User talk:Frinton100/Archive 1

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited London Paddington station, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Victoria station and Hammersmith tube station (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) 12:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crocodile attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin (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) 11:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joyce Anelay, Baroness Anelay of St Johns, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabinet. 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) 08:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=621941220 your edit] to Faversham and Mid Kent (UK Parliament constituency) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Weald (UK Parliament constituency)|Maidstone and The Weald]] was also created at the same time largely replacing the former Maidstone constituency, but

Disambiguation link notification for August 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bishop of the Falkland Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nigel Stock. 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) 09:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lewisham People Before Profit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Bullock. 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) 09:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Rochester and Strood
Hi Mr Frinton I see you have again deleted this so what to say, other than this is a more than little bit tedious! Where to discuss this - I can't see your comments. Best M Mabelina (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.


 * Chandler's Ford
 * added a link pointing to Mike Thornton


 * Romsey (UK Parliament constituency)
 * added a link pointing to Fawley

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Winchester (UK Parliament constituency) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=635158351 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F635158351%7CWinchester (UK Parliament constituency)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Amjad Bashir
Hi. Do you have a COI regarding the wikipedia page of Amjad Bashir MEP?Williambatesuk (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Has Jamie Coccozza stood down in Glasgow East? PatGallacher (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

South Thanet
You are right that this map shows Minster etc as part of North Thanet. However the WP article has consistently stated that these villages are part of South Thanet.

There are also other maps (such as this one)

http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadDomainList.do?a=7&b=6164346&c=South+Thanet&d=27&g=457904&i=1001x1003&m=0&r=1&s=1362847000142&enc=1&domainId=58&census=true

which show the area as part of South Thanet.

Which is right, and does the article need correcting? Ehrenkater (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The map in your link shows Minster in NT (It lies at the junction of the railway lines to the SW of the airport symbol. The constituency boundary is to the south of that - the boundary itself is obscured by the constituency name). The Election Maps website is correct - I'll have a look at the article in a minute and correct if necessary. I'm guessing that the relevant section hasn't been updated to take account of the boundary review which came into force in 2010 - Minster was in South Thanet until then. From 2010, there was some re-alignment of the boundary in the Dover district to take account of new ward boundaries, South Thanet lost the Minster area to North, and gained Cliftonville in return. Frinton100 (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've now updated the two Thanet constituencies plus a couple of related articles. I think what has happened is the new boundaries had been included prior to 2010, when it was still necessary to list both old and new boundaries. After the election it meant there were two contradictory paragraphs one after the other!

Aborted Boundary Review
Here is a link to some data on the aborted boundary review that was begun in 2011 - following discussion on the GE2015 page: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/boundaries-6th-review/


 * That article says the Conservatives would have won a majority if the boundaries were not rigged. (CWLilius (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC))


 * It says that the Conservatives would have won a majority on the boundaries that were aborted. It does not say the current boundaries are rigged. I am interested to know where you think this "rigging" has occurred - which constituencies, and how should they have been drawn differently? If the boundaries are rigged in Labour's favour, why did the Parliamentary Boundary Commission (PBC) in their 5th review (the one that came in prior to 2010) reduce the number of seats in Merseyside, Tyne & Wear and South Yorkshire (all strong Labour areas), and increase the number in Hampshire, Cornwall, Devon, Norfolk and Essex (all definitely not strong Labour areas). And why did they reject the Labour Party's own counter-proposals (including suggestions by the party to not decrease representation in either West Yorks or Merseyside) in the majority of cases?


 * I think you will find that after May 2015, much of the bias will be removed as Labour lose the incumbency advantage in many seats, and the Conservatives gain it. For this reason, it is likely that if (as the polls suggest) Labour and the Conservatives end up very close in vote share, they will end up very close in seats - http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/ Frinton100 (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)



Using the following data: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-301953 and http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-335135 I've come up with the following:

In terms of Electorate (which is what the boundaries are drawn from), the average seat sizes (in 2013) are:


 * In England - Con 73,492, Labour 70,720, LibDem 72,318, Others 76,317
 * In Wales - Con 59,411, Labour 58,058, LibDem 57,761, PC 46,386
 * In Scotland - Con 67,579, Labour 70,392, LibDem 64,201, SNP 61,224
 * Average Northern Ireland seat is 67,887


 * Across the UK - Con 73,067, Labour 69,392, LibDem 69,985, Others 64,741

The average Labour seat is 3,675 electors smaller than the average Conservative seat (5.0%). In England, the average Labour seat is 2,772 smaller (3.8%).

In terms of Total Population (2011), we find the opposite trend (at least in terms of Lab and Con). I only have England & Wales population data:
 * England - Con 98,497, Labour 101,437, LibDem 99,494, Others 100,411
 * Wales - Con 77,289, Labour 77,709, LibDem 77,461, PC 64,206


 * Total England & Wales - Con 97,940, Labour 99,976, LibDem 98,057, Others 78,688

The average Labour seat in England & Wales therefore has a population of 2,036 (2.0%) higher than the average Conservative seat.

These hardly seem like outrageous discrepancies. Much of the difference will be because the data used to create the constituencies is 14 years out of date - rural and suburban areas (which tend to be more Conservative) will have generally grown at a faster rate relative to urban areas. Go back to the 2001 baseline for the last boundary review and you'll probably find much smaller differences. For genuinely rigged boundaries, see Playmander.Frinton100 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If the boundaries were not rigged the Conservatives would have won a majority of over 100 at the last election. The Labour seats had to be reduced because they had destroyed the UK with devolution which was never offered to England. (CWLilius (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC))


 * Now you're just making yourself look silly - a majority of over 100 on a 36% vote share? That's just rubbish. No party has ever won a majority of 100+ without getting 40% or more of the vote. You still haven't answered where the boundaries are rigged and what should have been done differently, or why the number of seats in Merseyside and West Yorkshire were reduced despite Labour Party campaigns against the reductions, or why a Boundary Commission which you suspect of acting in a partisan manner would award additional seats to Devon, Hampshire, Norfolk and Essex, or ignore Labour Party counter-proposals in the vast majority of counties. The facts are that the average Labour seat is only 5% smaller than the average Conservative seat - you can check this yourself using the links above. I am inclined to believe anything else is just conspiracy theory, unless you can explain how the boundaries should have been drawn differently. Frinton100 (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Labour got a majority of nearly 70 on 35%. (CWLilius (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC))


 * Yes, but 66 is not over 100, is it? And on the boundaries that came into force in 2010 they would probably only have had a majority of around 48 on most estimates. And as has already been pointed out many times, turnout was far more of a factor in the votes:seats ratio for the Labour Party at the last couple of elections. But I'm still interested in how the boundaries should have been drawn differently.


 * The boundaries should be equal in size, with the approximate same number of voters, and the number of MPs should be reduced by at least fifty. Scotland and Wales are both massively overrepresented at Westminster, given their tiny populations. (CWLilius (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC))


 * Scotland and Wales are hardly "massively over-represented", neither do they have tiny populations.
 * The population percentages are: England 83.9%, Scotland 8.4%, Wales 4.8%, NI 2.9% (see Demography of the United Kingdom)
 * The share of Commons seats is England 82.0%, Scotland 9.1%, Wales 6.2%, NI 2.8%
 * If 650 seats were divided equally among the four nations, England would have 545 (+12), Scotland 55 (-4), Wales 31 (-9) and NI 19 (+1)
 * I agree that we should be looking to equalise representation between England, Scotland, Wales and NI. But this would make little overall difference of itself. Only Wales is significantly over-represented, and as I have mentioned before, many of the very smallest seats in Wales are not held by Labour, so actually a reduction to 31 seats would not harm them a great deal. I also agree with the idea of setting maximum and minimum sizes of constituencies which was included in the rules for the last review. However, the limit that was set was +/-5% from the average which is far too narrow to be able to draw constituencies that to some extent follow "natural" community boundaries. A +/-10% limit (in line with some other jurisdictions that use FPTP) would have been more sensible, and I think if that had been implemented there would have been far more support for the boundaries as proposed. As it was, even many Conservatives thought the boundaries that the PBC proposed this time were a mess.


 * As things stand, the vast majority of constituencies in England and Scotland are pretty close to average. There are some outliers, some of which are islands like the Isle of Wight (which probably should be split in two), Orkney/Shetland and the Western Isles. There are some other outliers like the Conservative-held Wirral West which is vastly undersized and the Labour-held Holborn & St Pancras which is over-sized, but on average, as I stated above, a Labour seat (across the whole of the UK) is only 5% smaller than a Conservative seat. I think we should get rid of most of the outliers, and we should have every constituency being set to between about 65,000 and 80,000 electors. Equalising the constituencies would - on the map proposed a few years ago by the PBC - only have taken us from the point where the Tories were 19 seats short of a majority to at best a very tiny majority (which may well not have lasted them through a full term). It would not have led to anything like the 100 seat majority you seem to suggest was Cameron's right. Frinton100 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wales and Scotland have their own parliaments - unlike England - so they should not be sending any MPs to Westminster at all. The rigged boundaries give Labour a ten-point advantage before any votes are cast. If the Conservatives ever manage to win a majority, that unfair advantage will disappear instantly as the first thing they will do is equalize the boundaries. Given their tiny populations Scotland should have no more than ten MPs and Wales six. (CWLilius (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC))


 * So really, your problem is not so much with the Parliamentary boundaries, but it is anti-Scottish and anti-Welsh bias. Wales and Scotland between them have over 15% of the population - about 1 in 7. This is hardly "tiny".


 * We are a United Kingdom - not every power is devolved to Scotland and Wales, and so they are entitled to equal representation. There is some merit in "English Votes for English Laws" though I wouldn't support exactly what the Conservatives are proposing, but Scotland and Wales (an NI for that matter) are entitled to send MPs to Westminster, and that's as it should be, until one or more of those countries votes to leave the Union.


 * How do you work out your "ten-point advantage"? My guess is it's just a figure plucked from thin air. The facts are:
 * 1. Scotland and Wales collectively are over-represented by about 13 seats compared to England
 * 2. The vast majority of English and Scottish seats are within about 10% of the average
 * 3. The average Labour seat is 5% smaller than the average Conservative seat
 * 4. The majority of Labour seats have a lower turnout than the majority of Conservative seats, so a safe Labour seat contributes fewer votes to the national total of Labour votes than a safe Conservative seat contributes to the national total of Conservative votes.


 * I hardly see that this gives Labour a 10% advantage. Can you provide some facts to back up your arguments as I have provided to back up mine? Or perhaps give some examples of which seats have been "rigged" and how they should be drawn more fairly to help reach this apparent 100-seat Conservative majority that we should now have?Frinton100 (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We haven't been a "United Kingdom" since Labour destroyed the UK with devolution which was never offered to England. There should be no MPs at all from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland now. Scotland and Wales are both massively overrepresented, as is the sparsely-populated north of England. I will not be at all surprised if people in England refuse to accept the result of May's election if they once again have a left-wing government imposed on them like in 2005 and 2010. Without the rigged boundaries Labour's majority would have been reduced heavily at the 2001 General Election where its share of the vote plummeted. (CWLilius (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC))


 * Devolution was offered to the North East and resoundingly rejected. I think that most polls in the past (certainly at the time of the referendums in 1997) showed little support in England for an English Parliament. This may start to change now, we shall see. But this doesn't change the fact that the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly (not Parliament) are significantly less than Westminster has, and the UK Parliament retains significant control over taxation and welfare and complete control over defence and foreign affairs. Some of these powers will be devolved to Scotland after May, but not all of them, and they won't be devolved to Wales. Therefore Scotland, Wales and NI remain entitled to representation at Westminster - though as I have said, I agree that it should be in roughly equal sized seats to England.


 * Anyway, the "sparsely populated north of England" has similar sized seats to the rest of England. The only exceptions are Cumbria and Northumberland, where an additional seat was awarded to each last time, meaning that Hexham (Con), Berwick (LD) and Workington (Lab) are among the dozen or so smallest seats in England. Of the 10 smallest, 5 are Conservative (Wolverhampton SW, Dudley South, Northampton North, Northampton South, Wirral West), 3 are Labour (Workington, Nottingham East, Wirral South) and 2 are LibDem (Berwick, Leeds NW). This data is from one of the spreadsheets I linked to above.


 * You seem to seriously misunderstand the way the pre-2010 boundary review worked. There was an average electorate calculated for England (69,934), and this figure was divided into the population of each county to work out how many seats that county was entitled to, and in every case bar Northumberland and Cumbria (and possibly the Isle of Wight, I can't remember), this was the number of seats that county was given. Within each county, the seats were drawn to be as close as possible to the English average, while keeping where possible to within recognisable community boundaries. There is no way that outside of these special cases that the average electorate of a seat in one part of England can have been significantly different to that in another at the time of the review. Of course, there has been population growth since then, and that has affected rural and suburban areas more than inner cities, so Conservative seats have grown slightly faster than Labour ones. But still, after the Isle of Wight (electorate 111,000), the largest seat is the safe Labour Manchester Central (in the "sparsely populated north of England") - electorate 95,000. The smallest is Conservative-held Wirral West at 55,000. I have already said that I believe these discrepancies are too great, and of course, under the old (pre-2010) rules for boundary reviews, we would be due for one to begin about now and to be reporting sometime during the next parliament, so some of these discrepancies would have been ironed out. I also do not agree with giving the PBC "discretion" to vary the seat size by more than a fixed amount, as I have mentioned previously, and I do not agree that Northumberland and Cumbria should have been allowed to retain the number of seats they did.


 * And incidentally, Labour's vote did not "plummet" in 2001, there was a swing of about 1.8% to the Tories. However, Labour were aided by the fact they, instead of the Conservatives, now had incumbents in place in marginals, so they performed better in those seats than they did in safer seats.


 * I'd still be interested to see some facts backing up your arguments. Alternatively, perhaps, as I have suggested before, you could identify some individual constituencies in England where you believe the boundaries have been "rigged" and how you would have drawn the boundaries in a fairer manner. So far all your posts seem to be solely based on right-wing "little Englander" conspiracies. As you can probably tell I do find this subject interesting, so would be genuinely interested in any material you have to support your arguments. If not, I will have to assume the are no more than conspiracies made up by yourself, to which there is really no point in responding, other than to once again point you to all of the facts I have posted above. Whether or not you choose to accept them is up to you, but it does not make them any less valid, nor does it add any weight to your own seemingly wafer-thin argument. Frinton100 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion is a little bit moot, since CWLilius is almost certain to be blocked for sockpuppetry. Hard to comment here without getting into social networking, but there are improvements that could be made to the Boundary Commissions (United Kingdom) article and the one on the sixth review. As I've already explained to our friend, he needs to produce reliable sources for these claims, as Wikipedia isn't a forum or a soapbox for users to air their grievances with the operation of the electoral system. It's unlikely that such sources exist, apart from unreliable ones on conspiracy theory driven blogs and the like. Political parties will inevitably support an electoral system and electoral procedures which favour their side. Labour took out a court case against the Boundary Commission in the early 80s, but seem perfectly happy with it now. The Conservatives had no interest in changing the way the reviews worked, until it became obvious that the "lag factor" was hurting them.


 * If the sixth review had been carried out, it's doubtful that that way of doing things would have lasted long anyway, as we'd been here before. Up to 1945, the boundaries were drawn as a result of horse-trading between the main parties. (Most US states still use that method.) When the boundary commissions were set up, the original rules were for the reviews to take place every 5 to 7 years, similar to the Conservatives' time frame. When the second review took place before the 1955 election, there were protests from all sides, as the consequences became better understood. Constituencies all over the place were redrawn and abolished and MPs and constituency parties, who'd just gotten used to one set of boundaries, had to remodel themselves just 5 years after the previous review. Consequently, the main parties agreed to shift the time frame to 10-15 years (later shortened to 8-12 by the 1986 act.) After the sixth review, even some Conservatives admitted that the proposals were a bit of a mess and my expectation would be that they'll go for a wider range of discretion (10% would be fine) and return to a longer period, say 8-10 years, though there's no reason why they shouldn't use a more recent electoral figure, as it doesn't make sense that they start reviews based on 4 year old electoral registers and then take so long to complete the reviews. The sixth review at least showed that it's possible for them to do it much quicker. The UK is actually fairly unusual in apportioning seats based on electorate, rather than on population since most other countries do it that way, including Ireland, Germany, the USA etc. I'm very surprised Labour hasn't pushed for that change, as it would benefit them.


 * I'd also be surprised if they do reduce the number of MPs (apart from reducing Welsh representation.) That came about as a response to the expenses' scandal and that's receding from public memory and in the end, I can't see turkeys voting for Christmas. Interesting topic, but more suited to blogs or discussion forums like UK polling. Valenciano (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe Labour made some noises about using population data rather than electorate during the debates on the 6th review. I can see both sides of that argument but think I'd prefer on balance to stick with electorates. I was surprised to find when I worked it out above that Labour seats have a higher average population while still having a lower average electorate.


 * The interesting thing of course about the abandoning of the 6th review, is that it didn't repeal the legislation. So if no changes are made we will have to have a 7th review start in 2016/17, with 600 seats and a +/-5% limit. I think there is some good stuff in this new legislation, so I hope it isn't thrown out completely (for example, there was far more public involvement as all the boundaries were announced at once so it was a bigger media story, and as you say it was much quicker; I also agree with setting max and min limits rather than leaving it to PBC discretion). But I hope there are some amendments - personally I would go for a +/-10% limit and a maximum 15 year period between reviews - if we stick with fixed terms of 5 years this would normally mean 3 GEs on one set of boundaries. My guess is if we have a Conservative majority Govt (or even Con+DUP) we will get little, if any, change to the current rules. If we have a Labour Govt there will be no reduction, and we will have a system halfway between the old and new ones - possibly involving census data rather than electorate. If it ends up being more messy than this, it'll be completely up in the air. Frinton100 (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Five years is too short a time between reviews. Ten years would seem about right. This could correspond with the census, if Labour switched it to population. Constantly changing boundaries is not good for MPs or constituency parties and confusing for voters, who get shifted from seat to seat. I always thought there was something to be said for the way the German commission did it: reviews don't happen at fixed intervals. FPTP seats must be within a 15% band and then reviews occur when one constituency out of the 299 deviates by more than 25% from the average. That, with a lower deviation, could work. The Australian commission, in contrast, aims to have every seat with more or less the same electorate at the middle point between their reviews, using population projections. There's something to be said for using such projections, as there have been cases in the past (Milton Keynes in the 80s is one example) where the commission ignored population growth projections and ended up with a highly oversized seat as a result. On another point above, I don't see any problem with the Scottish Islands and the Isle of Wight being special cases. If you read the reports of the Scottish boundary commission (all past reviews are available on its website) they constantly recommended adding Skye to the Western Isles in the reviews up to and including the 80s. It was always rejected at local enquiries. Orkney and Shetland spans a huge area. The distance from Edinburgh to Birmingham and parts of Shetland are closer to Oslo and Denmark than they are to Edinburgh, nevermind London so it's reasonable enough to treat that as a special case. I really don't know if the reduction of seats will go ahead. No one other than the Conservatives wanted it and seats instead of 650 seats gives them no advantage over Labour. Valenciano (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally I would add Ynys Mon to the "protected" list so we would have 5 protected island constituencies - Orkney/Shetland, Western Isles, Ynys Mon and IOW (2 seats).


 * I think the Australian system is interesting as they keep the boundaries under virtually constant review. If a seat deviates by more than (I think) 20% from the average for its state, the whole state is redrawn. They also calculate the entitlement of each state every month, and when a state changes its entitlement they redo the boundaries in that state (so they have just started a review of NSW and WA as the latter has gained a seat from the former). We could introduce a similar review (probably annual) to get rid of some of the outliers - we currently have 5 seats below 80% of the English average (4 in the "special" areas of Northumberland, Cumbria and Wirral, plus Northampton South) and 7 above 120% (IOW, both Milton Keynes seats, NW Cambs, Manchester Central, Sleaford, Ilford South). I still think we should have a nationwide review every so often, which they never have in Australia unless the size of the HoR changes drastically. Frinton100 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Australian Electoral Commission article should (but doesn't) include this info. From memory I think it's a bit more complicated, a third of districts in a state deviating by more than 10% triggers a review or a change in a states representation or 10 years have passed since the last one. I think that's overkill. One of the supposed strengths of single member constituencies is that it allows electors to form a clear connection with their representative. If the boundaries are constantly changing, that link gets weakened. The Conservatives didn't think that part of it through. I can see why Ynys Mon doesn't get protected, like Skye, Sheppey and others, it's much better linked to the mainland that the other 3. Wirral actually wasn't a "special" area. The commission just royally screwed up. They had finished the Cheshire review by the time they got around to Merseyside and then, having literally boxed themselves in, tried to solve the Wirral problem by proposing a ludicrous cross Mersey constituency, which was obviously never going to survive a public enquiry. The obvious solution would have been to link parts of Wirral with Ellesmere Port, as was the case until 1983. Valenciano (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right about the third of electorates, and the fact they are only allowed a 10% deviation, not 20%, but the max time limit is actually 7 years, not 10 (though of course they only have elections every 3-ish years, so one set of state boundaries can last 3 elections). I agree this is far too frequent, though I think there is some merit in intervening outside of a normal review period when there are anomalies. If we were working on the old rules there would be a strong case for an interim review in Cambridgeshire to be done now. There is a section on Australian redistributions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia#Redistributions


 * When I said Wirral was "special", I only meant that it had been allowed to have a smaller average than anywhere else for all those reasons you describe. I suspect though that under the pre-2010 rules where the PBC stuck so rigidly to county boundaries (9 times out of 10 the correct decision, but occasionally there are exceptions), they wouldn't have considered a Wirral/Cheshire combination at all. Frinton100 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. In the case of the Wirral, they were simply reviewing individual counties separately, and at different times. Having completed the review of Cheshire, they didn't even have the option of combining it with Wirral, which would have made much more sense but, as you say, they'd have resisted anyway. They didn't shift their position on crossing London borough boundaries until the 1990s. I was looking again over the review and their proposals for Merseyside then were a real mess, the worst I've seen since the fiasco of the Northern Ireland boundary commission in 1995, when they unnecessarily redrew the entire map, only to be predictably rebuffed at the enquiries due to the disruption caused. Reviews of all areas at the same time, flexibility on the issue of county boundaries when essential (Wirral was historically part of Cheshire, so it's not like Devon/Cornwall) quicker reviews and working to more recent electoral figures are all no brainers. Valenciano (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

One small region in the NE was offered devolution, not all of England. Labour made Scottish independence inevitable by giving Scotland a parliament, it is very likely that people in England will decide to end the union because it is so anti-English now. Wales already has a parliament even if it is still called an assembly. Even the left-wing posters on "The Guardian" agree it is impossible for the Conservatives to ever win a majority on the rigged boundaries we have had since the late 1990s. May's election should be cancelled as only Labour can win. (CWLilius (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC))


 * Still waiting for facts ("left wing posters on the Guardian" are no more a reliable source than right wing posters on the Daily Mail).


 * Anyway, I have a question for you - what swing will it take compared to the 2010 results in order for the Conservatives to win an overall majority?Frinton100 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bermondsey and Old Southwark (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All People's Party. 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) 09:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Oxford East (UK Parliament constituency) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=665934691 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F665934691%7COxford East (UK Parliament constituency)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Your submission at Articles for creation: Green Parties in the United Kingdom has been accepted
 Green Parties in the United Kingdom, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sulfurboy (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Green_Parties_in_the_United_Kingdom help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Kingdom general election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green Parties in the United Kingdom. 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) 09:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Territory general election, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Appropriations. 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) 09:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Baker (Scottish politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Doran. 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) 10:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Robinson (politician). 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) 11:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wales Green Party
There is a discussion at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales to establish if Wales Green Party (which currently redirects to a section inside Green Party of England and Wales) is notable enough to be restored as a standalone article. As you either took part in the AfD, or are a significant contributor to either Wales Green Party or Green Party of England and Wales, you are being contacted to see if you have input to the discussion.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Cllr Jim McMahon
Hi Frinton - from an outsider's point of view, perceivably lots of overprotection of Labour candidate & attempts to suppress others? Also if Jim McMahon is notable enough, which I have no doubt in believing, why then try to dumb down his entry by persistent deletion of the OBE image? Please advise - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Other candidates at Oldham by-election
RSVP


 * I'm not sure what the meaning of the "Attention" section above is - however, with regards to the OBE - I did remove it earlier, but I saw you put it back and I wasn't too bothered. I think it looks a bit silly, but fine. I hadn't realised I had removed it a second time; I have now moved it to a more sensible location. I am dubious to be honest about McMahon's notability under WP:POLITICIAN - municipal politicians are borderline cases. But please, for the third time in a few hours - can we discuss article content in the appropriate place, and not on my talk page. Please stick to the MOS. And please do not post unsolicited images to my talk page. Frinton100 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure - I think you & I (& of course others) have a reasonable grasp of Wiki eligibility, politics, current affairs as well as the English language. Thank you & let's get back to helpful collaborative edits like before (intro of muchos Talk pages - like committees - never get anything sorted!). Best M Mabelina (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Jim McMahon (politician) Talk Page - please direct
 * It's on the "talk" tab, top left, on his article Frinton100 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your link above doesn't work - so let's leave excessive discussion (unless you really would prefer otherwise) in favour of enhancing the content of Wiki's articles. "Attention", I amended to "Other" since it seems to me quite lopsided to focus on Jim McMahon without any attention at all on the others, although I have made a small attempt to redress the balance by creating an article about John Bickley, the principal contender in this normally Labour seat (unless I am thoroughly mistaken). I note you decided to flag up the John Bickley article for deletion almost immediately upon its creation - so unless you can assure me (and, moreover, other Wikipedians) that you ARE NOT a Labour supporter/sympathiser, perhaps you could remove those notices? What was the reason for your stating OBEs look a "bit silly" thereby reducing much Wiki factual info to joke status unless you were in your eyes disdaining Cllr McMahon himself, OR alternatively dumbing down Cllr Jim McMahon's entry so as to try make him appear less privileged - despite achievement being a good thing - for some presumed electoral advantage? A simple explanation to this mystery will suffice - many thanks in advance.... M Mabelina (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not provide a link, I explained how you can navigate to his talk page from his article. The talk page for every article is found at the "Talk" tab on the top left of the article.
 * Re. the OBE, I felt the image looked out of place. I never suggested that an OBE itself was silly, and we don't need to turn this into a discussion on the rights and wrongs of the British honours system. You put it back - fine, I'm not that worried either way. I am in no way obliged to respond to the personal attacks, and I will not do so. Please refrain from posting further attacks of this sort on my talk page. I have already responded to the points about Bickley on the AfD discussion. Frinton100 (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Frinton100 - I write because you rightly said that constant argy-bargy can lead to contributors being blocked. I trust that this won't happen nor should it in our cases here, but I have just spotted that you made a wholescale reversion to my recent edit to Jim McMahon. My edits are entirely reasonable but needless to say should you think otherwise please elucidate - this matter of MOS I explained but you asserted I don't like it - this is not correct. A more reasoned discussion is very much required. RSVP M Mabelina (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have provided a very detailed explanantion for my edits over the last few days on the article talk page. I have also just done so for my recent edits. You can't claim you don't know where the page is any more as not only did I tell you how to navigate to it, but you recently contributed to it. This is where we need to have the discussion. Frinton100 (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have contributed to that page, so why write "You can't claim you don't know where the page is"? M Mabelina (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, that's what I said - 02.17 "you recently contributed to it". However, earlier you were asking me to direct you to the talk page, and then claiming my "link" didn't work, even when I hadn't provided a link, merely explained how you reach the talk page from the article. It certainly appeared to me that back at 02.45 on 6/11 you were asking me where the talk page was, and then claiming at 04.56 that you still couldn't find it. Frinton100 (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jim McMahon (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middleton. 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) 11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015
Hi Frinton100 - I trust you acknowledge that we make significant improvements to Wiki variously. Recently Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015 is worthy of Wiki's encyclopaedic note & let's continue deferring to each other (but not by deleting an article about one of the principal PPCs immediately upon its creation - such a tag is not encouraging surely?!). Bear with us Wikipedians please - many thanks. Best M Mabelina (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Simply being a candidate at a by-election does not confer notability. As I said in the AfD, if he wins, he should have an article, but not yet. Please contribute to the discussion on the appropriate page - this is not the right place to take the matter further.Frinton100 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK
 * Hi - I just stated sorted! rather glibly - but I hope you concur this now reads better - I believe you & I are much on the same page re this topic but given the nature of Wiki, the language can get easily skewed unintentionally - is this a more bland & easier-to-understand way of putting things? Cheers M Mabelina (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not the place to discuss this. It should be discussed on the article's talk page, where I'll continue the discussion. Frinton100 (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good but so long as it doesn't result in more discussion than improvement! Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Example: 'You are a Cllr FOR a specific ward, IN a local authority, or ON that authority's council - absolutely spot on Frinton100 but this is not how it always reads when people make edits to Wiki - let's review the whole thing later (rather than spend more time discussing?). Many thanks indeed M Mabelina (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * anything not to stifle info ... (for sake of MOS etc)
 * Hi Frinton100 - further to our recent discussions, could let me know best to handle a situation like AusLondonder's latest reinsertion of climate change denier (in place of climate change sceptic) à propos of Bickley. I set out on AusLondonder's Talk page why this phrase is both factually and literally wrong. Await yours - many thanks. Best M Mabelina (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article is title Climate change denial. We should follow main article usage unless a clear reason exists for not doing so. You have failed to explain why you object. AusLondonder (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) Simple, you go to the article talk page and start a discussion by clicking on the "talk" tab, top left on the article. If you include this link: AusLondonder somewhere in the discussion, AusLondonder will receive notification that you have mentioned them on the talk page. Discussing on that page will make it easier for others to contribute - I doubt anyone would look on my page for this discussion. Frinton100 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks & already answered AusLondonder on his Talk page where he & I already communicated. It seems to me that AusLondonder bandies about accusations of POV & all the rest at will, whereas in fact his assertion here (& no doubt elsewhere) is a most blatant POV (so far as I can tell). There surely has to be a more expedient way of resolving such contre-temps? M Mabelina (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The expedient way is to discuss with reference to available sources and wikipedia policy, preferably involving more than two people. A back and forth "I'm right" "No, I'm right" is not going to get far. While you don't need to be an expert in policy, having a reasonable grasp of some of the main ones will help prevent disputes cropping up in the first place (as everyone will know what the outcome will be), and will help to resolve them quicker when they do arise. Frinton100 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks & I realise a pantomime is no good - here is quite a helpful article: qv. . It is not just that AusLondonder challenges the text he also threatens all sorts of disciplinary action - I recognise I also have been obstinate by reinstating my versions in the past but I have never resorted to posting the correspondent to the Admins - this is the substantive difference from my approach. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A quick skim suggests it is in line with what I said a few minutes ago on AusLondonder's page. But it doesn't help in determining which one Bickley is. Frinton100 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it does really - because how to put this: someone introduced a barely coherent assertion about climate change including refs to loads of tweets.. I/we are now being sent off on a merry go-round dealing with this... He is not a climatologist & his tweets to put it bluntly are basically taking the mickey as well as serving the purpose of being attention seeking. He does not deny it he is just taking the p... out of it. So whether it was worthwhile even introducing the matter in the first place is worth considering but he certainly does not hold anything like a sincere view on the matter - so he is a sceptic at best. Am I going mad here?!!! Please reassure M Mabelina (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is one of the problems of using tweets (or indeed anything published by an individual, rather than reported by a news outlet). It certainly looks to me like he was being serious. Many UKIP politicians hold similar views (the candidate in my own constituency at the GE is a vociferous denier), so it would not be surprising if he was an outright denier. We can only go by the sources we have, the tweets suggest denier. If you know better, you need to find a RS, putting your own slant on his messages constitutes original research which is out of bounds on wikipedia (WP:OR). There would be an argument for not including it at all. Anyway, we now have discussion going on on two user pages, which is a good example of why article talk pages are far more useful for this kind of discussion. Frinton100 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I used one once & once only - it got me into a heck of a lot of trouble - it was a tweet issued by a herald-of-arms about heraldry. It doesn't seem quite fair if one was so inclined that these tweets are allowed to prevail, but since they have, let me demonstrate very quickly why AusLondonder is up a gum tree (& by the way this circus is exactly why the committee stages of Wiki can prove such a massive waste of time): no.1: Bickley at the Heywood & Middleton by-election - no mention of climate change.. No.2: November 2014, Mr Bickley tweeted a link to a Daily Telegraph article - Climate change is a problem. But our attempts to fix it could be worse than useless  January 2015, Mr Bickley tweeted a link to a Breitbart News article - MIT Climate Scientist: Global Warming Believers a 'Cult'  April 2015, Mr Bickley tweeted a link to a Daily Telegraph article by Christopher Booker - Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures . No.3. that's it - how can these construe him as a serious commentator on climate change? M Mabelina (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of a contradiction there. He has tweeted the line "Climate change is a problem". But then also that it is a lie, a hoax and that "believers" are a cult. Saying "believers" could be construed as saying he is not one of them. Just because there was no mention of it in a by-election, doesn't mean he doesn't believe it. As I say, there is a reasonable argument to remove completely.Frinton100 (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, but there is also absolutely no evidence that he has consistent and deep thoughts on the matter - just something to say as & when... Why not? if that's what pleases him but the argument should be the other way round surely, if there is to be one, namely what conclusive evidence is there that he denies it is happening, because from what he states, clearly he does recognise it is happening & just embellishes it with a bit of topping... (this is not a good use of time) M Mabelina (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I have made my views known - I think he veers more towards denier than sceptic, but I'm not particularly worried about it. I don't intend to do any more on the Bickley article unless there is any more blatant propaganda posted. This is really not the place given that one party to the conversation is not that bothered, so we'll close this down here now please. If you want to take it further, go back to AusLondonder's page or the article talk page. Frinton100 (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - this carry on is a bit draining to say the least but I thank you for your guidance as how to get along in Wiki (hence I was simply sharing my thought processes on this occasion to give you an understanding). Ciao M Mabelina (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC) qv. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/climate-change-deniers-and-skeptics-whats-the-difference/ - sceptic!

Removing AfD tags
Yes, me too but when are these discussions complete? "Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: {{Old AfD multi|page=John Bickley (UKIP)|date=5 November 2015|result=keep" 5th November has nothing to do with it then? M Mabelina (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It will be closed when the AfD discussion displays a decision which will be arrived at by admins - generally no earlier than 7 days after it was opened. Frinton100 (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I should stick to providing info, not all this internal politics stuff. Over to you - do your worst! M Mabelina (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Very disappointing and (slightly) surprising that Mabelina has continued to edit war at the pages in question even since the edit warring report and the further engagement between us all. AusLondonder (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mabelina's versions are the current version at John Bickley and Oldham West by-election. AusLondonder (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Bickley (UKIP), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cuddington. 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) 11:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rochester and Strood
Hi there. Thanks for your patrolling these Wiki sites & you're doing a great job. But could I just ask you why you & your colleagues keep deleting the references to the rural areas of the constituency. I'm sure you'll all have noticed that Mark Reckless has made an issue out of Cooling & Hoo etc, so far from being irrelevant, it is quite quite the opposite... Is it worth me having another go at rephrasing it or...? Essentially the rural parts are over the Medway towards Gravesham... What can I say other than wanting to give the fullest and most informed picture..? M

.Frinton100 (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ian Luder
I note that you were quick to delete "and who fell foul of his Labour Party colleagues: the City of London office of Lord Mayor being an ambassadorial and apolitical role" despite its veracity. Why were you so eager to pick on this true, albeit unsubstantiated, statement?

Rather than end up in a fight over this would you suggest that I move on from this, or insert supporting evidence to the article as previously worded?

I think we should desist from constant strife over Labour Party figures but let me know how you & I should continue because we have got ourselves in a fix here. RSVP. M Mabelina (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

what did you make of my foray, as you suggested, onto the Infobox peer template discussion? You have yet to let me know your thoughts on that. Best M Mabelina (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You answered the question yourself - albeit unsubstantiated - this is a WP:BLP article. Every article on wikipedia needs to be sourced, but especially so a BLP. You have been warned about this before and were I recall taken to ANI regarding your blatant disregard for the BLP policy on a number of articles late last year.
 * Please desist from this conspiracy about "Labour Party figures" - I note that you received several blocks for edit warring on David Cameron - hardly a towering figure of the left.
 * The way to avoid strife and the hostility you recently referred to on your own talk page is to edit in accordance with policies and the MOS. This attitude that "I'll continue to do it my way and let others tidy up after me" is arrogant in the extreme. Perhaps it's how you live your offline life but it's no way to behave on wikipedia. You need to understand it is your behaviour that leads to arguments and blocks, especially:
 * Writing in a manner which no one else can understand - I refer for example to the previous version of this edit. This phraseology is just not used - this is not wikipedia "modernising" language as you keep saying, it is you using a style which if it ever was used went out a long time ago. Sometimes, your edits just don't make sense, and they are very often unnecessarily verbose.
 * Factual inaccuracy - the Goldsmith edit above for example, but I also recall examples from Rochester and Strood by-election, 2014. Paul Nuttall, Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015 (several) and the now-deleted John Bickley article.
 * MOS - you have had various aspects of the MOS explained to you, including capitalisation, over-linking, etc, and yet you persist in editing against the MOS
 * Respecting consensus - e.g. Jeremy Corbyn. Editing against consensus is the height of arrogance on wikipedia in my view, so too is making changes to articles when those changes are being discussed (e.g. your deletions of "PC" from several articles a couple of days ago).
 * Writing in a neutral fashion - which you clearly did not do on Stephen Phillips, and there are other occasions where your edits have not been neutral (such as Rhodes Must Fall). Also, an important part of WP:NPOV is citing reliable sources - which is why I deleted your edit on Ian Luder.


 * I will continue to edit the articles I'm interested in - given my interest in politics and elections, that is likely to continue to include Labour and ex-Labour politicians. If this causes you a problem, the way to deal with it is to follow the advice I have given above; advice which I know has been given by several other editors over some considerable period of time. If you continue to willfully ignore it, you will only find yourself in a worse mess. Frinton100 (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi you really do seem to have it in for me. Should I start detailing copious notes of others' disputed or inaccurate edits and post them like this on the internet for all to see? Personally I prefer to be productive, rather than engage in miserably hostile exchanges. Anyway Happy Birthday Wikipedia! for which occasion the BBC interviewed Jimmy Wales and one of the questions put to him by Ben Thompson was why some editors on Wikipedia are so argumentative, to which he replied they should relax. I agree with Jimmy!


 * Now would you be so kind as to add your comments to the Infobox peer template discussion? Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * PS. another of my persistent detractors, Miesianiacal, constantly reverts my edits & I mention this here because it relates to a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies in which you are heavily involved & the derogatory comments about me were kicked off by Miesianiacal. I have just yet again corrected one of his inaccurate reversions about the Earl of Athlone. You can see it for yourself - but how do I shake off this band of defamators? I fear they enjoy it so much they are unlikely to desist unless that is they take heed of what Jimmy Wales says and relax.


 * You still don't get it do you - no one has it in for you - they have it in for poor editing behaviour. I will certainly not be taking lessons from you on not being argumentative, and don't tell me which articles to edit please. As it happens I am neutral on that infobox so I won't be contributing to the discussion.
 * Regarding 's edits, you need to take that up with them. Use the BRD process I have attempted to describe ad infinitum. And please, for the umpteenth time will you - at least on my talk page - desist with this ridiculous notion of a conspiracy. If you are persistently being told the same things about your editing behaviour by multiple experienced users, does that not tell you something? Frinton100 (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have just looked at the Athlone edits - you are once again editing content (i.e. the "PC" postnom) which is still under discussion. Please do everyone else the courtesy of waiting until the discussion is concluded. Frinton100 (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at that (I included a reference to the London Gazette https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34351/page/8187/data.pdf & there could not be a more authoritative publication clearly describing Lord Athlone as Major-General The Right Honourable The Earl of Athlone KG GCB GCMG GCVO DSO note no PC as this is covered by the Rt Hon prefix)), and I hope it provides Wikipedians with a most authoritative example of why Rt Hon & PC don't go together, hence I corrected it (& surely Miesianiacal should not be touching these things either, nor abusing me on Wikipedia, which seemed to launch a barrage of criticism like a chain reaction). Anyway why not let's use Wikipedia's 15th Birthday as a watershed and try to be pleasant towards each other? That's my intention. M Mabelina (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So once again the real issue nicely swerved. Perhaps use the 15th birthday to try respecting others by holding off on making such edits until the discussion is closed rather than going about things in such an arrogant way. Frinton100 (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course I totally agree but as it happens this is an important contribution to the "debate", ie. definitive and incontrovertible evidence as to why Rt Hon & PC don't go together - where should I put that so it can be noted in the decision-making process? PS. is there a tag one can put against minor points like Rt Hon & PC stating one doesn't agree with this whilst continuing to improve the balance of the content in articles? M Mabelina (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you really need to ask? We have been through this time and time again. The place for it is in the appropriate discussion which is still ongoing. You can add hidden text to an article, but really, what's the point? Just leave it be for now and wait for the outcome. Frinton100 (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * OK & I trust you saw my proposed rewording - which I based on your draft as requested - awaiting the outcome. Best M Mabelina (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC) PS. I should appreciate your help because having avoided PC issues (as advised) just now I noticed that Lord Athlone's page has been reverted (despite your advice that this shouldn't be touched whilst there is a discussion ongoing). I also don't know what to make of your claim about there being a conspiracy but do note that the discussion has gone eerily quiet (if that is what you mean?) - despite Miesianiacal making an edit on this very subject (I hope it is not one rule for others another for me) - how does this procedure work & when does it reach a conclusion?


 * In my view changing the Athlone article was wrong - whoever was doing it.
 * I was certainly not suggesting a conspiracy, but you certainly have been:


 * "another of my persistent detractors" 16/1/16 14.27
 * "you really do seem to have it in for me" 16/1/16 14.27
 * "I seem to receive an unacceptable number of rapid responses - so I can only presume that people of a certain outlook have me on a watchlist" 15/1/16 04.38
 * "the usual suspects" 15/1/16 04.38
 * "I fear I have attracted a following of watchers who are eager to pounce on any mistake" 15/1/16 03.29
 * "Given the seemingly never-ending hostility towards me" 15/1/16 03.38
 * "so unless you can assure me (and, moreover, other Wikipedians) that you ARE NOT a Labour supporter/sympathiser" 6/11/15 04.56
 * "from an outsider's point of view, perceivably lots of overprotection of Labour candidate & attempts to suppress others" 6/11/15 02.24
 * "I asked you as to whether you are Labour supporters to which no reply" 13/11/15 03.07
 * "Ah, I thought so, now it is clear that you are Labour & that you simply don't want Bickley to be at the top because that gives him pride of place" 9/11/15 22.46
 * "OK but can YOU tell me how to avoid being ambushed on three sides and barely having a chance to breathe before the next derogatory statement comes?" 9/11/15 23.11
 * "My edits, however well constructed and evidenced get deleted by a double-assault by Frinton and AusLondonder, but who sought extra help from Ned?" 10/11/15 01.04
 * "earlier I was being tackled frequently on two flanks & then by a third prongue? Perhaps that was what was intended." 10/11/15 01.33
 * "I have previously and very firmly questioned as to why all such hostility emanates from edits concerning a Labour Party politician" 12/11/15 23.34
 * "I am being hassled during edits which I presume you delighted in because it now gives you good reason to go on about it" 13/11/15 00.11
 * "If I am not mistaken there is a political agenda going on here" 22/11/15 04.33
 * "but it is strange how it is always the usual suspects & it always revolves around something political where there is a left-wing slant" 9/1/16 18.29


 * Just a selection, I could have gone back further. But just take a step back and think how this reads to someone else - you certainly seem to keep making yourself out to be a victim of some kind of conspiracy, or just a victim in general, and it is offensive to be constantly told that I am "conspiring" against you for political (or some other) ends.
 * No one is hostile towards you - people are hostile (and angry and frustrated) towards some of your behaviour where you disrespect the wikipedia community by failing to stick to simple guidelines which you have been told about time and time again.
 * Frinton100 (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PS. you were complaining earlier of "rapid responses", now you are complaining of an "eerie silence" in the MOS discussion which is apparently indicative of something slightly sinister. Please just assume good faith and stop trying to read things between the lines that aren't there.
 * PPS. Your other question - how does it work when we reach a conclusion - that will depend what the conclusion is, so no point getting into hypotheticals.
 * you'll no doubt see my latest comment Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies which hopefully meets with your approval. Now, in the spirit of co-operation could I just ask you advice regarding the Egerton Leigh article? This would be much appreciated. I am hesitant to touch the Military and political career section because it seems to me that the MOS is all over the place & naturally I don't want to end up getting the blame for what is already incorrect: surely parliament should be a small "p" & High Sheriff, JP & DL should have caps? Never normally see those proper nouns of official titles as such but no doubt you could guide here - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I note this very minute that JorisEnter is systematically going through this Rt Hon & PC issue making many changes - I thought you said nobody was to touch it until a consensus has been reached. Also there is a very serious issue here, because you & I (as far as I understand it) have really been talking about living people, but she is now amending historical figures. It really should not be for Wikipedia to judge people from the past by today's values - this is tantamount to rewriting history. This whole issue is getting more bizarre by the minute, so let's try to pull together to get the matter sorted before I receive any more earache from various people & most importantly before Wiki gets itself into such as state of confusion nobody knows where it stands. I have already produced indefatigable evidence as to how the historical figure of Lord Athlone was styled, or do we have to go through all historical biographies guessing how things should be put in modern-day parlance? RSVP - cheers. M Mabelina (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Should you be wondering, I was reverting your edits to fit the style used before this whole PC / Rt Hon discussion came up. JorisEnter (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC) see User talk:JorisEnter..


 * Mabelina, I'm not going to look at that article as it's not really something I'm interested in, but from what you've written here it sounds like you are correct on all points. Regarding the living/dead issue - the question as far as I (and everyone else I think) understood it was regarding all privy counsellors, past, present and future. Of course we have to "re-write" history to some extent; language evolves and if you were to write, say, the Geoffrey Chaucer article in the language of Chaucer, hardly anyone would understand it. So yes, we do have to write historical articles in what you call "modern-day parlance". You should be well aware that sources on this kind of thing can vary - think of all those other things you had indefatigable evidence of, when the rest of wikipedia could see that there were contradictions in the evidence. We are trying to write clear, informative online articles for a 21st century audience, we are not sending out invitations to the coronation of George VI.
 * On the issue of articles being changed now - I never said "nobody was to touch it" because it is not my place to do that - I said that I felt it was disrespectful to do so as other people were still discussing the issue, and I still think that. Though I note that there does seem to at least be a general consensus (not 100% obviously) in the discussion that PC should be used for privy counsellors who are peers. There is rather less consensus on the exact combinations that should be used in every circumstance.
 * Frinton100 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Frinton100 looks like we in harmony (at last!), & of course I wasn't meaning that archane & incomprehensible language should be used on Wiki - this is its great value, namely that it describes almost any subject you could care to think of in an easy-to-understand way. I'm just saying why should Wiki redefine things? which make no difference to ease of understanding, and for no apparent reason other than that it doesn't seem to comply with MOS (& even that is not totally clear on this very issue). And yes everybody INCLUDING ME (hurrah! - I always have done..) thinks PC should be used in the case of Peers - so now just to decide on whether Wiki should be stating The Rt Hon Lord X PC or correctly as The Rt Hon Lord X or Lord X PC. Like you I think the opening line of the main article should give enough clarity but since Wiki has started doing this in Wikiboxes all sorts of articles have cropped up on the internet misusing the correct form which never happened before (& Wiki should be a fountain knowledge not peddling misnomas). Cheers (& re Egerton Leigh let me have a stab at it and see what you think). Best M Mabelina (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Good, so there's no need to be criticising JorisEnter for making those changes then if there really is a consensus on that one aspect, is there? Frinton100 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * as you say there my comment was nothing personal just that it didn't comply with your previous advice to me (namely not to touch such articles whilst MOS discussions are ongoing). There is no consensus regarding Peers - I thought you & I acknowledged that above? And, in any event, the PC is in the wrong place (in the Lord Athlone article). I suppose I should declare some of my credentials insofar as I used to work at the College of Arms, hence know something about this subject - so since this is so easy to get right why does Wiki persist in presenting such info incorrectly. It would be better if Wiki just fessed up & said it is Wiki's prerogative to redefine protocol according to our wishes & don't worry about what is correct form (even where the existing correct form is perfectly easy to comprehend). I'm not trying to be difficult - I didn't even raise the issue - you know who did. But since I care about Wiki & want it to be correct, why does it have to involve all this just to get something so simple straight? M Mabelina (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You were criticising, why else would you mention it here and on JorisEnter's page.
 * no consensus regarding Peers - you just said in your post above "everybody INCLUDING ME....thinks PC should be used in the case of Peers" - so there is as I see it, a consensus regarding the use of the PC suffix for peers, so since JorisEnter is replacing the PC suffixes, then they are editing in line with the consensus. As I said above, there isn't a consensus regarding the other details, but it was specifically the PC suffix that the debate was about initially.
 * You may not have started the discussion, but you did start the whole issue by unilaterally going against past practice and amending a whole load of articles. What you probably should have done on an issue like this is started the discussion first.
 * Frinton100 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * please let's concentrate on the substantive issue, otherwise we're not going to get anywhere. I have never seen anything like this.. Anyway... of course I think PC should be used for Peers because the Rt Hon before their name doesn't totally indicate whether they are/were a Privy Counsellor or not. The whole point is - and I made it above - is that it is not correct to state The Rt Hon Lord X PC... clearly this is so confusing to almost everybody I am beginning to think that Rt Hon should be dropped from Infoboxes however much work it takes. I'll do it - won't take that long... M Mabelina (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC) PS. I have just made bold the relevant point above (for additional clarity)
 * It will take a long time given all of the past PC members, as well as current and future ones, and it will cause a great deal of discussion, argument and confusion. I also think, as someone else mentioned on your page, that if we are actually going to change the policy, it will need an RfC. The number of people engaging with the debate on the MOS discussion is too small to make that sort of change. If you've never seen anything like it, you only have yourself to blame. Most of us were happy to stick with what was being done before, even if we weren't 100% satisfied, like me. Frinton100 (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's get away from this pinning blame on someone - OK I accept all the blame for trying to make Wiki read correctly. OK so let's do an RfC then. Good plan - the most important thing is for Wiki to read correctly & since Wiki at the moment is seeming reluctant to correct something as crystal clear as this (and we should not be teaching others bad ways, which is exactly what Wiki is doing so long as this practice continues) & given similar controversies exist on topics I know next to nothing about it doesn't bode well. There is definitely an issue here which did not exist before Infoboxes were introduced in their current form & if I am really to blame for endeavouring to point out the correct way of doing things, then what can I do other than accept the situation but persevere to help Wiki make its info correct. We teamed up well on Lord Mayor of London so why not keep contributing in that spirit? Best M Mabelina (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "OK I accept all the blame for trying to make Wiki read correctly." - I never cease to be amazed by this kind of attitude Frinton100 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't you see how exasperating it is, on the one hand you say I've only got myself to blame, so if I had refuted that, yet another needless contre-temps so I just put OK it's my fault (before the important clause). Surely I am allowed to defend myself by saying that, in my view, the suggestion is to Wiki's benefit? Do you seriously think I would spend/waste so much time on this if I wasn't sure of my ground and most importantly didn't care about Wiki looking silly by inventing this new code of practice?? Anyway, can't we now look forward to a brighter future? Thanks M Mabelina (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC) PS. one thing for sure is that never before has Ian Luder's name cropped up so much on Wiki!
 * Trouble is, I remember other things you were sure of your ground on like ballot paper order in Oldham West, so I guess it's a bit of "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. And I'll say again, I (and most other people) are not saying you are wrong, it's just that we would rather go down a different route - it's not about right or wrong, but what's best for our purposes. Frinton100 (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Take your point but Oldham W was a moving beast with much tosh being spouted by the 24-hour media. This matter (where I have provided much recognised supporting evidence with more to follow if nec) is completely different - not a (relatively) fast-moving news story. Just shows how many of those links from media sources on Wiki must be, let's say, somewhat less than completely reliable. And what is even more dismaying is that Wikipedians are allowed to quote media sources to justify their points, and as stated before many journalists quite readily copy Wiki's contents to fill out a story, so it looks like we could be facing a vicious downward spiral with regards to accuracy. Anyway moving on... M Mabelina (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you now accept you were wrong over that issue, but there was no tosh being spouted about ballot paper order (or actually much else come to that, the majority of the coverage was good and it was fairly muted compared to previous by-elections. The ballot paper order was a matter of public record, with legal documentation being produced by the Acting Returning Officer. That was the sole RS we needed, and yet still you refused to accept it because you thought you knew better. The issue of titles is more complex as different sources will tell us different things, and of course even the same source will tell us to use different styles in different contexts - none of those contexts are a wikipedia article. Frinton100 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks too - yes you're right it was fairly muted compared with previous occasions (such as Rochester!). I guess the local candidate was such a good one & the likeliest contender not that good (plus about 25% of Oldham W's electorate being a given) there wasn't much of a news story. Also, I totally appreciate the issue of titles is indeed most complex - what is courtesy, what is granted, what is protocol in the HoL, on Letters Patent, etc, etc. So I had thought (actually still do think) that Wikipedia shouldn't add to the mix by introducing its own version! Anyway let me know any other thoughts if agreeable - cheers. M Mabelina (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Privy Counsellors' use of PC as post-nom
I was puzzled by some of JorisEnter/Miesianiacal's reversions of my edits because they went further than just the Rt Hon/PC issue. They also reverted the viceregal styles of The Earl of Athlone box. Lord Athlone would have customarily been referred to as His Excellency and Right Honourable but this has now been reverted to His Excellency the Right Honourable (which I now see is how those such as the present G-G, David Johnston are styled, qv. http://www.leadershipcanada.ca/his-excellency-the-right-honourable-david-johnston-honorary-chair/)

So just in my view that Style box has been rendered worse than useless, it's actually misleading. Surely better to scale back all these add-ons if people don't know how to use them. Wiki is becoming less & less helpful by carrying on like this (and the sad thing is that some people will genuinely believe that this is correct form). Lord Athlone is/was a figure of the past & he certainly wasn't styled like that. It's as if people no longer have any regard for accuracy.

There seems to be a massive discrepancy between British English & Aussie & American & now Canadian when it comes to minutiae like this - and, I have no idea how Wiki can deal with it. But, it is becoming an ever-increasing problem and Infoboxes aren't helping matters either. Anyway Lord Athlone was a Brit and he is a person of some historical note - how this gets levelled to a common but accurate denominator is anyone's guess. Any ideas? M Mabelina (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You'll need to take that up with those editors. I don't think it will be helpful to add another layer of complexity to the MOS discussion already underway. Frinton100 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Very much agreed - solutions not problems are what is required. And, thanks but no wish to get embroiled in another furore right now..! Best M Mabelina (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Note
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no.
Mabelina, even after the edit-warring report, is back to their old tricks. Changing the ballot paper order at the Oldham West page and this time adding "Nick Delves" in brackets after Sir Oink A-Lot. Interestingly, this is an effective admission they just made up "Sean Jones" AusLondonder (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew that period of calm was too good to be true. I think Delves is Nick the Flying Brick - another frequent MRLP candidate. Frinton100 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I too surmised! M Mabelina (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Phillips QC MP
First of all let me thank you for your attention to Wiki-style etc in the article about the said MP, I am truly most grateful. Perhaps you may also understand why I write now to explain my reasoning: *1. I do hope the article is now deemed to be a significant improvement on what was there before? *2. I have no objection to others amending articles, to which I have contributed much factual info, to suit Wiki's style like you have just done (so long as those revisions are correct, which indeed yours are) *3. if you could forgive me for being of the belief that it is a great deal more important to get the facts straight for Wiki than it is to be at perpetual loggerheads about MOS *4. why not let others who have much greater inclination towards Wiki MOS to tidy up (since they will no doubt do it better, in any event?) *5. many articles have existing issues which are no fault of mine *6. articles written in such an appalling way surely require immediate attention without fear of castigation as to how setting down the correct might or might not be perceived in the eyes of some in the Wikipedia community (I fear I have attracted a following of watchers who are eager to pounce on any mistake, yet give no credit for the considerable improvements underway) *7. PS. my comments above are predicated on the fact that I have indeed provided helpful knowledge (in areas with which I am au fait).. I should not be too surprised if I were now to receive criticisms, threats of being blocked and general antagonism etc, but all I hope is that you now have a little more faith in my purpose and see that my edits do improve Wiki. If not, let rip - many thanks! Best M Mabelina (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem with this attitude - "why not let others who have much greater inclination towards Wiki MOS to tidy up" - is that it creates work for other editors, who could be doing other things, or editing other articles. Best to get it right first time, or go back and tidy up yourself once you have made the substantive edits. You have been told multiple times by multiple users about capitalisation and over-linking, so why do you keep on capitalising things that shouldn't be capitalised and over-linking commonly understood terms and/or linking more than once to the same thing within a few lines.


 * The other problem with the Phillips article was that it - specifically the bit about his second job - was not written in a neutral fashion. You have frequently and aggressively accused me of some sort of left wing bias, and yet you think it's perfectly acceptable to turn the page of a Tory MP into border-line puffery.


 * Frinton100 (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I accept your point about Phillips' second job but the way the article was fashioned in the first instance was so substandard that one could spend hours and hours thinking of quite the best way to put things. There is lop-sidedness all over Wiki so what I suggest is to develop a mutual respect & of utmost importance not to revisit articles perpetually once a sensible version has been produced. This formula can only be proven over time, but is more than achievable and I am more than willing to deliver & I hope you are too. Anyway rather than problems let's seek solutions and would you agree that the Phillips article is now improved? Best M Mabelina (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC) PS. with regard to the capitalisation issue I have explained this before too. There was an article in The Daily Telegraph some time ago, and within the same paragraph it stated: the German chancellor & the Chancellor. Now, the German Chancellor would provide absolute clarity as to whom is being referred (ie. Merkel), whereas the German chancellor could of course refer to any chancellor (let's conjecture, say of a university) anywhere else in the world but who is German, or indeed someone who holds an office entitled chancellor in Germany, whereas when styled the German Chancellor it would leave little doubt as to what/whom is being referred. Where does the uncapitalisation stop - by the way I am in favour of most of it, but it seems that some Wikipedians perhaps don't know which are proper nouns and which are not, so the general effect is to uncapitalise everything. Unfortunately (or perhaps most fortunately) the English language is much less rigid than German (which capitalises everything) or French (which errs towards uncapitalisation) and the relaxed approach to rules is probably why English flourishes. However, there is no reason to enter in to bitter feuds about capitalisations or lack of where it concerns formal styles/proper nouns/statutory offices etc, and I admit I make mistakes - apologies - but I do find it a little difficult to uncapitalise everything when I know it not to be true (just so as to appease Wiki). If the assumption of good faith has disappeared in my case I am truly sorry but please acknowledge I am trying to improve Wiki's content, not to spend endless hours chewing the cud about minutiae. Of course, it would be better to get it correct in the first place but I note that even on the rare occasions that I do! it still gets reverted. Best M Mabelina (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The way to deal with it is to edit according to the site's guidelines in the first place and use the bold-revert-discuss (WP:BRD) process as we have discussed before. This way there will be no need for any private deals between individuals as you seem to suggest. Frinton100 (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I fail to see how, by writing the above so publicly available on the internet, even the remotest thought of "private deals" came into your head. This thought certainly had not strayed into my mind. Maybe we are just of a different type - is not the internet available for all to see? M Mabelina (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The other point to note is that I rarely launch upon other Wikipedians, preferring to enhance content, but I seem to receive an unacceptable number of rapid responses - so I can only presume that people of a certain outlook have me on a watchlist. Rightly or wrongly I have no one on a watchlist, which of course you'll be able to verify. My point is why can't the usual suspects return to the assumption of good faith which is seemingly so sadly lacking for quite some time (hence I am writing like this - presumably for all to see?). M Mabelina (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have only just seen this, and your PS of 04.25 on 15/1/16. Please note that on wikipedia new text on talk pages should always be placed under old. So your post of 04.25 should have been placed under mine of 04.12, otherwise it looks like I am responding to your entire post above mine, whereas in fact I am only responding to the first part of it.
 * You said above "what I suggest is to develop a mutual respect & of utmost importance not to revisit articles perpetually once a sensible version has been produced" - this sounds to me like suggesting some sort of pact. If not, then good. But the BRD process is all about achieving a mutually acceptable (if not 100% satisfactory to all parties) solution to any disagreement so there is no need to propose anything - just do what has been proposed to you on numerous occasions - follow the site's guidelines.
 * Once again you are making yourself out as the victim - conspiracies abound about watchlists and "rapid responses". I'd have thought a rapid response was a good thing. It is your own behaviour that makes people angry and frustrated because you just disregard community standards and create more work for everyone else.
 * And on the capitalisation issue - your arrogance continues to astound.
 * Frinton100 (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you revisited the edit war over David Cameron's coat of arms (deleted) to which I ended up on the wrong end of the receiving stick, what do you make of "As a magistrate, Mary Cameron imposed prison sentences for peaceful anti-nuclear weapons protest by women at the Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp" (inserted). I don't like this constant hassle, do you? But, certainly there is no reason why a description of Cameron's arms should not be included at Family of David Cameron when his family tree is there and the above statement has been inserted (which let's just say, is not totally neutral)! M Mabelina (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I say, I have no views either way about his coat of arms, but that sentence does sound like it could be re-written in a more neutral fashion. Exactly how will depend on the citation. But really, this is a matter for the talk page of the article, and not a random talk page post about another Tory MP on the talk page of someone who has had no input into that edit. Frinton100 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * since you pay such attention to my edits, could you tell me whether ANI discussions have closed (re. those to which you recently contributed about me)? Thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it clearly hasn't. If it was closed it would say so. Frinton100 (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK thanks & appreciate your advice re Wiki procedures. M Mabelina (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC) If you can advise further, much appreciated..

Iceland
One possibility to consider would be moving Icelandic parliamentary election, 2017 to Next Icelandic parliamentary election...? I find it hard to judge whether an early election is actually a likely outcome or not. Bondegezou (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I tried that and got an error message saying the page name was invalid. Worth trying again though. I suspect an early election won't now happen they have a new PM whose party is tanking in the polls. I could be completely wrong of course! Frinton100 (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Forenames

 * A number of editors in the discussion have stated that they prefer common names to be used in election boxes. The main argument being that it makes it easier to understand who that candidate is. I accept that to be the case in some instances but not in all. Take the example of Ronald William Brown, a Labour MP in the 1980s. I knew him and he was commonly known as "Ron Brown". He said he was often confused with Ronald Duncan McLaren Brown another Labour MP in the 1980s who was also commonly known as "Ron Brown". In this instance, using middle names helps the reader. Those who created their wikipedia pages chose to call one Ron and the other Ronald, which was an arbitrary action. Therein lies another problem with relying on wikipedia article titles to assign a common name, often wrong assumptions are made and mistakes then happen. The usual one is to assume that the first name is the common name. I've seen article titles changed by deleting the middle name, when no evidence was provided that the first name was the common name.
 * The reality is that the number of candidates for which we actually know a common name is very much the minority. There are whole swathes of candidates, often un-linked, where we don't know the common name and sometimes even the full name.
 * I have stated that I think that it is better to aim for consistency in presentation and that it is easier to achieve that consistency through a practice of listing names in full for all candidates. This is still my preferred option, but since I don't believe a consensus can be achieved around this, I am prepared to look elsewhere for a solution.
 * It may help to resolve this issue by understanding the status of existing constituency articles. I know that for the more modern election results, candidates are more frequently represented by one forename and one surname and that for the older election results, they are more frequently listed with names in full where they are known. My understanding is that the sources used to provide candidate data for modern elections tend to include one forename, that is assumed to be the common name. I also know that the older sources either provide full names or initials. I have been researching those older elections so that I can change candidate entries from initials to forenames.
 * So my question is, at what point do reliable sources switch to listing candidates by using one forename where we can be reasonably sure that they are using a common name? I don't work on more modern election data that much but it seems to me as if this happened by the 1983 election results. In other words, in wikipedia, 1983 results onwards seem to list most candidates as 'forename' 'surname'.
 * Perhaps we could build a consensus around acknowledging the reliability of sources to provide the correct candidate common name for post 1983 election results but not for before that. In other words, as a rule, we list candidates names in full up until 1983 and thereafter in common name format (assuming we know it). 1983 marks a reasonable break as there were many new constituencies created then. This solution may be too nuanced for some editors, particularly those who don't fully appreciate the issues and the current status of the articles like we do. That is why I have chosen to run the idea through you first, here. Graemp (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To me the solution is very simple - for a linked candidate we use their common name which would normally be the title of their article (or the title their article would have taken at the time, e.g. Margaret Roberts in 1950). For unlinked candidates any format that is used in a RS would be acceptable. I see no reason to impose an arbitrary cut-off, which it seems to me you are only suggesting because you are not as interrested in modern elections so don't mind as much how they are presented, but you want to keep older elections in the format you prefer. We can't all get exactly what we want out of this, we have to meet in the middle - along the lines of the italicised text I suggested last year and again yesterday. And I would suggest that insulting the intelligence of other wikipedia users is not a good idea. In any case a proposal which is "too nuanced" for some to follow is probably not a good way forward on a public site like this. Frinton100 (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Frinton. We also need to be aware, for still living people who stood in elections past (which will include very many stretching back into at least the 1960s), the majority will be non-notable and their candidature may have been their only foray into public life.  Under WP:BLPPRIVACY we should not be publishing the full names of such (still living) people unless it can be established that their full name is already "widely published in reliable sources" IanB2 (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Manchester Gorton by-election, 2017
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: UKIP at Uxbridge
Hey, you know, I had second thoughts myself but went with it. I totally agree that it's a bit of a stretch to add them for Uxbridge, I have no problem removing that entry. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manchester Gorton by-election, 2017, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afzal Khan. 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) 10:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

An invitation to discussion
I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Midlands–North-West (European Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria Walsh ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Midlands%E2%80%93North-West_%28European_Parliament_constituency%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Midlands%E2%80%93North-West_%28European_Parliament_constituency%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)