User talk:2A00:23C6:D529:4601:F8CA:AFC6:4819:41AA

Repetition of references for Statement of Nominated Persons
It is unneccessary to repeat the same reference multiple times. I count 55 occurrences of references for the Statement of Nominated Persons. A sigle reference at the end of all of the wards is adequate and avoids unneccessay clutter. Pat.moloney (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I am adding the reference to keep track of the wards I've checked, if necessary the references can be replaced with 1 reference for all wards at the end 2A00:23C6:D529:4601:F8CA:AFC6:4819:41AA (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct spelling of councillor
Pat.moloney (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising my edits
You have removed my hypertext links several times and when I have asked why you have done this you have never given an explanation Do you understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment? i am going to undo your edit as it removes functionality which is common on many other election result pages. Pat.moloney (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * you are vandalizing my edits, I have now finished checking all of the wards. I will be checking this page regularly and will be removing your unjustified links no matter how many times you add them. Maybe you should spend more time working for your constituents instead of trying to promote your party's candidates on an encyclopedia? 2A00:23C6:D529:4601:F8CA:AFC6:4819:41AA (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pat, this dispute is getting out of hand. You accuse me of vandalizing your edits, I maintain you're doing the same to my edits. I believe you are acting in a partisan way to promote your party's candidates which is not appropriate for editing Wikipedia. I am not ‘hiding behind anonymity’ I don't have an account because I don’t regularly edit Wikipedia pages, but I have an interest in this subject. Your links are unjustified because they are related to candidates who are not considered notable according Wikipedia's conventions and most of the candidates you linked to were your party's candidates. The reason why, when I have added information relating to candidates, that the majority of those candidates are Labour is because Labour currently hold a majority of councilors and so most candidates at this election who are or have been councilors are Labour. I've been accused of many things, but being pro-Labour is up there with some of the most ludicrous. I'm a Green Party member and I have not done anything to promote my party or my party's candidates over anyone else's. It is not your place to give me warnings and I don’t appreciate threats, I have not made any to you. Being being accused of being authoritarian and censorship are definitely the most ludicrous things I've ever been accused of. In the interests of transparency, I'm Noah Simpson, and this is is not the behavior I would expect from you, Pat. 2A00:23C6:D529:4601:F8CA:AFC6:4819:41AA (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I refute that I have been vandalising your edits. All I have done is restore my original input which your vandalism has removed. I have given you several warnings about your vandalism and will in due course request Administrator intervention against vandalism unless you stop deleting my input for no good reason. You obviously know who I am. I make no attempt to hide my identity, while you are hiding behind anonymity. Why are my links 'unjustified'? Your authoritarian behavour in censoring what you do not like is an attack on free speech. How are my edits 'trying to promote your party's candidates' when I have included most parties in the small number of edits I have made so far. I would say that the majority of your input is about the Labour party.