Parliament is something we should always strive to uphold". I have heard mention of this cockroach comment on the radio over the last 5 months. It was raised again on 4 May 2013 (almost 3 months after event) in The Australian.Philiashasspots (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I miscounted. I thought someone else had reverted. That said, do you have any source that shows that this was a particularly significant comment? The Australian coverage is only a passing mention, and I can't find anything which shows that the comment is important enough to warrant coverage here. - Bilby (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand with the miscounted objections. Apart from the May 2013 article mention 3 months after the event I can not find any other source with "google". However the event is over and done with, but is a historical fact. Some people may want to hide the fact and hope people do not remember it and keep bringing it up. Why such a strong objection to leaving this fact in? Just because a fact is not discussed continuously - it does not make it less encyclopedic. If the same "deletionist" threshhold was used on the SA politician pages they would have a lot less words on them. Philiashasspots (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Most SA politicians are not Premier. Is there any indication that this comment was particularly significant? Otherwise this seems like precisely the sort of day-to-day thing we should be ignoring as not especially unencyclopaedic. The article is not meant to be a detailed rundown of every single day; WP:NOTNEWS. Frickeg (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshift9, Bilby and Frickeg. If a third-party reliable source has noted that "it highlights the turning point of 'greater civility and respect between members of Parliament' which was getting out of control" (as Philiashasspots wrote above), then it can be included. However I can't find any such evidence of significant coverage of that comment. Graham87 01:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Graham87. I thought the 3 days of national coverage on 6-8 of Feb 2013 was significant coverage. This ref [3] was referring to the cockroach comment. Since it now seems 4 to 1 I'll just take out the edit and someone else can put it back in. Philiashasspots (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It may be behind a paywall, but even a few sentences make it clear that that is an openly hostile opinion piece in the Australian. I'm inclined to think this is just another one of those things that blows up for a few days and then goes away, with no lasting significance. Frickeg (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be included maybe under a 'controversy' section which is present in many articles pertaining to political figures, etc. The fact that it was deemed newsworthy would suggest some element of controversy. Maybe it is a stretch to write that it is indicative of some turning point in civility and respect, etc if it doesn't say that in the article -- I'm sure those reading can make up their minds on that by themselves. However, there are plenty of remarks that were considered newsworthy at the time which are included under 'controversy' (or similar) sections in the articles of many politicians Australian and otherwise which people no longer remember and are no longer reported on. This does not mean they should be removed, especially in a relatively short article and in a medium where there are no fixed space constraints. So add me as an objection to removing it. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My god, just realise why its not appropriate and move on. Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Rape

"In late 2012 Weatherill, Grace Portolesi, Simon Blewett and advisers were drawn into an alleged cover-up in 2010 of an eight-year-old girl being raped at a western suburbs school, that led to an investigation into child sex abuse cover-ups in South Australian government schools." - I know we don't have govt articles on wiki for states but a WP:BLP article isn't the place for someone who had, at best, peripheral unknown involvement. Should it be re-worded or perhaps removed? Timeshift (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing now. Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jay Weatherill. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pollbludger.com/sa2006/cheltenham.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pollbludger.com/sa2006/hartley.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

{expandsection} tags added to first term/second term sections

In the spirit of what eventually became the Rann Government article, i've added {expandsection} tags to the new Jay Weatherill#First term and Jay Weatherill#Second term sections. Does anyone have the motivation at present to add like content? Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jay Weatherill. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160110015336/http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/priorities/policies to http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/priorities/policies
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107160332/http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/media-centre/news-archive to http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/media-centre/news-archive

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jay Weatherill. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151006223319/http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/ministers/premier-jay-weatherill to http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/ministers/premier-jay-weatherill

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)