User talk:Observoz

Welcome

Hello Observoz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:

How to edit a page

Editing tutorial

Picture tutorial

How to write a great article

Naming conventions

Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects.

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 your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! --Matilda ^talk 16:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Abbott and abortion

Was that an accident or...? Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where your coming from here, but here's a source for you to review in which Abbott uses the 'safe legal rare' line - http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1020354 He has repeated this several times and you will find it repeatedly with a little research. Does that answer your question? To be accurate we cannot say "Abbott opposes abortion" because it is not his stated position. Also, somebody has inserted an irrelant US politics link and deleted the 60 minutes link above. I'll restore the relevant linkObservoz (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony Smith in Julia Gillard article

I'm confused by your addition of a comment about Tony Smith to the Julia Gillard article. That Tony link takes me to a disambiguation page containing only one current political Tony Smith, and he's a Liberal Party member. Who did you mean? HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry a typo! i have fixed it : should be tony burke. thanks Observoz (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Lee Rhiannon

The line about Rhiannon's parents' views on 1968 is not sourced one way of the other. I'm going to delete it unless a source is provided. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source: The article in the Australian says: "She says her parents were among many Australians who became disillusioned with Moscow after Soviet tanks crushed Czechoslovakia's move towards "socialism with a human face" in 1968. That was when the Communist Party of Australia formally split from the Russian communists." The article clearly suggests that Bill and Freda Brown were among those "disillusioned with Moscow" who then "split from the Russian communists." This is an outrageous lie. In fact the exect opposite was the case. They were pro-Moscow hardliners who supported the invasion and left the CPA in 1971 to found a new pro-Moscow party. I don't have sources for this at present, but they are easy to find. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Popularity?

In regards to your One Nation reference, you can't say a party isn't popular because they only got 10% of the vote, that makes no sense. Gaining one of every ten votes actually indicates popularity. On your theory, no party is popular! At the last election, by your theory, 60% of people dislike Labor, 60% dislike the Coalition, and 90% dislike the Greens. Timeshift (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure I agree with your logic there, but can we really say One Nation was "popular"? My feeling is they emerged in a blaze of publicity because they were saying things not generally heard in Australian politics - but then her movement belly flopped and imploded pretty quick. Hanson herself was never elected on a One Nation ticket was she? I think she was elected to a safe Labor electorate as an independent in 1996 but still listed as "Liberal" on some how to vote cards I believe, so she won disaffected Labor and Liberal voters but also Coalition voters who weren't paying close attention? She was never re-elected. After that, One Nation got what - one seat in the senate in 1998? Can we call that "popularity"? Certainly there was media interest, and the party briefly won seats at the QLD state level, but at no stage were they a genuinely "popular" party, given:

a) their lack of Federal Seats

b) the huge amount of criticism leveled at them on the basis of their racism and extreme economic policies.

Your thoughts? If you still disagree, shall we put this discussion on article page?Observoz (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a popular party at the 1998 election. They got 8 percent nationally and much more in QLD. One Nation took something like a quarter of the QLD assembly at their election. My point is, you can't say a party isnt popular because 90 percent of people didn't vote for them, it's a strawman argument. Take this as a comment on your comment rather than a comment on an article. Timeshift (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Look these are obviously relative terms, and Hanson achieved popularity among certain constituents but I think that if 92% of people don't vote for a party then it's a real stretch to call it a "popular" Australian political party - though it is significant in its own time frame and in our system parties like the Greens, One Nation and Democratic Labor can have major influence in the Senate and in national debate. But Hanson as an individual was genuinely loathed in many circles and never re-elected to office after she made her "swamped by Asians" speech. We obviously can't put this nuance into the opening of a wikipedia article, so let's not imply that she was a "popular" figure nationwide, as she clearly wasn't and, in my view, it maligns the Australian electorate to say that she was.Observoz (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If a party moves from the fringes of 1-2 percent, to around 10 percent, they have become popular. I am not debating anything else or any article. Timeshift (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rain Man.Observoz (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Gillard Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghanistan War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

History wars

History War - I do not generally object to your changes. Yet it is a fact in this debate, which you seem to deny, that some people do claim that warfare and invasion are not words which accurately describe Australian colonial history. Moreover Windschuttle do essentially deny that Aborigines were engaged in defending their tribal land against invasion, he states that they were just about stealing from the whites, they were not fighting or pareticipating in forms of warfare, this is a fact which needs to be proper reflected in the first paragraph. I do not think youre changes accurately reflects this

I also object to the term 'mainstream historians' we are attempting to describe two opposing views, what so-called 'mainstream historians' think has little to do with this debate. If your 'mainstream historians' ruled this world there probably would never have been a history war. That is if such historians exist at all - which I very much doubt - and all historians are specialist or are relying on specialist, they are no 'mainstrem historians' only specialist and generalists. What politicians think or say are really of no relevance here. Besides virtually all with expertice in this field disagree with Windschuttle's views - that, indeed, is why he takes on the entire 'academia' as he puts it. Consider this Helsned 07:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. Firstly, I found the text misleading because it seemed to say that there were historians in the debate who have said that there was "no conflict" between Europeans and Aborigines - but I am not aware of one single historian who says this, are you? Windshuttle admits 300 deaths in Tasmania, so even he is not trying to say there wasn't conflict. Words that are not disputed are "violence", "imperialism" and "colonialism" - all of these are given by all sides. I think where the "history war" comes in is on questions like was this violence "warfare" "invasion" and "genocide", right?

Secondly, according to the article, politicians are important because leaders like John Howard, Paul Keating and Kevin Rudd's views are all discussed.

About the word "mainstream" though, we can delete it because there are no historians at all (as far as I am aware) who say there wasn't "a degree" of violence and injustice in colonial history, so you are right, the word is not necessary.Observoz (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited History wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Perouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. When you recently edited Tony Abbott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sun-Herald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

ALP

Do you realise your irrelevant addition to the reform section of the article was already in the WW2 section above it? You really need to read the article as a whole. My additions have been excellent. I think both the ALP and LPA articles are looking better than ever. Timeshift (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Humility is not your strong point, is it? The material you are trying to delete is NOT where you claim it to be. What gives? You are attempting to erase information vital to the balanced historical record of the Whitlam Government. Offer compromise by all means, but don't be obstructionist. The consensus among editors seems to be that your additions need to be more balanced. This can be acheived. We agree on one thing, though, the Lib and Lab articles are "moving forward" as Julia might put it but there's "more to do" as Morris Iemma used to say. Quite frankly until recent months these articles were hopeless as historical resources - so well done on getting the ball rolling.Observoz (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is in the WW2 section above it! HAVE A READ PLEASE! :) That goes for the other editors too! You'd be surprised how much duplication there was, review my contribs. There is a section above for a more broad overview, but this section is about reforms. Not everything that ever happened or occurred under any given government. Timeshift (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, consensus has not been reached that your additions will remain as reforms only. Personally I support the inclusion of most of your data, but intend to work through, section by section, adding additional historical context. I agree we need to work through duplification, but are you seriously trying to say that this:

“ Gough Whitlam led the Federal Labor Party back to office in 1972. The Whitlam Government lost office following the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis and Dismissal, and was defeated in a landslide at the resulting 1975 Australian Federal Election. ”

Equates to this:

“ Gough Whitlam led Labor to power at the 1972 election and retained government at the 1974 election, before being dismissed by Governor-General Sir John Kerr at the climax of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis when the Coalition blocked supply in the Senate after a series of political scandals reached their nadir in the Loans Affair...

Whitlam massively expanded the federal budget to pay for his social programs. By 1974, Australia was suffering in a world recession and inflation was high and rising. While aspects of Whitlam's reform agenda became permanent, subsequent governments reined in some key Whitlam spending programs: the Fraser Government reduced public service pay rises to combat inflation and partially dismantled Medibank, though it was later re-created as Medicare under the Bob Hawke government. Tax payer funded free tertiary education did not survive beyond the Whitlam era.

”

No, it doesn't.

Essentially, the points that will need to be made in the Whitlam section are: a) some context as to the justification the Libs gave for blocking supply; b) that his "reform" effort involved massive (I think in the order of 40% in one year alone) expansion of the size of the Federal Budget; leading to c) the repeal of key pieces of his agenda. Such a version of your text will be infinitely more informative. I agree we don't want every last detail, but you can't ignore economics when it comes to Whitlam. Bob Hawke, remember used to go out of his way to contrast himself to Whitlam in terms of economic policy - it's really, really significant, and if your text holds, completely ignored.Observoz (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I see now that you have adjusted the WW2 text, but only after my additions to Whitlam. Odd remarks.Observoz (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I expanded it slightly to include a couple of links of yours that weren't included. My point is that it was already mentioned above. This section is not for all and sundry. Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted.Observoz (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What apology? Meh, let's keep it to the ALP talk page. Timeshift (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Query

Have you read this before? Timeshift (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Julia Gillard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal-National Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 01:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Julia Gillard

Hi! Just as a quick note, when copying material between articles you need to provide attribution to the source article, as the CC licensing requires that we continue to attribute the authors. So when you copied material from AWU scandal to Julia Gillard, you needed to state in the edit summary the source of the material. I've added a dummy edit to correct this, though, so all should be good. More generally you seem to use bare references a lot, and that copying introduced a bare reference and some broken ones - if possible, would you be able to add a bit more content in the citations? The risk is that if the URL breaks, the reference won't be verifiable unless there's additional data to follow up on. - Bilby (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, thanks for the note. I will try! On one point in your additions and subtractions, I'd of thought some reference to the Styant-Browne version of events would improve our coverage, even if not including the whole quote? Slater & Gordon's press release clearly has a different emphasis to Styant-Browne, but doesn't really seem to contradict the key points of Styant Browne's analysis (ie that the partners were divided and some had deep reservations as to Gillard's conduct but that she left and thus defused the need to reach a consensus). Pointedly it does not say outright that there was no concerns of "wrong doing" but only the very lawerly sentence that there was nothing "which contradicted the information provided by Ms Gillard". Is there a source I haven't yet seen that directly contradicts Styant Browne? Can take to talk page if you prefer? Also, seems to be consensus that we can alter "scandal" to "affair" - do you know how we go about it? Observoz (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I generally wait a while before doing a name change, in case there are some objections we missed. Probably time to take care of it though - I'll do it tonight. :) In regard to the Styant-Browne quote, my concern came from earlier in that interview, when he talks about how there were a specturm of views in the firm about her conduct, with Gordon Brown giving her the benefit of the doubt and Styant-Browne sitting at the other end. So the quote, "there was deep disquiet amongst the partnership about Ms Gillard's conduct and it was never necessary for the partnership to resolve that issue because Ms Gillard herself elected to resign" felt a bit problematic, as it reads as if the partners felt that there was a problem with her conduct, but hadn't decided how to respond, whilst his earlier statement had been that the partners hadn't decided if there was a problem they needed to respond to. Given that I gather Gordon Brown was the main investigator, and that the meaning of the quote is unclear, I wasn't inclined to focus on Styant-Browne's material. On the other hand, Brown's response is also a bit of a problem, as clearly there was a strong alternative view in Styant-Browne. So I figured if it was tackled it would need a paragraph of its own, which it more-or-less has, rather than a summary statement in the Julia Gillard article.

It's a tricky balancing problem - I'm always uncomfortable when we're working with material that it mostly based on allegations from opposing positions. But I guess we're stuck with it for this one. - Bilby (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Australia Day 2012 protests

Thanks for your recent edits on Australia Day 2012 protests :-) I spent quite a lot of time drafting that article and was a bit disappointed that no-one else seemed very interested in it. It's nice to see it get a bit of love. Merry Christmas! --Surturz (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tony Abbott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noel Pearson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Early 1990s recession in Australia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Brian Howe and John Cain

Hawke Government (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Brian Howe

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rudd Government (2013–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian Labor Party leadership spill, 2013 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Prime Ministers of Australia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Medicare and The Dismissal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 20:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abbott Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rio Tinto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loans Affair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Dismissal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tim Minchin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Brennan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Niki Savva

Hi, I'm Damibaru. Observoz, thanks for creating Niki Savva!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Good article. However, bare URLs as references are not such a great idea. To change that, you can create them with the cite tool in the edit window. Also, it might be helpful to include all the citations to one source (one URL) as one reference. In the "reference name" section in the ref. tool, just add reference name (the author, article title, whatever). Preview or save the page, and when the same source should be cited again, just click on the "Named reference" button, and choose the right ref. Hope this helps! Cheers from up above.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Damibaru (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kerry O'Brien (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Dismissal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Cory Bernardi

I have no issue adding the substance of what you added, but at least try to do it with a semblance of WP:BALANCE - the heading and the first sentence stick out most. Try again. Have a look at these edits of mine today for a guide on how to contribute more professionally. Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits over the years stick out neither for professionality nor WP:BALANCE. Please don't delete whole sections when you only have a quibble with a small portion. Observoz (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Attacks" should never be in a section title. And 'conservative' is a euphemism designed to normalise, his detractors label him as right-wing or far-right. See my edit here which removed the unprofessional and unbalanced portion you added. I know you're hurting, but my edits run infinite rings around yours, and your judgement of what is professional or balanced is meaningless to me and anyone who contributes meaningfully. Don't feel the need to reply, it'll just degrade in to pointless bickering. Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Mate - please understand that your combative ad hominen style and deleting approach is consistently against the spirit of wikipedia. Your unsourced use of the terms "right-wing" or "far-right" may match your personal feelings, but are neither Balanced nor Sourced and therefore are not acceptable. Wikipedia 101. Observoz (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not deleting, i'm rephrasing and improving your contributions. Bernardi's detractors don't label him conservative, they label him right-wing, or far-right - there's plenty of sources, I just assumed your sources included this. No half-decent article would say his detractors label him as simply conservative, they would not be that nice or fair to him. And mate - i'm all over your edits and I plan to continue to be... someone needs to clean up your sloppy edits, might as well be me. One thing I won't clean up after is another of your bad habits, your bare link refs... do you always just only ever add the link without a title, publisher and date? Master Editor II and I still have as much enthusiasm for wikipedia as ever :) Timeshift (talk)

You deleted the whole entry - and then came here with a series of personal attacks! Come to my page with collaborationist, respectful talk, and I'll help out every time, but don't even think about harassing me, or you'll end up in time-out. You can't just put up a section with a bunch of abusive phrases about somebody under a light phrase like "detractors", as it can really stray towards defaming them. This guy is not someone I'd vote for, but his office was just violently trashed - that's called an "attack", not a "detraction". Keep that in mind when you guard your Bernardi page. Observoz (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

What you call a personal attack, I call an honest and true observation. You can't add sections with words like "attack" or "controversy". "Detractors" is much more used. I'm not guarding the Bernardi page any more than any other page from sloppy edits. Sloppy edit - not a personal attack, an honest and true observation. Perhaps your interpretation of it as a personal attack reveals more than you care to admit? Timeshift (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if you insist on continuing to add bare URLs as references, can you at least run this tool on the article after doing so? Thanks :) Timeshift (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Paul Bongiorno

added a link pointing to The Dismissal

Tony Jones (news journalist)

added a link pointing to Ray Martin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Turnbull Government

added links pointing to Q&A and Alan Jones

Abbott Government

added a link pointing to Alan Jones

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian Broadcasting Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Insiders. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian Broadcasting Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rudd Government. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Section 18C listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Section 18C. Since you had some involvement with the Section 18C redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Observoz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Gain consensus

As I've pointed out, there are issues with the content you wish to add in to the Q&A (Australian talk show)‎ article. Discuss the material you'd like to add onto the article, over on the article's talk page. Stop edit warring, you made a bold edit – it was undone – now it's time for you to discuss it. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

My edits were incomplete. You were rather hasty there. However, I have commented on the talk page and am happy to continue to do so. Obviously, a description of a program as a "lefty lynch mob" and boycott of it by a conservative PM must be included. Your point about Howard accepting the auction detracts nothing from the extraordinary act of the program in endorsing it. Either it objects to septuagenarian panellists being shouted down and physically attacked or it doesn't. The decision to endorse the protester is more than noteworthy. Observoz (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject!

Hello, Observoz! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Observoz!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks. Not entirely convinced that it needs to be split from Racial Discrimination Act, but on the other hand it would probably overwhelm that article.

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for your work on George Pell

		The Original Barnstar
		Just to recognise all your work on the George Pell article. Cjhard (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Have you written ,, However, contrary to much media coverage, the Royal Commission also established that abuse from within the Church in Australia is largely an historical phenomenon, having peaked in the 1970s, and that the Catholic Church was not per capita the worst offender among the religious and secular institutions examined"? I can not find this information in the report .http://childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/e352891e-2cb8-4abf-96b9-4449296c470b/Analysis-of-claims-of-child-sexual-abuse-made-with — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.8.230.158 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Observoz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of category's dealing with politicians from a particular party associated with state broadcasters

Hi, there's currently a discussion over whether to keep the category Category:BBC_journalists_associated_with_the_Labour_Party_(UK). I've citied the excellent parallel categories you created for Australia in the discussion and so you may wish to have your say on the topic. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_29#Category:BBC_journalists_associated_with_the_Labour_Party_(UK) Thanks --Shakehandsman (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Laura Tingle

Please see Wikipedia:Original research. This is a journalist asking a question about one particular take on events. She does not suggest that it is hers, although it may well be. The contention that that says anything about her beliefs is pure editorial speculation and cannot be added to Wikipedia.

She may very well have said it elsewhere, if as you state "She has repeated it in all her analysis of the downfall of Turnbull". In that case, we need to quote the analysis - which is absolutely acceptable - rather than speculating upon a particular meaning of a journalist's question that says far more about your take on events that her views on the matter, if any. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There is not speculation. The words say what the words say. Furthermore, the fact you are writing "she may well have said it elsewhere" suggests to me you are not very familiar with this journalist's work, and perhaps should be more cautious before reverting uncontroversial statements from her article. Observoz (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Barry, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paul Murray and Alan Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Observoz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Bushfires in Australia you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

1994 Sydney bushfires moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 1994 Sydney bushfires, does not have enough content and citations as written to remain published. It needs to be expanded into an article with 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.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi I dream of horses, could you please restore the redirect to 1994 Eastern seaboard fires. Observoz (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1994 Eastern seaboard fires, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Howe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bushfires in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Howe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've just undone several of your recent edits, as they're blatantly biased. I note that you're also in an edit war over them. You will be blocked if this continues. Nick-D (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? The High Court of Australia is not a biased source. An editor has deleted a passage directly quoting the high court's summary of the case for no apparent reason. Observoz (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Pell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Marr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

George Pell

G'day mate! On 11 April you inserted the following in-line citation into the Pell article:

"Travesty of justice: 'trusted' institutions fail Pell, public", The Australian, 11 April 2020.

See your diff.

It appears to me that this citation now points only to an advertisement for paid subscriptions to The Australian. Could you either up-date the citation so all readers can see the opinion piece from The Australian, or delete the citation from the article? Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 11:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australian Broadcasting Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Craven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:1994 Sydney bushfires

Hello, Observoz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "1994 Sydney bushfires".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laura Tingle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Anderson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:ABC journalists associated with the Liberal Party of Australia has been nominated for deletion

Category:ABC journalists associated with the Liberal Party of Australia has been nominated for deletion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Insiders (Australian TV program) panelists has been nominated for deletion

Category:Insiders (Australian TV program) panelists has been nominated for deletion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Important notice: post-1992 American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morrison Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harold Thomas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Mellk (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 Australian federal budget moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2022 Australian federal budget, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs 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. John B123 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:2022 Australian federal budget

Hello, Observoz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2022 Australian federal budget, 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) 18:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2022 Australian federal budget

Hello, Observoz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2022 Australian federal budget".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Hanna.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice renewal

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for George Pell

An article that been involved with (George Pell) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Name to be decided). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. _MB190417_ (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indigenous Voice to Parliament, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frank Brennan and Greg Craven.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Beccaynr (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)