User talk:AOMBG89HZMBK3H6

Welcome!
Hello, AOMBG89HZMBK3H6, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. JarrahTree 07:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, AOMBG89HZMBK3H6! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

January 2021
Hello, I'm JackintheBox. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Australia Day—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 05:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
Every one of your edits this afternoon are WP:OR - there is not a single WP:RS in any of the edits - please note that you can be blocked for such a volume of opinion. Please add references if you wish the material to remain. Thanks. JarrahTree 08:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that. You should also declare any conflicts of interest you have, whether paid or unpaid, re politics ... Graham 87 08:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not have any conflicts of interest, I am simply trying to add coherence to all these location pages by ensuring they all have the 'Politics' subheading, which many were previously missing. All the results I have stated are based on recent election results, which are publicly available and accessible to all via the AEC website, and are thus simple numerical observations. To call my edits opinion is absurd when all I have done is reported the performance of various parties in different areas. If you have any specific suggestions as to how I can improve the edits, please do advise. In the meantime, I will ensure each page I edited has a reference to the AEC vote tallies for the polling booths to confirm the content of the edit as valid.

You automatically raise suspicions with the use of the ping item - yet cannot add a signature. The whole of Australian project does not have polling booth level information, so that is more warning bells than a sinking ship with sirens going off. I strongly suggest you check elsewhere, and compare the level of analysis for elections in other states. Polling booth level information in the wider australian project does not exist, and there are editors who will come down with a ton of wikipedia policies and accepted practice that query what the hell you are up to. AEC references might have some correlation with your analysis - but there is the likelihood that there is WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTABILITY as to whether someone scratched their bottom in Karridale or Rosa Book or Rosa Glen at some stage in the last century - that is not wikipedia is WP:ABOUT JarrahTree 08:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Australian Electoral Commission data are primary sources, so trends within them shouldn't be analysed on random town pages that have very little to do with the eventual outcome of the election. You need project-wide consensus from somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia that adding this analysis is a good idea before doing so. At the moment you're acting as a political single-purpose account and Wikipedia editors have very little sympathy with those, I'm afraid. Graham 87 08:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JarrahTree 09:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you  for elaborating on the issues with my edits. I've had a look through the linked pages and those explanations certainly clarify where my edits may have been inappropriate. My edits were probably too lengthy and expansive regarding the voting behaviour in each booth, and I needed to include the citations to each of the AEC pages. I now recognise those errors. I have a deep interest in analysing political trends across Australia and I thought that including additional information about the trends emerging in certain towns would be interesting and useful to readers, but perhaps this data is not necessary. If I wish to discuss this particular issue further on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia page, do I simply create a new heading and add my questions there, then discuss? Yes, I am a relatively new user on Wikipedia - I didn't know using a signature was necessary on my own talk page and I didn't realise that my niche interests in political trends would suggest I have some sort of conflict of interest or make me look like a single-interest account. I'm only trying to share knowledge around trends in voting patterns, particularly on pages that have no 'Politics' heading. For instance, the Sorrento, Western Australia page has a 'Politics' heading, yet when I look at most of the regional pages in Western Australia, none of them have that. Why the discrepancy? I thought I was making a valid contribution by making these pages consistent with all the others that had that heading with a brief description of their typical voting behaviour. Perhaps I should discuss this further on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia page. Any further insights are appreciated. AOMBG89HZMBK3H6 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

you need to go back to see
What we mean by WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTABILITY - there are a whole range of subject areas that do not have such local level of analysis. In the area you edited some idiots add weather data for locations that are more or less metereologically the same and get away with it. Almost all localities in the Australian project never get to polling booth level - if you cannot get the handle on that - try random checking of localities around australia - they simply do not have that level.. As graham has pointed out material from primary sources (AEC material) are not kosher - see WP:PRIMARY... also almost all of the Australian politics material is just keeping up with adequate larger scale aspects of politics, micro detail is not what an online encyclopedia such as wikipedia is about.

Wash your mouth out literally and remove the primary source idea for once and for all, it is not the way to go.

Have a look at the scope and understanding of the australian politics project, a very close look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_politics in all the details and what it has as scope

Beware editors who might not be as considerate - it can get tough out there... JarrahTree 10:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)