User talk:2A02:C7D:4667:3C00:B4CF:8A9B:5CA4:18C4

May 2022
Hi 2A02:C7D:4667:3C00:B4CF:8A9B:5CA4:18C4! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2022 Wakefield by-election several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at Talk:2022 Wakefield by-election, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. 0x Deadbeef  (T C) 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I had tried the talk option previously with an editor but was ignored. I also asked what mechanisms there were for resolving disputes but that too was ignored until now. My point is this: a party's own website can be trusted as a lone source in cases where there is no motivation to lie and where it can reasonably be expected to be accurate. The Yorkshire Party obviously knows its own candidate and would want that known accurately. I would also suggest that PoliticalBetting is a decent secondary source - this is quite a large company that requires accurate information, you could bet on the Yorkshire Party candidate, David Herdson, so any mistakes could be very serious for them. Whatever your views on PoliticalBetting though, the primary source is a long-established official party website - perfectly reliable on its own in this instance. Thank you for your time. 2A02:C7D:4667:3C00:B4CF:8A9B:5CA4:18C4 (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You haven’t raised these questions on the article’s Talk page. I’ve added a comment there inviting you to input. Please continue the discussion there. The Yorkshire Party is not an independent source. We often see various groups saying they’ll stand in a by-election in an attempt to get publicity, but then never successfully nominating a candidate. We need someone else, i.e. a secondary source, to judge their claim as being serious. PoliticalBetting is not a “large company”: it’s a blog. I read it regularly, but it doesn’t have the same editorial insight as, say, a newspaper. Nothing beyond mild embarrassment would follow if they made a mistake. If the Yorkshire Party standing is a significant part of the story of this by-election, we will get some reliable secondary sourcing, which can then be used, but until then there is no point you re-adding the same content over and over. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can assure you I left a talk comment somewhere (I think I may have clicked 'talk' on the 'history' section?) and checked it for any replies a couple of times...can't find it now, I assume someone removed it or it was in the wrong place - apologies if so, not used it before. I can't seem to find your invitation, so perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place there too.
 * The Party stood 28 candidates at the last General Election and contested the West and South Yorkshire mayoral elections last year and this, coming third in both. The requirements to stand in those (100 signatures, £5000 deposit, £4000 to feature in the booklet) are much more difficult than the 10 signatures and £500 for the by-election. It's not just a micro-party, its the third most popular in the Wakefield constituency, according to mayoral and local election total votes. Its intention and ability to stand can therefore be taken seriously. Regards 2A02:C7D:4667:3C00:C70:C1E7:BCA:7E26 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion of these points at the bottom of this section: []. Bondegezou (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)