User talk:Supun47

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) 09:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Division of Wright

While I applaud your initiative, I'm proposing this page for deletion. It doesn't exist yet, and it may never exist (the redistribution is still only at the draft stage). Last time the division was originally named Wright but ended up as Flynn. Remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Frickeg (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia states that all articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. I really do believe the article meets this critera. 1. Everything in is it verifiable with creditable sources. 2. If the electorate was officially made, a wiki article on it would certainly have been published. This meets teh critera of the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred 3. The people who live in the proposed electorate and many political pundits would have have an interest in the proposed electorate 4. Also, the electorate is offically and formally proposed by the AEC. Its not like the electorate is based on rumor or speculation

Therefore, I really do oppose deleting the article. --Supun47 (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think it's best to notify WikiProject Australian politics before we go on to AfD. I would also like to acknowledge your civility - it was lovely to get a well-thought-out response and rationale, even if I disagree with it. Just a few things:

1. Verifiability does not confer notability. The Liberal candidate for, say, Grayndler is perfectly verifiable but not in the least notable.
2. If the electorate is officially made, of course it would need a wiki article. But at this stage, it could well have to be deleted in the long run (if it's not created it won't be notable), and we generally don't have articles on things like that. WP:CRYSTAL states that scheduled or future events should only be included if the event is almost certain to take place. This one's not; Flynn/Wright last time proves that. I really can't see any problem with including all the information on the proposed Wright in the Next Australian federal election page until it's confirmed.
3. It's not our responsibility to provide people with information relevant specifically to them. I'm interested in my local councillors, but they're not notable - that's not what Wikipedia is about.
4. As I said, a Division of Wright was officially and formally proposed by the AEC last time too, and it didn't happen. I don't dispute that this time it's far more likely to happen, but I just suggest that it's speculation to have it this early. There's absolutely no harm in waiting.

I'll copy and paste this discussion to Talk:Division of Wright. I saw what you said there, by the way, and a friendly warning: that's starting to sound a lot like WP:OWN, so just be careful. Thanks again for getting back to me. Frickeg (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your electoral system

I'm not sure if you're looking for feedback on your electoral system, but here it is anyway. Why do you think it necessary to force voters to the polls a second time when they've already stated their preference between the two candidates? If the voters behaved rationally you'd simply get the exact same result: Michelle 47 Albert 42 Informal 21. (And since that isn't an absolute majority either, would a third runoff be required?) Digestible (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, ye i really wanted to hear some feedback, thanks.

A runoff with this sytem would be very, very rare. it would only occur if there are many candidates or if the rsults two party prefered is very close. In the large majority of elections, only one round would be needed. remember, it is a single transferable vote. --Supun47 (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. The whole point of the single transferable vote is to allow voters to vote just the once, and with that vote account for all possible pairwise (instant) runoffs. It seems pointless to have a second run-off election (rare or otherwise) when that run-off has already been conducted under the single transferable vote. Digestible (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A runoff (2nd round) had to occur because a candidate MUST recieve a majority. Michelle finsihed on 47, just short. --Supun47 (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A majority of what? A majority of non-exhausted votes? A majority of formal votes? A majority of all votes? A majority of enrolled voters? A majority of the votng age population inside the electorate? As I said above, if the voters behaved rationally you'd get the exact same outcome in the second round as you did in the first. Would that necessitate a third round? Digestible (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A majority of all total primary votes. --Supun47 (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So why not simply mandate that voters must enumerate a full list of preferences? (as indeed they are required to do in most Australian jurisdictions.) It saves the trouble of going to a second round. Digestible (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Most people just donkey vote it. Many put their first preference and second and jsut donkey vote the rest. Having a runoff clearly shows the final two candidates and teh voter can make their decision. --Supun47 (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by donkey vote. A donkey vote traditionally defined, is numbering 1,2,3... straight down the page. Any voter who has done that has already expressed their preference between any pair of candidates, so their vote would end up with one or the other in any case. Digestible (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is most people under full numbering, many voters just put their their first and second preferences. and then they completely randomly number the other candidates. --Supun47 (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So it's better that they express no preference at all and then come back to the polls a second time to register that previously unexpressed preference? Whilst I can see your point, I still find it an unworthy exercise. Since every voter has had the chance to state a preference in the first round. Essentially you're asking them to come back to fill in the remaining squares on their ballot paper. And seeing as they have neglected to do so, they probably don't have a strong preference one way or the other. (I quite deliberately left some blank squares on my ballot paper at the last NSW state election.) Digestible (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If i can think of some other example, lets say a hypothetical left wing voter goes to the polls. The main parties on the ballot r labor, liberal, greens, leftist-independent. (using the current nsw system) the voter goes 1 greens 2 independent. He/she decides that there is no real difference between labor and liberal so he/she doesnt even bother prefernecing either of them. Lets also say a number of other left wing people in the electorate do the same thing. that is, 1 greens 2 independent. Now, lets say teh election is close. obvisoly, this person and teh otehr left wing people like him wont affect the result because they didnt preference and major party. so in teh end they amke no difference and their actual vote made no real difference. However under my system, if the election had to go to a runoff between labor and liberals, tehy would then have a clear choice: theres no greens or indpendent candidate. U either vote labor or liberal. and tehn quite simply, whoever gets teh most votes wins. So again, it gives all voters a clear, clear choice. --Supun47 (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your argument, I just don't agree with your conclusion. If the voter has decided that there is "no real difference" between labor and liberal in the first round then shouldn't they continue to feel the same way in the second round? In which case they'd either vote informal or not vote at all. Digestible (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In the runoff it would allow everyone to clearly vote for who they prefer. Theres certainly a likelihood that this voter may hav not preferenced liberals or labor in the first round, however may prefer one or the otehr during the runoff. The voter and many otehrs may go well, i didnt see any difference between liberal and labor in the first round. however the runoff is between these twon candidates and i have to choose ebtween them. mayb ill chek each of these two candiadte's policies more closly and then decide. if tehy hwoever decide theres still no difference tehn quite simply tehy wouldnt bother voting. in all liklihood, the majoirity of these left wing voter will not botehr in teh runoff, hwoever tehre certainyly will b a number who previsoly had no preference but do now. and those number of votes will ultimatley decide this very close election. And again let me reinforce, a runoff would only occur in very, very close elections. --Supun47 (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that it's an academic discussion, I think the fact of whether a run off is rare or not is neither here nor there. I reiterate that our hypothetical voter has had their opportunity to state a labor v liberal preference and has failed to do so. I would also point out that you're applying a different standard at this final two-candidate stage than your are at other points in the count. For instance, suppose the three candidate count is labor v liberal v independent. Suppose further that it's a crucial elimination point, and whichever candidate is eliminated ultimately determines the eventual winner. (c.f. Frome state by-election, 2009) Now given that under your system our hypothetical voter can reassess his vote at the two candidate stage, why shouldn't he also be able to do so at the three candidate stage? Digestible (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the sytem works whereby if the there is a runoff, it would be between two candidates. candiadtes are continually elminted until someone recieves a majority or its last two people standing, not three. I could make it three but why not four? or five? or even six? there has to be some sort of cutoff, tahts why its two. doing that would porbably make the system imperfect, but then again whoever said my system is perfect? i certainly know i didnt--Supun47 (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2009 (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) 10:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

labor edit

bizarre placement in article, no cite, awkward working, generalising. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool

Uh, why did that info from Liverpool all get deleted?--Supun47 (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Showing the members of parliament at state and federal levels is fine for a section on politics. Going into details on how parts of a particular seat voted, is taking things a bit far. Where does it end? Do we go down to individual polling booths too? If we did this for every suburb article then the articles would be huge. It will also be really hard to keep up to date after every election. It's hard to argue that the information isn't following a certain agenda or promoting a certain point of view. The information you provided is considered spam. J Bar (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So all three booths in the Liverpool suburb had very similar numbers. However if you want the exact number of votes when counting those 3 booths, which would give the number of votes in Liverpool as a whole, it is 2792 Labor and 1147 Liberal. That equals 70.88% to Labor, two party preferred--Supun47 (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But anybody from that electorate could have voted at those poll booths, so it's not 100% accurate for voting preferences of the people who live in that suburb. Why is it so important to have this information on a suburb article about Liverpool? Why is it so important to show that people here voted differently to the rest of the electorate? J Bar (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Referencing material

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to The Apprentice Australia, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  florrie  10:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You wrote- Yes there werent any citations in what I wrote however there is not a single citiation througghout the article and yet you have chosen to only delete what I have written. Also, more importantly, if you look at the apprentice UK wiki pages, you will see that they also contain no citations in the task section and yet they still exist. That is because they contain a single link at the bottom of the page wihich contains all the information, in relation to the tasks. It is evident that writing information on the episodes can be done so, becuase at teh bottom of the Apprentice Australia page, there is a reference to the Apprentice Australia website, which contains all the information. The information that I put on there should not be deleted as it is veryfiable with the link- the apprentcie australia website. theres no point in putting a whole of references throughout the wiki page, when quite simply, one single reference at the bottom can be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supun47 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to understand the core policy of Wikipedia - verifiability - all material added must be verifiable using reliable sources with citations. It is pointless telling me what happens on other articles, it is this article that is of concern. Please find verifiable and reliable sources for material you add to the article.  florrie  11:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Division of Blair

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I like the information too, but we can't be doing research ourselves. This is just a note to let you know I've notified WT:AUP. Frickeg (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But again, if we delete the info, then the queestion is why dont we delete all the other stuff? If we (i.e everyone) dont want to get into a debate thatll end up getting nowhere, then we should let this go through. Thats just my opinion, considering its some very interesting info thats blatently factual. (the borders part not the bellwether part)

Look, by all means go and deal with the other stuff. But we can't close our eyes and allow serious OR through - that's one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. Frickeg (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a classical music edit-a-thon Saturday week (13 October) in Sydney. The theme will be Music of France, to coincide with the ABC Classic FM countdown between 8-14 October. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online during the countdown. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/October 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 15:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney meetup invitation: January 2013

Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Thursday 10 January 2013. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 10:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney September 2013 edit-a-thon invite

Hi there! You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Saturday (21 September) in Sydney at the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW), where you can collaborate with other Wikipedians throughout the day. Andy Carr, a senior librarian at SLNSW will also be helping out. The theme of the edit-a-thon is paralympics sports, but you are free to come along to meet other wiki contributors, and edit other topics.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/September 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Wikipedians in Sydney)

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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Supun47. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Supun47. 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)