User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Persistent vandalism on the Hilltop Hoods page

Hi Stalwart111, vandalism continues to affect the Hilltop Hoods page even though a warning was given. Can we temporarily block the account of 14.2.17.8? Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey SP, it's possible but I'm not an admin so I can't block him/her myself. I've requested page protection which might help. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There you go SP, it has now been semi-protected. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies @Stalwart111:, as I thought you to be an admin! Thank you kindly! Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries! All taken care of! St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Syrian Air Force An-26 crash

Hi Stalwart111. Thought we might discuss this on your talk page instead of the delete page in case we get too far off base. I thought Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents held some weight, but you imply it dose not, and I'm in no position to ague w/you, so lets just completely discount it. A direct quote from Notability is not temporary states: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Now I quote from your source (which btw I never read before) WP:NOTTEMP "Delete – The subject received coverage just for a day or two, and never again." Do those contradict each other? I've read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT and don't see a solid basis for your position. I'd bet the loss of a 1 million dollar aircraft is notable to the Syrian Air Force, and the loss of a loved one notable to 37 families. I'm very new at this and any help you can give me would be much appreciated. Samf4u (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It may well be significant to the Syrian Air Force but it needs to be notable to "the world at large". The loss of 37 people is tragic (not suggesting otherwise) but we've had incidents that have involved the loss of hundreds of people nominated for deletion. Some have been kept, others have been deleted but those that are kept are almost never kept simply on the basis of how many people died. It isn't nice but we need to be a bit clinical about it. The disparity in guidelines is, for me, easy to understand - things have to be notable in the first place for that notability to then not be temporary. NOTTEMP is really about people or things notable 100 years ago and the suggestion they might no longer be notable. If something fails WP:NOT then it isn't notable in the first place. This was a news event that hasn't had significant coverage since and hasn't resulted in major policy changes or conflicts or anything else. Effectively, we would need sources after the fact saying "this will have a long-term impact on..." or something like that. Basically everything receives immediate news coverage these days. From the guidelines in question - "events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article" and "events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Coverage immediately following an event that isn't about an event's long-term impact is unlikely to be considered "significant" to the extent required to meet the first requirement of the line you quote. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I just finished reading User:Stalwart111/Notability in context and while I didn't understand some of it, together with what you wrote above I have a clearer understanding of the notability issue. It is by no means a simple matter. Thanks for your time and for my first Barnstar, it really means a lot to me. Samf4u (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"Notability" as a concept here can be incredibly complex with multiple venues for the discussion of the various elements and nuances. My thoughts on the matter are from my perspective and are by no means the only way of thinking. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Michael Potts (diplomat)

Hi, I just double-checked to make sure this was your nomination. As I accidentally told you about three weeks ago for someone else's nomination, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters. The one you supplied is 237. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. We recently increased the number of hooks per set, so it's especially important to keep the length of each hook within the limit. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mandarax: yeah, this one is mine. I've cut it down a bit and I think it works now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's 206 now. The reviewer might not even notice that it's a tiny bit over, so I wouldn't worry about it. Of course, if you can easily trim it some more, that would be great.

As you may recall, the last time you pinged me, I mentioned that I didn't receive a notification. I figured it was a random glitch; but I didn't get one this time either. I wonder if there's something in your signature that the notification system doesn't like. Or, it could've just been another random glitch. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mandarax:/Mandarax - not sure what is going on with the ping but there's two different styles to try both! Others seem to get my pings. I can't think of any way to make it shorter but I won't have any objections if someone else can while retaining the important bits! St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I got a notification this time! The first time it didn't work you used [[User:Mandarax|Mandarax]] and the second time you used {{ping|Mandarax}}. The moral of the story is that I should stop trying to find patterns in random glitches. And I should never rely on the notification system! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Garden hermit

Hello! Your submission of Garden hermit at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Constantine ✍ 23:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In a bilateral

"Both nations' national soccer teams competed against each other at the 1958 FIFA World Cup with Brazil defeating Sweden at a score of 5–2." LibStar (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL - they just get better and better. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Johns Multiplane

Hi St★lwart¹¹¹

I'd like to start an article about this airplane. Only one was built and it did fly, but the design was a failure. Would such an article be notable enough to be on Wikipedia? Thanks Samf4u (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Reformation (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (band) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of Speech

Hi Cirt, thanks for the invite. Were there a series of edits in particular that resulted in my being invited? I mean I am interested in freedom of speech, but I can't recall editing a related topic in any meaningful sense. It's very nice of you, just curious. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year !!!
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Possible sock of User:Darreg

Hello Stalwart,

I want to let you know that I found a possible sock of User:Darreg, a user that was indef blocked by Mike V per your report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darreg. A new user, User:Terriblechristian who joined wikipedia 3 days ago's edit behavior seemed like that of User:Darreg. This [1], diff, this AfD contribution suggested that the user is a WP:DUCK. In fact I'm more convinced with the creation of 2015 Africa Magic Viewers Choice Awards by the same user. All the article they edited are articles mostly edited by User:Darreg and the subsequent creation of 2015 Africa Magic Viewers Choice Awards, one of user:Darreg area of interest on Wikipedia. In addition, it seems very unlikely for a 3 days old user with about 6 edit count to create a sensible page like 2015 Africa Magic Viewers Choice Awards, if not a sock, blocked or banned user. I just ping Versace, who also left a comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darreg. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Wikicology. I find it odd that a new user like Terriblechristian is able to create good looking wikitables and participate in Afd discussions in just three days of joining the encyclopedia. I am going to take this to SPI shortly. Versace1608 (Talk) 12:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

On reversion of edits to the Transhumanist Party main article

Hi Stalwart111,

You and Dsprc have both done large reversions of versions of the Transhumanist Party article on Wikipedia, removing it to become a redirect to Zoltan Istvan#Transhumanist Party. I know you did this because of the discussion last November at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhumanist Party when the resolution was to change the page to a redirect because of the lack of secondary sources, a decision you were arguing for.

To quote the user Philosopher on that particular discussion thread: "it is WP:TOOSOON to know whether the party will become notable and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Yet, after over 3 months of the party's publicity and media coverage, as well as work being done to Draft:Transhumanist Party to add those references and new information being made publicly available, you still thought it was appropriate to remove the page and make a redirect to the page for Zoltan Istvan, the party's founder and chairman. It is certainly apparent now—if it wasn't already when the page was created—that the party is a real organization, and not some large orchestrated prank like you seemed to think. You can't say now that it's "too soon" to determine that the party is real unless you didn't look at the changes.

In the deletion discussion, Dsprc said: "It is just Istvan. Is the party registered anywhere? Something like one of these: [1] California (dept state), [2] Florida (dept elections) or New York maybe?? Have they ever gained ballot access anywhere at all? Have they even attempted to do so yet? Who is their Treasurer, Secretary, etc? Or, are there none of these positions because it is just Istvan, and not a political organization at all? Another tell is the lack of a dedicated web resource. Right now, the domain is just a redirect to a subpage on Istvan's site and the domain is assigned to Istvan, and only registered on September 14th (with bogus registration data at that). -- dsprc [talk] 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)" All this information is now on the transhumanist party website at www.transhumanistparty.org (which is functional)—and it is not a redirect to Istvan's own site for that matter. Even so, a political party does not have to be on ballots, acquire votes, or even be registered (which it is) to be notable for Wikipedia. This is not to mention that the complaints voiced by the other users in the Deletion discussion have been settled too, as only more and more news stories have come out in the last three months pertaining to or referencing the US Transhumanist Party and its international affiliates. These references have been added too.

Regardless of all this, Dsprc jumped the gun and removed the page hours after it was restored from the draft with these upgrades. It is questionable whether the page should have been removed in the first place, but the issues that justified that argument in November are no longer applicable to the status of the page how it is now. After being restored a second time by an anonymous user (2600:1003:b11f:127e:0:13:f8ec:af01), it was improved again and then removed similarly a second time by you.

Zoltan Istvan is aware of this issue too, and he is currently writing a series of articles that he will publish on national news media challenging Wikipedia and the users involved in keeping down the Transhumanist Party article. Among the subjects of these articles are you, Dsprc, Philosopher, Wikipedia executive staff, the organization, and its system's failure to support an article on this political party. In the meantime, the page will be properly restored so it can be seen by and improved by users and the public, as there is no doubt that it deserves its page on The Free Encyclopedia for people to see. Nobody is against making the page better, and there will be new additions and references all the time; the party's news coverage is consistently growing, and maybe its Wikipedia page's will soon too.

All the users I mentioned will be additionally be informed so we can let the community understand this issue. It would be appreciated if you could respond within 24 hours of this message being sent—at least before March 10 UST. I hope you can be of help to the page and to Wikipedia by contributing, not by removing this from the main article namespace.

Thanks, Mechanic1c

• Mechanic1c, simply having an opinion that is different to the rest of the community isn't enough to unilaterally overturn an AFD. This is not a matter of people "keeping down" an article. There is a formal process available to you, and that IP user and everyone else who thinks the article should be published. But your draft article submission was rejected as having its own problems. As I explained in both edit summaries, WP:DRV (Deletion ReView) is as available to you as it is to anyone else. Your claims that "the arguments have been settled" is irrelevant as that is not for me or for you (or Istvan, for that matter) to decide. The decision was made - we are now simply upholding that decision until the community decides to change that decision at DRV. And I should say, demands/requests for people to respond within certain time-frames is straying into WP:NLT territory. I am under no obligation to respond and there is WP:NODEADLINE here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

And Istvan is welcome to try and publish whatever he likes, but it likely won't help his case, or yours. The only thing he needs to work out (and if you have a direct connection to him, such that you can tell me what he plans to do with his spare time, you should tell him) is that Wikipedia has well-established rules, policies and guidelines. They are easy enough to follow. With most legitimate political parties there are structures and memberships and an organisation that could work on securing enough significant secondary coverage (not simply primary sources confirming technical details) to make the organisation notable. I don't know why that hasn't happened here - everyone associated with the group seems single-mindedly focused on securing the organisation's place here, rather than going and promoting the actual organisation (which would result in it earning a place here anyway). You've got it the wrong way around. And those journalists who understand Wikipedia enough to run his stories will understand where you've gone wrong and will hopefully explain that to him, rather that allowing to make a fool of himself. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I can tell you why the draft was rejected. It's because the individual who reviewed it, Graeme Bartlett, thought that it was a copy of what it was redirecting to, so the article was unnecessary. However, it's not a subsection of "Transhumanist politics," it's an organization that is associated with transhumanist ideas. If you reject its notability, why are you even okay with it being put on another page? Maybe the next step is WP:DRV; what Istvan does is out of my hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanic1c (talk • contribs) 22:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think his point was that the target of the redirect could be changed. But he also pointed out that the article had been at AFD (and only recently). There are plenty of non-notable things mentioned in articles about other things. There's no reason why the Transhumanist Party shouldn't be treated the same way, either at Transhumanist politics or Istvan's article. Your the one who raised the issue of what Istvan plans to do next. I'm telling you, he's on the wrong path. Attacking Wikipedia is only going to make him look foolish, much like Mike Edgarton's (?) sock-puppetry last year. Your next "technical" step is DRV. But your next logical step is to go out, secure some proper significant coverage for the organisation (to demonstrate it passes WP:ORGDEPTH) and then come back (by which stage it will probably have been recreated, because that's what happens with genuinely notable organisations). You seem to be framing this as a "fight" between your "team" and editors here. It's not - it's a fight between your ability to understand the rules, or not, and your willingness to comply with them, or not. I, personally, would happily allow an article to be created if the subject met our inclusion criteria. The fact that it doesn't is nothing I can help you with. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stalwart111 (and ping Dsprc and Mechanic1c). FYI, yesterday I contacted Istvan by email and received email reply including some good questions and requests, which I'll post about later. And I'll share Istvan's email to each of you later (he indicated it's okay to share it), assuming you have email enabled from your wikipedia account. I have real life stuff I have to address today though.

S, if you're not aware (and I wasn't until I went to check here and at Dsprc's Talk, just now), the message from Mechanic1c you received above is apparently pretty much what was emailed to Dsprc according to a note by Dsprc on Ds's Talk page, and I see it is also pretty much what was posted later at my Talk page after i did a revert back to the redirect, too. I responded mostly by copying the message to me, in full, and replying, at Draft talk:Transhumanist Party#how to develop/restore Transhumanist Party article. I also objected to the wp:THREAT aspect (a synonym for wp:NLT that you cite), vs. us and Wikipedia, within the statement (and that's what I emailed Istvan about), and Mechanic1c replied about that at the Draft Talk discussion (thanks, M). I hope there will work as a central discussion place to speak to and hear from the TP article supporters, and invite you to participate there. Dsprc already made a minor edit there. I have advised the TP article supporters to improve the Draft:Transhumanist Party article first before requesting a wp:DRV or otherwise trying to get a TP article into mainspace, and keep discussion at the Draft talk:Transhumanist Party.

Your responses to Mechanic1c above are very good I think, and different but not contradicting what I have posted at the Draft's Talk page. Since your responses here may not be seen/received by all the TP article supporters, I wonder if you could please comment at the Draft Talk page with copy/quote of all of what you wrote above? You comment well on different points than what I addressed. Even where you overlap with what I posted, it would be good to show that each of us independently pretty much advised the same, and would reinforce the points where we overlap (including that we each think Istvan could look silly and end up embarrassed if Istvan went public with a misinformed complaint about us and Wikipedia processes). Or, I'd be happy to myself copy/quote your statements above to the Draft Talk page, if that's okay by you. I'll watch here and there.

Also FYI I tried to find anything about the incident you mention where someone looked foolish "much like Mike Edgarton's (?) sock-puppetry last year" which I don't know about and would like to learn about. I searched within Wikipedia trying "sockpuppet investigations/Mike" and "Mike Edgarton" and "Mike Edgerton" and at Signpost for anything about socks during 2014, and quickly tried Googling, with no luck.

best regards, --doncram 14:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi doncram - happy for you to quote me there (in part or in full). I have no objection to another discussion about the subject, but I object to users (any users) unilaterally overturning the result of an AFD because they believe they have addressed concerns raised. That's not how our deletion processes work. The Mike Edgarton reference relates to the original AFD here where (after he contributed but others refuted his arguments) a whole bunch of SPAs suddenly appeared to !vote in exactly the same way. Meat-puppetry, maybe, but it didn't paint supporters in a good light either way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks about quoting and being willing to participate more. I'll post there sometime later. And thanks for explanation/link. I see that is the Transhumanist Party AFD, which I noticed and participated in. Right, I see what you mean, relating to User:Mikegeraton and supporting new wikipedians' !voting. cheers, --doncram 22:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Page Tags

I apologize for the COI maintenance tag, as that was a misread on my part. However, the unreferenced maintenance will stay on the page until sources are added to the article. Only after sources are added are you allowed to remove the tags. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 03:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful, but completely idiotic when you add them 3 minutes after the article was created with an edit summary, "will add refs shortly" and even more idiotic when you insist on re-adding them, edit-conflicting with my attempt to add sources. Just give it a few minutes before mindlessly tagging brand new articles with things that clearly aren't necessary. The COI tag was clearly the result of you being so keen to tag articles that you didn't even read my userpage to check if that might have even been a possibility. Just pointless bloody-mindedness. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Birthday cake for you

	AWWCBCB award
	Thank you for creating the Australian Women's Weekly Children's Birthday Cake Book. I had exactly the same idea when I read the article by Ginger Gorman recently - but you beat me to it! Wittylama 15:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Witty! I'd actually considered it before that article, but that was certainly the "final straw" (I forget, is there a camel cake? ha ha). Wondering if there is a way we can move the list into a section of its own? Anyway, thanks for your contributions! St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I've acrually been sent a photo of the table of contents of the first edition, so I'm planning to make a table in the article with a sortable table of all the cake names, with page numbers and a placeholder space for a photograph of each. I've emailed the lady who's doing the blog to make each one to see if she'll free license her photos too. As you'll have seen, I also listed it for DYK and I reckon that will garner some more mainstream interest (eg the AWW itself already 'favourited' one of the tweets that Ginger Gorman and I were conversing with about this article. All the best, Wittylama 00:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Great plan! St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The DYK has been approved, and I've requested an "Australia daytime" slot. I've also backed-out of creating a sortable table of all the cakes in the book - it's just too much unnecessary information... it'd be an overly long table for such a short article. I think a Gallery of images with some of people's versions of the cakes (if we can get them freely licensed) would be sufficient. Wittylama 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be fine! St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for correcting that admin that the consensus was clearly userfy. I hate this whole subjective process. It's a very strange world where someone who writes for Wired is "unremarkable." Lizardbones (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The ACT Legislative Assembly

The gory details. Will make for an utterly fascinating election next year. Frickeg (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Frickeg. The preselections will be interesting; as I recall, most of the "active" members from both parties are staffers at a federal level or are senior public servants parachuted in by various governments on their way out and few actually live there long-term and so aren't members of local branches. Even that article seems to focus on preselections. Interesting to watch from a distance. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Garden hermit

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to say it was a joy reading this article, I never heard of garden hermits before. Keep up the good work. Crispulop (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Coffee for the notification and thanks Crispulop for the note. Much appreciated guys. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Thank you for your contributions to this site. Keep it up! :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, thanks! St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

On the Golden Age of Piracy

Hi Stalwart,

Thank you for your critiques but I have some questions on how to improve my article. I am not a veteran wikipedia user, and I am only doing this because of an assignment for my college history class. Where would be an appropriate place for Golden Age pirate weaponry? Also I know my references are shit but I had to put atleast something up due to a deadline. I plan on gutting it and improving it.

Cheadri6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I imagine your college-level history class would expect something more, but anyway. If the point of your assignment is to edit an article, you really need to have a chat to your lecturer about having them join one of the education programs. Additions like yours are likely to be reverted unless editors around here know that a group of brand new editors are going to be making edits like that. Then they can be assisted through the process.

It's not so much that your sources were "shit" (though they weren't great), it's that they were basically paraphrased with a handful of words changed. It was borderline plagiarism (which colleges are even less keen on). That said, some of it was inaccurately paraphrased like the suggestion that "flag" was the same thing as "reputation" and that either of those things would be considered a weapon.

But the biggest problem is that the article in question is about the people, places and activities of the Golden Age of Piracy. Pirate weapons weren't just used in those places in that era. That's like explaining the history and mechanics of the firearm in every article about every modern war. It just isn't necessary. If anything, that sort of thing belongs in the article Piracy though it would need to be far better written. If you're interested in contributing longer-term, we have a WikiProject which is a space for people interested in the subject that allows them to collaborate and work on exactly the sort of thing you're trying to do. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Unregistered parties getting elected

Not that it'll ever matter, but for my money if the Country Party elected someone tomorrow and they described themselves as a "Country Party MP", then the party would be notable right then and there (and we would describe them as "Country Party" in the member lists). The only example I can think of since registered parties became a thing is Janet Woollard, but to my knowledge she never described herself as a liberals for forests MP (sometimes as an "independent LFF"). Frickeg (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I would list someone from an unregistered party as having been elected as an independent, and as having represented that party from the time it got registered. Woollard is a good example of why - she was elected for an unregistered party but never claimed to represent them in parliament, always formally sitting as an independent Liberal. I'd suggest "Independent/Country Party", with the clarification in the notes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Frickeg, I agree it would change the status of the party as far as Wikipedia is concerned - even a loose affiliation with an elected MP who claims to represent them would probably be enough to tip the balance. But technically speaking that MP would be an independent MP until such time as the party is registered and he/she seeks leave to formally represent them in the Parliament. It's less of an issue in NSW where minor party MPs and independents get the same benefits (extra staff/allowances) - you need, I think, 7 MPs or MLCs to be considered a "party" with a leader who gets extra allowances again. So it makes no difference because it won't happen, and then it makes even less difference because it won't make a difference even if it did happen. I think that makes sense! Yeah, I think functionally we'd end up with something like what D's W is suggesting. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)