Oz freediver

Welcome!

Hi, Oz freediver. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Next Australian federal election seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oz freediver, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Oz freediver! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

chempakabot

WTF is the go with that chempakabot thing sending me messages. Is it legit?

Speedy deletion nomination of Section 282 Commonwealth Electoral Act

A tag has been placed on Section 282 Commonwealth Electoral Act requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

There isn't an CSD A* for "unremarkable section in a massive piece of legislation", but I think it comes under the vibe of the thing.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria 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 removed 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. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Section 282 Commonwealth Electoral Act, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have responded. The speedy deletion thing is back. Is it normal to mark a page for speedy deletion then acknowledge it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion? Oz freediver (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Section 282 Commonwealth Electoral Act for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Section 282 Commonwealth Electoral Act 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/Section 282 Commonwealth Electoral Act until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

When there is dispute on article content, the status quo is usually retained

Greetings! It looks like you're involved in a content dispute at Double dissolution. Since you are the editor attempting to add new material, the general view of the Wikipedia community is that the "burden" is on you to provide the reliable sources and build consensus to support the change. If your addition is reverted, the general view is that the prior version—the version representing the previous status quo—should be retained until after discussion on the talk page produces a new consensus.

It also appears that the other editor is removing your changes in good faith, which means that you (and they) are subject to the three revert rule, both in letter and spirit.

I strongly suggest you focus your effort on talk-page discussion to generate that new consensus. If you persist in edit warring on the article, you may temporarily lose your ability to edit the article, the talk page, and any other page on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

My very first edit was made to the article a long time before the edit war began, so I believe it becomes the status quo. In any case, I have been trying to have a discussion and am happy to make that part of the process, but continually scrubbing the article of all references to the issue will make it impossible to move forward, particularly in the absence of any constructive criticism.

A week is not a long time, especially since there were no intervening edits. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Rotation of senators after a double dissolution moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rotation of senators after a double dissolution, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) 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. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rotation of senators after a double dissolution (April 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rotation of senators after a double dissolution and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rotation of senators after a double dissolution, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rotation of senators after a double dissolution has been accepted

Rotation of senators after a double dissolution, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)