This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
To keep it in context this subject should follow the Federal election paragraphs not Land use regulation and Industrial relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryogden ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I refer to this quote: "getting to the 14.3 percent quota from 19 group voting ticket party preferences: Australian Independents Party, Australian Stable Population Party, Liberal Democratic Party, Smokers Rights Party, No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics, Building Australia Party, Rise Up Australia Party, Katter's Australian Party, One Nation, Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party, Australian Christians, Shooters and Fishers, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, Democratic Labor Party, Animal Justice Party, Australian Greens, Palmer United Party, HEMP Party, Australian Labor Party"
There seems to be a left wing bias. For instance, when the Greens first entered Parliament, there was no talk of how they used smaller minor parties, and an enlisting of all the different party preferences they used, to enter parliament.
I think the notion that is trying to be pushed is quite evident: Bob Day would not have been voted in, if he didn't have the support of these micro parties. This is an encyclopaedia, not a politicking tool. 129.180.137.107 ( talk) 12:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Bob Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
|checked=
to trueA help request is open: yes. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Specific quote from article inserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell20 ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Bell20 ( talk · contribs) has twice sought to include a quote attributed to Bob Day. Edit 1 was reverted by Timeshift9 ( talk · contribs) with the comment "removed added quote, not in the paragraph reference." Edit 2 had a comment which referred to the article "Bob Day accused of 'sham contracting' before building business went belly up"., which is basically the same article in a different Fairfax publication and was reverted by me.
This article is about a living person and must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, which requires the quote to be properly sourced. The difficulty is not the quote, but rather the absence of proper sourcing. -- Find bruce ( talk) 06:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)