User talk:HeadlightMorning

Re: IP blocking
Hi, sorry I haven't had time to reply and a welcome message was the best I could do. In regards to your concern, I do apologise but I appear to have blocked the wrong IP address and I do apologise for any inconvenience caused. By now, the block on your IP address has been lifted and it should be good to go. I still think it'll be a good idea for you to use your current account though, as IPs can give away your location and aren't exactly advantageous if you're a bit wary of your privacy/anonymity. Thanks and apologies again. If you have any queries about anything on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards and take care, Scarian  Call me Pat!  12:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Headlight, perhaps you can start off by reading various policies that we have surrounding the articles that you enjoy editing :-) (for e.g. WP:DISCOG, WP:MUSIC, and WP:BAND). Reading those will help get you started and then you're a step closer to making the best edits Wikipedia has to offer ;-) - An important thing to watch out for is WP:3RR/WP:EDITWAR; Wikipedia can be a frustrating place where editors just revert your edits for no reason [I'm not making a reference to the above], so it's important not to lose control. Anyway, these are just a couple of key policies that'll help you get along on Wikipedia. Oh, and my User talk:Scarian, here you can always leave a message if you need help! :-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  07:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's fine. Just make sure they comply with policy and I'll be fine with it! Scarian  Call me Pat!  10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Kings of Leon discography
Hey, if you go onto the User's talk page that removed all that, you can see my tirade. I refrained from giving it a proper revert, just to avoid him undergoing his crappy edits a third time. Thanks for noticing though. k-i-a-c ( hitmeup  -  the past ) 10:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Query
Hi, first of all welcome and thanks for the certifications on Bloc Party's discography. I reverted your reference changes as redundant. Did you change them for any particular reason? If so, it's probably wise to discuss it so that, if there are any problems we've missed which you picked on, they can be ironed out. Cheers. RB88 (T) 13:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll have a look soon and get back to you. RB88 (T) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, in order:
 * EveryHit has been proven FA and FL reliable whereas Chartstats hasn't (it also has both albums and singles menus).
 * Chart-Track is a better known and more reliable media source than irish-charts.com., hence has to be picked as first choice regardless of search or no search.
 * For Beta pages like the new Billboard, I tend to link a single page rather than all the separate flash menus. I think it simplifies the reflist.
 * Thanks for the compact idea of singles and albums and all the new refs, especially certs. Much appreciated. If you find any more, you're more than welcome to add them.


 * If you've got any outstanding issues, pop a message my way. PRB88 (T) 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Stone Roses discography
Hi. I notice that you amended the Stone Roses discography to state that their first album was released in July 1989 but did not cite your source. A number of other sites show the album to have first entered the charts in May 1989. I have reverted this change pending verification. Cheers, Longwayround (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Sheffield Council elections‎
Hi, I'm just letting you know that I raised a comment at User talk:Veganfishcake about his re-adding the sequence boxes to the Sheffield Council election pages. As a result of that discussion I amended the Template:Sheffield Council elections that you created so it defaults to be uncollapsed (and did the same on similar templates I have created). You may want to give your opinion, either on Veganfishcake's talk page or on my mine (where he has replied to me).

By the way nice work on the Sheffield Council election pages. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can't take all the credit (blame?) for the new design, most of it was a development on edits Woodgreener made on the Brighton and Hove local elections page back in 2010 here. I have seen your comments on Veganfishcake's talk page and we shall see what his response/thoughts are. Davewild (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow
Thank you so much for the Wigan election article. Brilliant. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Wigan Council election, 1976 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Standish, Atherton, Hindley, Scholes, Orrell and Billinge

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Swings
Hey. I knew this would come up :)

In short, it is more accurate to compare like-for-like. We don't think twice about comparing like-for-like with general elections or County Council elections, or those Met Councils which elect "all out" every four years. For those which elect "in thirds", Mr Councillor who won in 2006 is next up for election in 2010, so his vote share can only be accurately compared like-for-like. It can be done year-on-year, as some media outlets tend to do, but this distorts the swing.

Consensus has not really be formed, to be honest. I agree with Harry because we're both traditionalists and obsessed with keeping things "proper". From a project point of view, I'd much prefer to compare like with like - obviously an article can say "The change in vote from the previous year was X" and make it clear that the ward results are being compared with the previous tranche for statistical purposes only.

All that said, I can see why there's a problem with doing it this way. There's accuracy and then there's pedantry, and for the generally curious it must seem strange without additional explanation. It's very, very time consuming to "correct" so many articles, which is why I can only do it in bits and pieces.

What do you think is the best thing to do from here on?

doktorb wordsdeeds 06:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

...swings and roundabouts!. As it happens I've spoken in another place with the editor currently working on Broxbourne elections here; his preference is year-on-year, not like-for-like. I respect his reasons for that and won't change them. I think the consensus position would be to put very clearly at the top of each article a explanation/disclaimer. As you say it would be better to get a wider view, though if/until, what do you think of just carrying on case-by-case with a clear explanation that some articles are different to others? doktorb wordsdeeds 08:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sheffield Municipal election, 1966


The article Sheffield Municipal election, 1966 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The subject appears to be a non-notable and routine event, there is no indication of the event's larger significance.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Smcg8374 (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leeds Municipal election, 1959, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stan Cohen (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) 09:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leeds Municipal election, 1962, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stan Cohen (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) 11:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi HeadlightMorning, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solihull Council election, 1988, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Packwood (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) 11:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bradford Council election, 1973, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thornton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!
Thanks for the continued efforts. There are precious few gaps in the coverage of Green shares that can be filled now, and it seems we are both discovering as many completely absent polls as missing Green shares now.

Oct 2011 YouGovs seem to be the biggest problem, but try as I might, I can't find them. Techniques that have found all sorts of others don't work with them.

So, time to ask impru20 to change the 'Graphical Summary', I think?

DrArsenal (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberal Party (UK, 1989)
Template:Liberal Party (UK, 1989) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)