User talk:ChastityArgyle
Qld elections[edit]
For what it's worth, you're right that people don't become MPs when Antony Green calls a seat, but only because that's actually too late; they all take office the moment the polls close. We just don't know exactly who they are for a while. Their terms are not "backdated" - that refers to what happens e.g. at a double dissolution and is for the purpose of allocating fixed terms; so for example if you take a look at the federal Parliamentary Handbook's list of senators, you can see that Bronwyn Bishop's term began on 11 July 1987 (election day), but we say that was backdated to 1 July 1987 so that her term expired as it constitutionally must on 30 June 1990. If MacMahon or any of the other newbies were to be hit by a bus tomorrow, they would still have been MPs (there is precedent for this, e.g. Charles Howroyd). The real issue, of course, is that if we are considering the newbies to be "MPs-elect", then that should apply to every single member; they are all in that sense "MPs-elect" until the declaration of the poll, but I'm sure you'd agree that it would be silly to go and change, say, Annastacia Palaszczuk to say that.
Having said all that, I think your compromise is an elegant one and have no issue with it - just clarifying for future reference. Frickeg (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to go into this, sincerely. I've had this discussion with quite a few people re: Wikipedia edits in the immediate aftermath of elections specifically. I think it's kind of the case that she is a Schrodinger's MP - both a winner and a loser at the same time. The box is only opened when the ECQ publishes its decision. In the time before that happens, is it enough (from an encyclopedic standpoint) to just assume that she is the winner? Should we use the elections analyst as the definitive source until the commission declares, or hold off until her status is confirmed properly? My opinion is that waiting several days (or weeks) until it is official is the best way forward (considering the small chance that the count is wrong, can change when new votes arrive, or that the presumed winner was ineligible etc.), but that seems to be a minority opinion. ChastityArgyle (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Parliamentary LNP[edit]
There is no federal parliamentary LNP (i.e. "party room"), although some have proposed it [1] [2] (not sure if these will be behind paywall for you). As far as I know all federal MP articles already distinguish between LNP members sitting with the Liberal and Nationals. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what distinction you are attempting to make here, but John McVeigh is a member of the Liberal National Party of Queensland, and that is the party that should be listed on his Wikipedia page. You can list in his infobox that he sat in the Liberal party room when he was a federal MP if you want (the same way it is listed on other LNP MPs' pages, despite you saying otherwise), but he is not a member of the Liberal Party of Australia.ChastityArgyle (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |