User talk:HungryPseph

Hi, you can leave me messages here. Thanks.

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:HungryPseph/Rob Atkinson (surgeon) (February 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [.
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

hmssolent lambast patrol records 09:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Seems like a clear mistake to me, my understanding is that WP:MILMOS states one-stars are pretty much automatically notable. On top of that, the man appears to have an AM and is a Fellow of the AMA. Very unclear why you would reject this one, all the notability issues are well and independently sourced, and quite concerned about a gatekeeper mentality kicking in here. Happy to take it to WP:MILHIST for an opinion. HungryPseph (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC HungryPseph/Rob Atkinson (surgeon) was accepted
 HungryPseph/Rob Atkinson (surgeon), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! hmssolent lambast patrol records 01:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.
 * Sorry for the confusion - I guess my only concern was that the references weren't cited in a manner like that of the footnotes at that time. hmssolent lambast patrol records 01:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

growth in minor parties and independents
My particular interest is in the growth in minor parties and independents successfully contesting elections in Australia, especially South Australia.
 * The recent anecdotal gossip I've been hearing is that the new rules (and costs) are killing off minor parties and independents. Is that consistent with what you've seen to date? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, although I'm not seeing a reduction in the seats the Greens are running in. It might be reducing the number but there still seems to be quite a few out there, I got letter-boxed by one mob on Friday, and that doesn't come cheap. I'm thinking of popping my head in to the electoral commission briefing next week just to see how many turn up... HungryPseph (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a member, but having received an invitation to the Greens' campaign launch yesterday, I went out of curiosity (and hoping to get some good photos to add to my gallery). They have a full field of candidates for all seats, despite the $3k registration fee for each candidate. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering the Greens get a primary vote of over 4% (threshold for commission to pay parties/candidates for votes received) in almost all seats, they'd be silly to reduce the number of seats they're running in. The new rules bite micro-parties like the Motor Enthusiasts and the Sports Party... not the Greens, the major minor party. Timeshift (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But they still have to pay the deposits upfront, so that must have an impact on the funds they have available for advertising and the ability to get their message across. Bahudhara (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any doubt about that. $6000 up-front to get above the line has got to hurt your ability to do basic things like letterboxing and posters? Was probably intentional move by the majors. HungryPseph (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * $6000 to have a mysterious group voting ticket doesn't sound like a bad idea actually, it'll keep esoteric parties with esoteric group voting tickets out :) And established minors will find it easier to get the money as they're expected to get money to pay back after. Timeshift (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think optional preferential voting would have been effective in reducing the preference system gaming and the tablecloth ballot papers, this won't be. The problem was the compulsory preferential system actually suits the majors, so they weren't actually interested in doing that. HungryPseph (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because people are so hungry for unestablished minors. If there's a wanting for a new party, there's not a lot to stop it. Timeshift (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD
Hi, please see Articles for deletion/Bill Denny (officer) and Articles for deletion/Rob Atkinson (surgeon), thanks. Timeshift (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)