User talk:Doktorbuk/Archive7

Maps
Hi, (Replying here on assumption you'll see this sooner than on Commons!)

With respect to images like the ward blanks - I think the instructions for SVGs are detailed enough for someone with no experience of SVG to follow. That's the preferred approach for these files, as it ensures the best possible quality and consistency in things like colours. And its good to know they are appreciated :)

The easiest way to ensure proper attribution of the file is to use derivativeFX. If you use that tool, then the source and author lines will be correct, and you can concentrate on the important bits (like the caption).--Nilfanion (talk)
 * Fair enough. The cautionary note is be careful in applying it to older elections - the map shows the current boundaries, and they may not go back too far.
 * And yep, the attribution etc is OK.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Burscough
Hello. I removed it solely because it was out of date - I quite often find non-League squads which are likewise, usually because the articles are not frequently updated and non-League squads tend to change more often. Please feel free to restore it if you can update it. Number  5  7  19:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Attlee
Hi there. Thank you for all your splendid work on Walthamstow West by-election, 1956. With your interest in this topic area, I hope that you will not mind my pointing out with the greatest respect that Clement Attlee is spelt thus and not with a single T. The rule is One A, Two Ts, One L, Two Es! :) Hope this helps. Thanks and best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC) (established user doing cold turkey on a break but not able to stay away 100%!)
 * Thanks for the nice note. Yes, gosh, you have been busy! Nice one. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Date of next UK election
Hi there - I notice your revert of a move that wanted the title changed to 2015. Is it not correct that the date 2015 has been set in legislation? I appreciate that there is a mechanism for an earlier election, but that possibility also exists in elections to the Scottish parliament and yet we still have the article about the next election mentioning 2016. Other parliaments in the world with fixed terms have mechanisms for early elections but we still identify the year of next elections in the article titles. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria
Since you participated in the last one, I'd appreciate your opinion in this final one aswell. Thanks,  Night w   12:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion on voting patterns
Hi, I am contacting you to make you aware of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, as you appear to have been involved in a previous discussion at the same place on a related topic. Any comments to reach a consensus are welcomed. I have endevored to comply with guidelines with this notice. . Thanks, Zangar (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Future local election articles
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom about articles on future local council elections which you may be interested in. Davewild (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Resetting Template:In the news/Last update
I've noticed that you've reset the timer at Template:In the news/Last update when there was no update to ITN for the second time in just over a week. Can you please stop doing that? The template should only be updated when a new item is added to ITN. --  tariq abjotu  19:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Feltham and Heston by-election, 2011
If you look at the history, I did not start the page. The by-election may well be in 2012, but the page can be renamed if that is the case. Having the page there now allows information to be added as it becomes available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.37.131 (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have done a lot of work on the page, as as another user has commented, by-election pages can be set up straight away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.37.131 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with waiting until next year to start a page would be that new information could not be added. If the election is next year then the page can be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.37.131 (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You have done more than 3 reverts yourself because you can't even get a redirect right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.37.131 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dokorb, please be careful of WP:3RR, admins usually apply this to everyone involved, even if you are sticking to guidelines. I've directed the IP to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom for discussion. Please don't get yourself blocked! :) Zangar (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

re: Elections 2012 template
Morning! Yes, that's fine - I added them as the template linked to the article, but it didn't have the template. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ITN
My two cents on the current discussion on Wikipedia talk:In the news between you and HiLo48 and Deterence: This entire thing is really not worth your time or effort. Neither of them are known to be particularly persuadable (or civil). Given the situation, I'd simply suggest ignoring their personal attacks on ITN/C for the moment. If things degenerate further, a post on ANI is well within reason.  Jim Sukwutput  07:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will second that. Deterence has been banned for uncivil language alreay this month and i am very close to getting him there again if he keeps it up. Im assuming you already read the ITN/C discussion on Occupy protest. My suggestion is to ignore and ignore once more. Sort of reminds me of this one guy DC that we had a little while ago on ITN/C who has now been permanently banned. -- Ashish-g55 18:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I hope you can see this reply on your watchlists :) I stood my ground as best as I could and tried not to engage on his level. Hopefully the difference between our approaches has been noticed and observed by any neutral person reading the exchanges. Thanks for your kind messages doktorb wordsdeeds 18:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I had some free time today I filed a report on AN/I. Hopefully this will keep him away for some time. Cheers.  Jim Sukwutput  07:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination for deletion of – Occupy Windsor
Just a note, you did not transclude this article in the Articles for deletion log page when you nominated it for deletion, as required in step 3 of the subsection "How to nominate a single page for deletion” on the Articles for deletion page. In the future, please follow all of the required steps when nominating an article for deletion. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article was transcluded by another user, it's already done now. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Feltham by-election
Hey again, just an explanatory note. I said I would help with the work on this article and I was very enthusiastic at the prospect. However, since that proclamation I've developed a conflict-of-interest over this topic: so much so that I feel it appropriate that I now recuse myself from editing. Thought to let you know because I don't like saying I'll help and then proceed to not without explaining why. Hope it all goes well! Redverton (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Boundary Reviews
Literature on the five previous reviews exists as I've been reading it for the past couple of days :-)

If you happen to be interested see:
 * O Gay, The Rules for the Redistribution of Seats – History and Reform (SN/PC/05628, 28 July 2010) - House of Commons Commons Standard Note
 * http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_boundary_commissions.html?id=PAYNAQAAIAAJ - The boundary commissions: redrawing the UK's map of parliamentary constituencies

82.2.117.154 (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Template
Hi, I've replied on my talk page to keep discussion in one place. Davewild (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination for deletion of Rhys Morgan article
Can you please declare any interest you may have in the alt-med industry?

I find your suggestion for deletion of the Rhys Morgan article to be highly suspicious, given his well-known status in the UK and his recent media coverage in the Guardian, BBC etc. Your reasons for deletion certainly don't fit the deletion criteria.

As someone else put it:

"The nominator should have done a small amount of research first before suggesting this is a hoax" Digitaltoast (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of this person before stumbling across his article. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the first editor who responded to your AfD, and have been active on Wikipedia for over five years. I will take you at your word above, that you had not heard of Rhys Morgan; that is for me one of the many delightful things about Wikipedia, namely that out of its 3.8 million English-language articles, there are quite a few people, places, and things that I had not previously heard of. (I note that you did not answer the question put to you, of declaring your wider interest in the field of alt-med.) I am, by a stretch of the imagination, managing to assume good faith on your part in proposing this article for deletion. To enable me to continue to do so, it would be most helpful if you could explain how you came to the conclusion that it was a:
 * "Very sophisticated hoax, or highly contrived non notable joke. In any case, this person and the creation of his article is a highly dubious 'notable' person whose place in Wikipedia is questionable at best. Not notable, potential hoax, potential 'what we made up in school' jape. The edit summaries suggest this is a joke article or the result of some kind of 'dare'. Not a known figure in the United Kingdom. Not a successful household name. Not notable in his field."
 * The article gives multiple references to the BBC and The Guardian, among other sources, and records the subject's award at a national conference. Were you seriously suggesting that these journalists and conference goers had been duped by an invisible hoax? Or, alternatively, was the media conspiring to foist this so-called "joke article" on an unsuspecting public? Or did you, perhaps, not click through to the sources? Or perhaps there is another explanation that I have not thought of. I note also that there is not one contributor to the AfD discussion who has so far agreed with your proposal. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made my reasons quite clear. The article was created very quickly, with some suspicious edit summaries indeed. I notice that many first-time editors have suddenly appeared to participate in the discussion. Why would this be? What "alarm" was set off to attract these first-time editors? The subject of the article is not a convincing enough "character" for me to satisfy Wikipedia rules on living persons, or the "not news" regulations. The kind of people who have been asked to vote tell their own story. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your swift response. As per AfD rules, the number and experience of the commenters should not weigh with the administrator making the decision to delete or to keep; only the quality of the arguments count. As it says at the top of that page, even "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website... you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome." What counts are "the merits of the arguments". Many articles are created quickly. It appears that most of this was written by one editor and I don't see any "suspicious edit summaries". Would you care to elaborate? The vast majority are factual and ordinary (e.g. four typical ones: added Bio and Science Activism sections; added more sources on the MMM issue; a few more details; adding place holder; content to come).
 * Let me ask you again. You nominated this article for deletion, calling it a hoax or a joke or a dare. The article is supported by sources normally considered to be entirely reliable, for WP:RS purposes - let us stick with the BBC and the Guardian. Are you suggesting that they were in on the hoax? Or did you not read the sources? BrainyBabe (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made my stance on the article very clear. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll ask my question one more time, looking for a clear yes or no:
 * "Do you have any declaration of interest in relation to the alternative medicine industry including, but not limited to, "miracle mineral solution" (mms or its variants) or any connection with the The Burzynski Clinic, Dr Stanislaw Burzynski, his patients or proponents/advocats?"Digitaltoast (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have answered this question already doktorb wordsdeeds 19:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where? Digitaltoast (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In this diff on the AfD, doktorb said " I have no connection with the alt-med industry at all." BrainyBabe (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange I didn't see that before, but fair enough, there it is. My bad, apologies all round. Although a simple "no" here would have sufficed. I see that a more senior and experienced editor has locked and closed the AfD. I would hope that DoktorB would take some guidance from both this fiasco and more experienced editors, review the guidelines and consider a little bit more what Wikipedia is about before attempting any further damaging and inappropriate actions. That concludes my contribution to this particular issue and I'll say no more on the matter. Digitaltoast (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

At the DRV, you wrote "This character, if he exists at all". Are you still pushing the "hoax" line? What evidence do you have for this claim that Morgan is a hoax? Because even if, contra the notability guidelines, you believe he isn't notable, it strikes me as ludicrous to believe that he's some kind of hoax. This may be the reason that the SPAs have flooded the deletion page: because given people have seen Morgan on TV, speaking at public events and on numerous podcasts and radio interviews, putting him in the same category as Bigfoot is so hilarious that Morgan and various of his followers on Twitter have been guffawing at the stupidity of the Wikipedia community as a result. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you at least concede that Rhys Morgan is a real person Doktorb, and not a 'hoax' as per your original complaint?Dean Morrison (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for including me in your communication. To keep the thread together, I have responded on my talkpage. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have similarly replied to your statement on my own talk page - Rushyo  Talk  19:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rhys Morgan
Probably better not to go nuclear on this. However closely you read the article, consensus is against you re notability, and there's not a lot you can do about that. Rhys Morgan is actually quite well known in skeptic circles. Words like "libel" and "slander" are implicit legal threats and a Really Bad Idea. I have made many AfD nominations that have been rejected rightly or wrongly, it's something you just have to shrug your shoulders and live with. I'm an admin, but this is friendly advice, not a warning of any kind. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(Responding here rather than on my talk page) I'm sorry you feel wronged by this matter. I have no doubt that you were following the rules of Wikipedia, and I respect all the work you've done. But you must know that you immediately undermined your position in the eyes of observers by stating that you thought the page was a hoax and continuing to use words to that effect, when the page clearly has several sources including articles from The Guardian, the BBC and other legit UK news sources. Also, you kept repeating the charge that Rhys is only known for one thing, when clearly there are two separate and unrelated stories, more than a year apart, recounted in the article. All the dotting of i's and crossing of t's in the rulebook is not going to help you make your case when you make basic errors of fact like that. That's what got everyone riled up. Yes, there were a couple of accounts who voted on the AfD who aren't very experienced editors, but you know well that it is not a democracy and therefore that didn't matter. I think if you look a little more closely at the list of people who voted on the AfD, you'll find that editors such as myself, Tom Morris and others who weighed in do have some experience in Wikipedia.

The other thing that stood out to me is I looked through your edit history, and it doesn't appear that you normally edit articles relating to science, alternative medicine and scientific skepticism, which is where Rhys' notability lies. I realize an AfD is purely a procedural thing that should be dictated by interpretation of the rules, but in order to interpret those rules you do have to have some passing knowledge of the subject matter of the article. I, for example, would never express my opinion on the notability of a cricket player, because I know nothing of cricket. Suffice it to say, within the so called "skeptic community" that Rhys is well known.

I've added some wikilinks and other citation markup to the reference list in the Rhys article to help make it clear that he is not supported by a few random bloggers, but people like Phil Plait and PZ Myers who you may not be aware of, but who are quite well known in the US. Krelnik (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Offline Legal Threats and Harassment
As a followup to your second failed attempt at getting Rhys Morgan deleted, I see that you are now engaged in stalking this person (a 17-year old minor) on Twitter and making legal threats against him. As near as I can tell, you are running the risk of being blocked or even permanently banned from editing here if you continue with this conduct (c.f. WP:NLT and WP:HOUND. Out of respect for WPs user privacy policy, I'm not going to post a link to your posts at this point because they reveal your identity. But if you persist with this harassment and threatening behavior, I will act promptly and take this to WP admins offline to ensure that remedial action is taken. In other words, STOP! Move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have asked Rhys to consider remedies according to WP:LEGAL which will hopefully be sufficient and resolve this matter (BeginHumour: Which was rather tricky when he doesn't exist :EndHumour) - Rushyo  Talk  20:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. I fully understand and comprehend the seriousness of this matter. I will not be taking this a single step further. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Wigan Council election, 1973 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Standish, Atherton, Hindley, Scholes, Orrell and Billinge


 * Wigan Council election, 1975 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Billinge

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Election articles vandalism
I think it is a question of checking an external source and reinserting the correct figures, with a citation. There is not much that can be done about vandals who do not log in (as far as I know), apart from keeping watching and reverting erroneous edits. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Wigan Council election, 1975 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Standish, Atherton, Hindley, Scholes and Orrell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited English mayoral referendums, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wigan
Hey, thanks for the praise! It appears we meet again - if you're the same Doktorb as the one on US Election Atlas? I'm Leftbehind on there. HeadlightMorning (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ooooh
He he, maybe you need a Wikibreak? :D --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 18:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Preston local elections, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Liberal and Independent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Salford elections
Fantastic news! I am considering creating the Salford mayoral election, 2012 page as there is now to be a mayoral election in Salford in May this year. However, it might be too soon for that.veganfishcake (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Brilliant, saved me a job! veganfishcake (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Homs bombardment article / ITN/C

 * Hello. You are keeping saying that the blurb is biased and unneutral, but you still refuse to say which part is biased, please if you does not plan to tell me anything, write the blurb yourself and let us just post it --aad_Dira (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Please look at the article again, because i have already added citations for all citation-needed parts, and corrected all other problems, excepting the POV template, because so far no reason was introduced to tag the article with. You can look at the talk page, you can't just say that the article is biased, because, in this case, the article could be tagged forever as POV with this hint, but no specific sentences or sections were indicated to be biased until now --aad_Dira (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Sir, Please if you want to stand in the face of the posting operation you must cooperate with me to solve the problem, i want to end this discussion fast so please answer me as soon as possible --aad_Dira (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Is this a direct ignoring or what? I don't ask you for much, just give me reasons so i can resolve the problem, i tells you again that i need the answer as soon as possible, what is the problems that may prevent posting the news right now?? --aad_Dira (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Omg. Don't do anything man, just tell me simply why are you still against the blurb so i can fix any problems!! --aad_Dira (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

changes/swings
Hey, I noticed you'd changed the swings on this year's Manchester locals results page to correspond with 2007, and I'm just wondering what's the consensus regarding this? The historical Sheffield/Manchester/Wigan results I've edited have all been comparing the previous year's results - making your edited 2011 the only year which doesn't compare to the previous year. I'd largely being do this on the basis that in these councils, the same ward and electorate were being polled year in, year out, so it didn't really strike me that going four years back was necessary. I can't be the only one, as many of the Manc pages already contained swings that corresponded with my yearly swings (if they hadn't I'd have probably stopped to guess why...). Having said that, when I collated the 2011 locals on Atlas, I compared against the 2007 results, precisely because it was necessary for scores of councils. I have also came across the (understandable) argument that swings should be for the last time the exact seats/same councillors were fought/fighting - by Harry Hayfield off BritainVotes IIRC, but even there they don't make a point of doing that - offering numerous (recent) years to compare against, so I'm at a loss on whether this is the accepted practice that's been overlooked by an interested amateur like myself, or people just do it at their preference? My preference is largely the way I've been doing it, but I'd rather adopt the linked-years way you promote and have a consistent line, if the alternative meant that we'd be left with the individual council page - and its editor - dictating what swings you'd be getting!

Hopefully you as well as the the other regular editors I've conversed with will weigh in, so I'll be convinced this is proper (and as such necessary!) before adopting and we'll get a consistent policy and less arse-ache of having to redo swings! Thanks. HeadlightMorning (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, yeah, I was hoping to get more input - beyond ours - before progressing, but no luck! Having such a narrow pool of editors should actually work to our benefit when trying to form a consensus on how to go forth - and I'd suggest it's worth doing that. I'm in two minds: I can see why the linked-years model is more accurate, but it has to be said, I'm also happy with the year-on-year swings I'd been doing up until this point. If we can get more people to weigh in, and whilst waiting for a consistent line to be adopted, I'll continue Wigan but now with the linked-years model (as you've said, going back and changing the Mets isn't the most appealing task!). HeadlightMorning (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, my preference is year-on-year (as it's easier to do) but only slightly - really I don't care - I just want whatever's used to be adopted consistently throughout, if not wiki, the individual councils at least, which doesn't seem will be achieved with that consensus. I think unless we can attract wider opinion, we may as well carry on what we were doing before, as we could be waiting forever for a consensus that won't come, and we'll just have to live without our preferred methods! :( HeadlightMorning (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Preston (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to City of Preston


 * United Kingdom local elections, 2012 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to City of Liverpool

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Preston wiki meet-up
hey, just wanted your thoughts on the idea of having Wikipedia/Wikimedia meet-ups in Preston. Would that work do you think? They have monthly meet-ups in Manchester and other areas of the UK. veganfishcake (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC) I may be interested also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.120.104 (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Lancashire County Council election, 2001, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whitworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom by-elections
Hi,

On the subject of Glasgow North-East being a Labour gain or not, I quite understand why you think it is. However, in the same way as the West Bromwich West by-election is not coloured pink, this should not either. While Michael Martin was elected as the Speaker, he resigned from that office on 21st June 2009. This means that he went back to the Labour benches as that is what a Speaker is supposed to do on retirement, return to their original party- though he only remained an MP for one day after that and I doubt he ever physically sat on the government benches (I doubt he entered the House after 21st!).

Many thanks! Arrowsword (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6
Hi. When you recently edited Salford mayoral election, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Stewart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday (2012)
'''Wishing User: a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

James Cameron's Deepsea Challenger
I'm truly sad for your ignorance of the technological and engineering achievement of Mr. Cameron's dive. Look through your own edit history and compare. What have you accomplished lately? Been to 16,200+ PSI of pressure in something you designed and built? I urge you to reconsider your position.--Brad Patrick (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Election 1992
I do not know if you are aware, but the BBC is showing the coverage from the 1992 General election on Monday 9 April on BBC parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.120.104 (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Social Media Rules on Wikipedia
Hi could you point me to the rules and guidance on social media for editing Wikipedia articles. Much appreciated. Uptodateinfo (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. You wrote: "There is absolutely no credibility in a poll of this kind. Wikipedia has very strict rules and guidance on social media. To extract any kind of statistic from an arbitrary snapshot in time is a complete non-starter." on Talk:Straw_polls_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012. Would love to see the guidance. Apologies, but I was not able to find them in the Wikipedia:Community_portal.Uptodateinfo 16:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uptodateinfo (talk • contribs)

2012 elections
Take care not to copy too much of the text from the previous election results - see Leeds Council election, 2012 where you predicted the result. Pam D  07:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: The font of this talk page is eye-tiringly small! Any chance you could enlarge it a bit? Pam  D  07:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing referenced material from the Sandwell article. Please read WP:VANDALISM. Next time, you will be reported. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

re: Local election articles
Please read WP:SOFIXIT instead of complaining. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Why do you expect other editors to complete your work for you? " I don't. Now I'm not stopping you from expanding those stubs.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"That isn't fair. That isn't in the spirit of the project" Wah, wah, wah. You fail to assume good faith. Who says I'm not going to go back to the so-called hub pages? Don't tell me what is EXPECTED. We're all volunteers, or didn't you know that? I'm not trying to get praise for anything, I'm just filling in redlinks. I think that's exactly the spirit of WP in the first place. It's unreasonable to expect a full article with 150 refs instead of a stub. All articles have to start somewhere (see WP:STUB!). Look at the history of the atom article, for example.

"As you may not be aware, people don't want to read stubs" - Where does it state this? It doesn't. Just as many editors like contributing to new articles, and they are afraid/unwilling to start new articles, but are happy to edit once the basic info is there.

"We need wards, candidates, the index page updating" Well go ahead and do it then!  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

None of them are oprphan articles - they're all interlinked via the template. Happy editing!  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no deadline. Again, in the time you've taken to moan about this, you could have done some worthwhile contributions too!  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "You have not asked ANYONE if it's workable to create so many stubs. You have not asked ANYONE if it's okay to add so many stubs without any intent to fill in the administrative extras as requested." - You've got a bad case of WP:OWN, buddy! Oh well, work to be done.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"I despair at what has happened today" Probably best to enjoy that cannabis you advocate on your home page! There's no need to thank me for all the hard work I've done in filling in the blanks. I'll do some expanding to these articles, but there will be plenty others who can chip in here and there.

PS - Don't forget to vote!  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This user is pro-cannabis. On your user page. Can you see it? Take a look. It's right there. Now to do the Welsh elections.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So what expansion work have you done today? None. Well done you. Right, more articles to start.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of references
Please stop removing references from articles as per this and this article. I find your comments on my talkpage rude and offensive - this is your final warning. I've never said I wont help, infact, quite the opposite. Please help by expanding the articles I've started. Also note that the intro can't say "will be held", as there is no guarantee they will all take place. I'm sure you'll recall a local election in Greater Manchester (Oldham, I think), that was post-poned when one of the candiates died. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here you go. And I'm sure there was one more recent than that, too. You didn't know that and you're a card-carrying member of the very party involved. Oh dear.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course I know the differences between the two - I wont insult you by explaining them. You best great cracking with those stub expansions.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can understand basic English. It's hardly an instruction, more and observation that you clearly have a lot of time on your hands and maybe you should spend that by editing the articles you've been whinging about. "direct violation of the way in which Wikipedia works" - where is this stated apart from in your own head? I'm dying to hear back from you.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You complain that "Your Project" doesn't have many members (I can see why not with the likes of you around), but wont do any work to help someone who's created new articles. Brilliant!  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've started some of the Welsh ones. You can thank me later.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Impossible to tell. That would be a bit WP:CRYSTAL, don't you think?  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, you're wrong. Still not grasping this, are you? Please help the project by expanding the articles. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've got lots of other things to do on WP, so who knows? Maybe I will, maybe I wont. You can try raising this at your project talkpage to get volunteers to chip in. That's how WP works, in case you didn't know.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Blaenau Gwent
Someone can always move it if it's wrong.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I've started to move the pages you've given the incorrect titles to. Lots to do here!  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like you gave bad advice about page titles. Oh dear.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But consensus can change. Welcome back. BAM!  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back
... but how about increasing the talk page font size? Pam D  08:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Pam  D  18:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!
It's great to have you back. I thought we had lost you from ITN for good. I thank you for your contributions and hope you have no further problems here. Happy editing!  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Pray to Kill and Return Alive
Perhaps you might consider returning to the AFD? While yes, the article is still being worked on when you first commented, I invite you to look in again at the current version and compare it to the originally nominated version. In their own recgnition of the improvements made, both the nom and another editor have changed their opinions from delte to keep. While the article might never be as delightfuly comprehensive as articles about recent blockbusters, I am hoping you might now agree with all others that we now have enough non-English coverage to meet WP:NF for a pre-internet Italian film.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for revisiting. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

World Series of Poker
You nominated the item for removal, referring to poker as an "overblown hobby". Then you closed the discussion yourself, determining that there was consensus for your position. Do I have that right? I realize that you made the opposite decision in the EuroBasket discussion, and I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, but might it have been better to leave the World Series of Poker closure to someone uninvolved? —David Levy 08:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, in short.
 * There are too many discussions going on without conclusion. After one week, both discussions have gone to a natural conclusion, in my opinion. I know it's not "the done thing" but I think I've been reasonable in my conclusions doktorb wordsdeeds 10:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't assert that your conclusions are unreasonable. (Note that I'm not familiar enough with the event to express an opinion regarding its inclusion.)  I'm saying that it's generally considered inappropriate for a discussion participant to perform a closure with a finding of consensus in his/her preferred outcome's favor.  Such a task is best left to an uninvolved party, if only to avoid the appearance of bias.  (We don't want people to question the outcome's legitimacy, on a technicality or otherwise.)
 * I urge you to self-revert and leave the decision to someone else. —David Levy 16:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair point well made. If someone questions it, I'll make my case though will accept if it needs re-opening. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. —David Levy 18:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WSOP
I sincerely apologize for my rude boldness and hope that this does not need to escalate into a heated debate, but I have reopened the discussion regarding ITN/R for the World Series of Poker and reverted your edit that came in accordance with your conclusion, as explained by my comment in the proposal. I realize that it might not have been the most civil action to do so before consulting with you, but I feel that it is proper. If you have any further arguments as to why the discussion should be closed now, I am completely open to that. I apologize again.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Election 1987
The BBC will be showing the coverage from the 1987 election on Saturday 9 June on BBC Parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.9 (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Rationale requested for ITNR decison
I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:In the news asking if you can expand on your rationale for a decision you made in repsect of Eurobasket. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Police commissioner elections
I will put your question on the article talk page and see if anyone else responds. Sussexonian (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited House of Lords Reform Bill 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Writ of summons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Montgomeryshire (UK Parliament constituency) etc
Hello. Could I please ask you not to remove wikify tags without an edit summary and without making any improvements? The reason for tagging was given in my edit summary: lots of notable MPs, who need wikilinks in the article. Without these, people are much more reluctant to start an article on them. This issue remains on the articles where you removed the tag. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Doktorbuk. I see you've already commented at WP:AN3. If this were a fight on a single article, an admin would probably close the 3RR with full protection of the page. Since it's apparently running over a huge number of articles, the only option for an admin who thinks it has to be stopped is to block one or both parties. Will you consider a promise to stop reverting Boleyn for at least 24 hours? This might assist with closing the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm waiting for a reply from Doktor on AN/3RR ... I want to make sure that his understanding of the 2 policies involved is clear, and if it becomes so, he probably will have no further need to revert (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Doktor, your statements at User talk:Boleyn suggest that you intend to remove any new redlinks she may create. You should not do so unless you get consensus in some discussion. If you go on with this unilaterally, you could be blocked for edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Doktor: as noted on AN/3RR, MP's have been determined by the community to be inherently notable - if you want to change that, then start a discussion at Village Pump or something - do not unilaterally make it up that since you disagree, then it's true. As per WP:REDLINK, a single link from an article to a yet to be created article is valid, if there is indeed a good chance that the article can be created.  As MP's are notable, it could feasibly be created.  Wikilinking to never-possible articles would not be valid, but that's not the case here.  I believe that this was already stated to you at AN/3RR - you should not be acting otherwise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--IShadowed 07:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Caution
Hello Doktorbuk. Admins usually will go to a lot of trouble to avoid blocking established editors, but this edit looks ridiculous. It seems you've been ignoring all the recent feedback. Please pay attention. What rationale can there be for removing "Its most notable MP was Henry Addington, who held the seat during his term as Prime Minister, as well as when he was Speaker of the House of Commons." Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for editing contrary to WP:CONSENSUS on WP:REDLINK and WP:POLITICIAN, despite several warnings to cease and desist. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Supplementary Vote election box template
Hello, Doktorbuk, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and see what you think of the possible new template. Sussexonian (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

deaths ITN rfc
Hello. You recently participated in an informal discussion here on reforming the recent deaths section of ITN. The old discussion has been closed, and a more formal proposal has been made as an RfC. Please feel free to add your vote and comment to the new section, and, if you support, please indicate whether you prefer bare links or one-word blurbs. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)