User talk:Totallynotarandomalt69

G'day Totallynotarandomalt69, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; they have helped improve Wikipedia and made it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions.

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects. Wikimedia Australia your local chapter organises editor training workshops, meetups and other events. If you would like to know more, email [email protected].

If you are living in Australia and want to subscribe to location-based notices, you can add location userboxes to your user page.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Some other resources to help new Wikipedians include:

How to edit a page

Editing tutorial

Picture tutorial

How to write a great article

Article titles

Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! JarrahTree 12:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have correspondence from the VEC to prove that this is the position which the VEC holds that they are still Independents despite the party affiliation. I rather keep it confidential. Do you have an email address I can forward it to? Throwaway is fine.

--Kleinerziegler (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - no need, I believe you on that front but remembering that Wikipedia is not always a straight copy-paste of what a respective electoral commission/ballot says

For simplicity (especially when in Vic the word "independent" is not on the ballot) easier to label them with the affiliation and let the party registration section of the respective election page give further info

Turning Point is not a party so they shouldn't be added alongside Fusion, A1 etc Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In short - just let it state the (unregistered) party name on its own Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Happy for TP to be removed. For the others, not convinced without a robust wikipedia discussion on official record vs. what we think it should be. Probably a question which should be addressed ahead of dreaded council elections where everyone is 'independent'.

--Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, that's fair and I think we need that discussion before the council elections (if you see one, tag me in because I'd love to contribute to it).

For the purpose of space how about editing down "Independent" to "Ind." so it'd be "Ind. Australia One" etc? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with that Kleinerziegler (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I noticed that you have gone ahead and removed PIBCI from Joseph Toscano and deleted the sources for everyone's allegiances. What is going on with that? Is there some kind of wikipedia standard for doing this because it seems strange to be removing information. What if someone wants to verify it in the future? Why does Joseph get different treatment? Is it because of Mulgrave by-election page and his status as a previous candidate and/or you don't want anyone to know who PIBCI are, so you are trying to set a new standard of not having sourced information? Very strange pattern of behaviour mate.

You wrote on your userpage "Just here to add party affiliations and local government election results"

... By removing party affiliations?

I highly doubt that a small outfit like PIBCI are a threat to whatever party you might be aligned with.

--Kleinerziegler (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - is there actual evidence PIBCI is a party, be that unregistered? I don't see how it is, especially compared to others like Fusion and A1

I'm not aligned with any party

For the sake of keeping with the style of every other party in those election results tables, I remove the references and added them to a section on the main 2022 Victorian state election page Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://pibci.net/Joinus.html

https://pibci.net/assets/files/MembershipForm%202021.pdf

~ Kleinerziegler (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, can keep it then Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please get a handle on WP:RS

very useful when updating info JarrahTree 13:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Lightoil. I noticed that you recently removed content from Shire of Colac Otway without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Lightoil (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia, and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to 2020 City of Melbourne election. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use your sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. David Brooks (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke edit? That's the exact ticket names for the 2020 election, check the VEC website (which was already cited) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the link below - the ticket used all those names, why not include them? The ticket names are used on the main City of Melbourne page already

https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/results/council-election-results/2020-council-election-results/melbourne-city-council#CouncillorResults Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Totallynotarandomalt69! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Grorp (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for letting me know Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Restore Democracy Sack Dan Andrews Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restore Democracy Sack Dan Andrews Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to New South Wales Legislative Council did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Oscar Yildiz, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Results of the 1943 Australian federal election (House of Representatives), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian Women's Party. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 New South Wales local elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City of Campbelltown.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Avi Yemini requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Worldiswide (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Australian Football League. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here's a couple of references on senior clubs assuming control of second eighteens, which looks to have been a gradual process through the 30s. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/205268733?searchTerm=%22Second%20eighteen%22%20%22senior%20committee%22 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/164470626?searchTerm=%22second%20eighteen%22%20meeting%20senior

My suggestion is not to treat them as separate clubs in the table of clubs, since all conventions point to club reserves being considered continuous since 1919. The administrative history is less critical to get precise than the football operations history when it comes to sports articles. Aspirex (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - it does appear Collingwood District is a bit of an outlier though, even the club says it was basically stand-alone right up until 1939 Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'll make myself clearer - it does appear Collingwood District is by far most well-documented with its own history than Carlton District etc

But i do see your point Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks heaps for adding the totals for the elections. I've been trying to find a source for the results for ages (the only one I have is 30/9/74 Canberra Times p3, which were preliminary results for the 28 Sep 1974 election) - do you know where more can be found? Orderinchaos 08:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - this is preliminary but here's 1979 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110949961

That being said I know preliminary is usually within 1% of average so may as well put it there until a full/better source can be found

Sadly I can only find the seat total outcome for 1982 Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kicks after the siren in Australian rules football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WAFL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VFL Development League is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VFL Development League until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Note that I've raised this solely due to the notability of the subject. The quality of the article was fine. Aspirex (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Unnamed Tasmanian football club, you may be blocked from editing. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added citation Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanna apologise for deleting your comment on the talk page for VFL Women's on the 17th. I have no idea why I did it or whether it was just a mistake, and I've now restored it.

Thanks, Loytra (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 SANFL season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bryce Gibbs.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from WIN Television into WIN (TV station). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Kevin Bonham. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. Thank you for your work on 2016 New South Wales local elections. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Oscar Yildiz, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. Thank you for your work on List of NEAFL records. User:Lightburst, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for the list

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lightburst}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lightburst (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 Western Australian local elections is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Western Australian local elections until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Steelkamp (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. Thank you for your work on 2014 Tasmanian local elections. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ive noticed you have added to the Pauline Hanson's One Nation page 3 new local government councils with One Nation councillors represented there, i was curious on where you are finding this type of information, i dont doubt that these councillors have affiliations with the party, but wanted to see if theres any good sources you have where you can find this sort of info. Auspol4 (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are on the most recent pages for those local elections - 2022 Tas, 2022 SA, 2024 NSW Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply

I was more asking about the actual party affiliations of the councillors, i might have missed it, but i checked the Tasmanian local elections and i couldn't see any indicator of party affiliations, just candidate names Auspol4 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bubba Copeland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOLITICIAN

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Derpytoucan (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page 6 News Australia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YJFL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jenks24 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I was doing the page for the 2024 Gold Coast City Council Election and I was just wondering what sources or otherwise you used to determine is someone was Independent LNP or not? It would be greatly appreciated so I can properly categorise candidates for 2024.

Thanks, Comfisofa (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I used a bunch but these should cover it:

https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/council-election-2020/gold-coast-council-poll-the-ultimate-punters-guide-on-who-will-win/news-story/2c99e8c0a8b467a89cd4883f1f92550f

http://www.saveourspit.com/No_Terminal/election/CouncilElection2016.html

https://www.couriermail.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=CMWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.couriermail.com.au%2Ftruecrimeaustralia%2Fpolice-courts%2Fcouncil-contender-drunk-drove-twice-in-two-weeks%2Fnews-story%2F70971c44f10e3b2d82f8e7d771d4c11c&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=HIGH-Segment-2-SCORE Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the political affiliations for each and every candidate listed on Results of the 2023 Western Australian local elections? You need a source for each and every one of those, including the "Independent" candidates. Its not enough to just assume a candidate is "Independent" (a term not really even used in WA local government elections, but that's a different conversation) when there are no sources stating they are members of a political party. You have to have specific confirmation they are not a member of a party. For most candidates, I would assume there are no sources either way. Steelkamp (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I think under the circumstances it's not unreasonable to assume independent when the vast majority will be and to the best of any of our ability

Source for political affiliations at least where there is a party will be listed next to the title in each infobox (eg "2023 Western Australian local elections: Broome") Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is unreasonable to assume that. Councillors may very well be members of a political party without that being publicly known. Another issue which I alluded to above is that the term "Independent" is not used in local government in Western Australia (and possibly other states too). Councils here are apolitical, and your focus on political alignments is not a good thing, when councillors can vote however they want and are not generally backed by their political party. There sometimes can be factions on councils, but those factions are often not along party lines and can involve councillors from different political parties. My own local council has one faction with Labor, Greens and apolitical councillors, and another faction with Labor, Liberal and apolitical councillors. Steelkamp (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Councils here are apolitical" are you hearing yourself? They are a tier of government, they are political - whether they are partisan or not is different

Noting that the Greens endorsed candidates and that other parties strongly and openly back their members who do run, it is not inappropriate to mention the political labels in an election infobox while also repeating, as I have done, that councils are supposedly more non-partisan than other states

Also please google "independent councillor" "wa" if you think the label isn't used in WA (it is!) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Results of Tasmanian local elections has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Results of Western Australian local elections has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Results of South Australian local elections has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2023–24 Liberal Party of Australia preselections is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Liberal Party of Australia preselections until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Steelkamp (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. Thank you for your work on 2008 Gold Coast City Council election. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Liberal National Party of Brisbane leadership election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Liberal National Party of Brisbane leadership election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

J2m5 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69,

Thank you for creating 2015 Norfolk Island status referendum.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I've identified the article are possible 60.2 percent of WP:COPYVIO; please remove copyright content from this article, otherwise the are closely eligible for to be nominated for speedy deletion.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aviram7}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 05:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been fixed now Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a lot of content in this edit with no justification in the edit summary. An accident that needs to be reverted? Kerry (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies edit summary should've been provided - reasoning is that no Australian politician articles have "electoral performance" on their own pages unlike USA Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that same content is available in the relevant Brisbane City Council election articles? My quick glance suggests it is. If so, that's probably OK. FWIW, while "notability" determines what subject matter can have its own article, article content merely has to be "relevant" to the topic, so deleting cited content which would be deemed "relevant" is generally not the right thing to do (you usually have to argue that it is contrary to policy in some way (e.g. "trivia") to delete it, or obtain consensus. Having been on-wiki for nearly 20 years, my observation is that similar content not being in a similar article isn't normally compelling as a rationale to delete the material, as it would prevent any innovation occurring, as something always happens for the first time in just one of a group of articles. But OTOH, having large slabs of content duplicated across articles creates maintenance issues (the risk of one article being updated but not the others consistently), which is an argument for not being overly repetitive and use "See Also" or inline wikilinks to point the reader at the article that holds the otherwise-duplicated content. Also, BCC is unlike many other local government councils due to its massive size (apparently it has a bigger budget than the State of Tasmania) which has led in some kind of general consensus in Wikipedia to a greater wilingness to have articles about BCC council members as their responsibilities are argued to be more comparable to state politicians (who all qualify for an article) than the average LGA councillor (who generally don't qualify for an article), so BCC-related content does not always get treated the same as other LGA councils. Nothing is ever simple in Wikipedia :-) but, as a general rule of thumb, don't delete large slabs of content without initiating a discussion on the Talk page or a WikiProject page where applicable, unless there is a clear precedent established. I'd be inclined to suggest that the best course of action here would be to add a See Also section (MOS:SEEALSO) to Quirk's artice which explicitly links to the election articles, with the annotation "For his electoral performance, see" list of applicable articles. That points the reader interested in electoral performance to the right place without the risks of duplication. Kerry (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that makes sense - and yes, all the content that was there is on the BCC election pages linked throughout the Quirk article Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. With regards to this, the reason I changed it was to use a template that automatically calculates the totals, percentages etc. What is your objection to using it? I also wasn't sure why you removed the pp from the infobox?

You also reinserted a couple of errors to the results table, as the swing for Maureen King was wrong, as is the turnout (as it doesn't include informal votes, which the source doesn't give a figure for). Plus I think it's misleading to give swing figures for new candidates – they should be marked out as new (as they were in the table I added). Cheers, Number 57 21:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please don't take this as me being rude or gatekeeping as I'm not sure if you're overly active on Australian elections, but every single Australian election box - including for territories - does not used the "New" for new candidates, it just uses the swing. The election box style it was changed to is also never used for Aus elections Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine this is because {{Election results}} is relatively new. However, is "this is how we've always done things" a good reason not to make improvements? Cheers, Number 57 21:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but I think if you want to open discussion on Aus politics Wikipedia about a different template go right ahead and we can have that discussion, but it would be very inconsistent to use that template on just a handful of the literally tens of thousands of uses of the current template Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will consider that, although my experience is that English-speaking politics WPs are particularly bad when it comes to resistance to change...

Separately, if historic Norfolk Island elections are of interest, I spent several months reading through all issues of Pacific Islands Monthly from the 1930s to early 1990s, and bookmarked numerous articles on Norfolk elections and referendums for future use, which are listed at User:Number 57/Norfolk Island. Cheers, Number 57 12:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a person stands for election in local government and does not give a party affiliation to the ECQ, then they are independents and [1] does not show any party affiliation for those elected in Mackay compared with [2] which shows parties for many of those standing in Brisbane Brisbane. No idea about other statets but ECQ does not use terms like Independent Labor nor Team Whatever. Maybe it's ok to mention the teams provided it's made clear that these are NOT political parties, just alliances of candidates that share similar (and usually apolitical) goals , e.g. "lower rates and a new council swimming pool". To say "Team Such And Such" without saying anything about what their goals are is pretty pointless. Please remove these inappropriate party affilations. Kerry (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've added some info re Greg Williamson to try and add some actual info - I know the ECQ does use the "Team Greg Williamson" stuff for elections as a candidate group (see: https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/64200/Team-Greg-Williamson_Redacted.pdf) and the group name is also used in local media effectively representing them as a party-type group (see here: https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/mackay/community/mackay-council-mural-vote-divides-oncestrong-alliance/news-story/e1b44c585f332e71767c98b8591f42a8)

Independent Labor just used as shorthand for "Independent but declared Labor member" Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see the info on Team Greg Williamson. But the party membership of some councillors is irrelevant to their participation in the council, which is the topic being discussed in this article. They might be Catholics or Bronco supporters but we'd hardly group them as Independent Catholics or Independent Bronco supporters. The column heading says "Party" and all of them were elected as independents, so to write anything other than Independent is misleading and I think will imply to some readers that they are pursuing an agenda associated with that party in some way. The ECQ results (the most reliable source) lists them as not having a party affiliation and we should stick with the source. Now if this was an article about the person, then by all means say something about party membership, but it would still be necessary to make clear that they were an independent in the council. Maybe if their party membership resulted in them doing something in their role in council that was a conflict of interest or somehow dubious (e.g. having all political advertising by other parties during a state election pulled down), it would be worth discussing. Also the table in the infobox with Political Groupings needs to go for the same reason as there is no basis for assuming 6 of the Independents work together as a group and therefore constitute a majority in the council. Nor is there a reason to think the 2 "independent labour" council memmbers are in cahoots etc. There is no requirement to use sections or fields of an infobox if they are inappropriate or could be misleading. Infobox fields are intended for basic facts that don't require a lot of careful interpretation. When a situation is more complex, it is always better to explain at length in the article body and omit the information content. Since the table of councillors should show all of them as independents, we don't need that section in the infobox. Kerry (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've cleaned up the infobox - I should note, that groupings section wasn't added by me Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have checked more carefully. Kerry (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah all good, no big deal at all! Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. Thank you for your work on 1979 Norfolk Island electoral system referendum. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. Thank you for your work on 1991 Norfolk Island status referendum. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. Thank you for your work on 1991 Norfolk Island electoral status referendum. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please make an effort to make sure that you create categories, could you make sure there in turn it is in a category, thanks... JarrahTree 13:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Western Australian state electoral results by region indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 March 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jesse Baird, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 01:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kevin Bonham, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69,

Thank you for creating Electoral division of Tennant Creek.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This is likely to be a permanent stub, and will to tough to reference for other than the one reference you have. I wonder whether it might be better to merge to a History section in what I suppose is the closest modern fit: Electoral division of Barkly.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Klbrain (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a handle on talk pages on articles and categories that you create?

Is there a problem with understanding the tagging that takes place after your edits?

It would be useful to know if help is required... JarrahTree 09:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make an effort, as it takes followers effort to actually keep up with you, it is very easy to do... JarrahTree 02:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. Thank you for your work on 1915 Bendigo East state by-election. Klbrain, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

The content seems to work better at Electoral results for the district of Bendigo East, where almost the entire page was already an excerpt. The except structure works well for elections on that page, but it seems unwarranted to do so for bielections. That is, while Results of the 1914 Victorian state election (Legislative Assembly) is large enough as a topic to warrant separate discussion, the 1915 bielection for Bendigo East isn't.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've made a few more by-election splits, at least some of which I've also reversed. Note that if an excerpt is (almost) the content of the entire new page, that suggests the new page isn't needed - it isn't helpful for readers to see the same content in two place - that is, at Electoral results for the district of Hawthorn#1939 by-election and at a stand-alone 1939 Hawthorn state by-election. Klbrain (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I've started a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Victorian_state_by-elections_-_keep_or_remove? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic Labour Party (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Bourke.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 Palmerston City Council election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Palmerston City Council election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Steelkamp (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1944 Kearsley Shire Council election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1944 Kearsley Shire Council election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Steelkamp (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why 1980 is in the article title? ITBF (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was agreed to in the discussion but now that you mention it, I wouldn't be opposed to changing it to remove that

Do you wanna open the discussion? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Perth City Council elections has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sydney County Council elections has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Terry James has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Being a mayor or councilor without passing WP:GNG does not take us anywhere from WP:NPOL. This utterly fails WP:GNG. Do not remove the PROD tag if you won’t provide sources to pass GNG even though I don’t see any from WP:BEFORE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kevin Bonham".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amy Eden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Eden until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Totallynotarandomalt69, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Teresa Harding, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Harding.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Toadspike}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Toadspike (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69. Thank you for your work on Blackburn-Mutton Labor Party. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terry James is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry James until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 Western Australian local elections is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Western Australian local elections (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Steelkamp (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 New South Wales mayoral elections is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 New South Wales mayoral elections until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dave Porter (Norfolk Islander politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV - sources used in the article are routine election coverage - and there is no inherent notability in the positions he held given the territory's tiny population.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ITBF (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69,

Thank you for creating Coburg Amateurs Football Club.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

WP:SIGCOV

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Babegriev}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bgv. (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Election box gain no from AU party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Election box lead candidate begin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Election box seats AU party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page about YNBIT. I find someone that looks at this page and decides to remove the YNBIT constitution and claiming this is biased is complete hypocritical. I did not remove any of your obviously slanted articles or comments. For the mods who may see this in the future The NB Advocate is run by a Liberal Party member which is the Political adversary in their own minds of YNBIT. YNBIT is about community representation in local government not politics. I will happily have a civil conversation with you but you have had effective control of this page until I found it this week. From YNBIT When I find out how to comment in the history page you will see this there too. YNBIT (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by S0091 were:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read "What Wikipedia is not" for more information.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Kamala Harris. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

WP:NOTNEWS and also need to show sustained coverage to meet GNG. In the interim, if it not already I suggest including some of the content in the main article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Totallynotarandomalt69! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Electoral history of Billy Hughes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral history of Billy Hughes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

I T B F 💬 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:East Caulfield Football Club.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1997 Australian Constitutional Convention election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ted Mack.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kew Football Club.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dandenong West Football Club.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kew Football Club.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]