User talk:JSboundaryman

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Second Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croydon South ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Second_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Second_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies?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) 07:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

2021 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies
Hey JS.

I created (and for quite a time, curated) the article Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies and tended it for a while until the written statement about the next one was released. I made 2021 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies in only a few minutes because I thought it was best to have a basis of an article up, rather than nothing, and rather than something too complicated at this stage. I really just used the format of Sixth... as a rough model really. Thanks for your edits, and hopefully you and I can work on the article "long term". Here's to whatever the Boundary Commissioners are asked to do and what they come up with! Speak later, and thanks again for your edits :) doktorb wordsdeeds 21:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Doktorb

Thanks for your response. I am a fairly new and inexperienced contributor to Wikipedia and my interest is in editing and updating articles relating the boundaries of UK parliamentary constituencies - both historic and recent changes. I was a bit worried about making such wholesale changes to your article, but felt it was important to be clear as to the status of this review. One thing I felt should be changed was the title, but I didn't know how to change that. Shouldn't it be the 2023 review, rather than the 2021 review, as the Boundary Commissions are due to report in 2023, 5 years after having submitted their final 2018 Reports? I look forward to working together on the article long-term. Regards JSboundaryman (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey JS, don't worry, you'll soon get used to it around here. With regards to the title, I chose "2021" because a few editors and I had a discussion during the Sixth review about whether the second attempt was technically considered the "Seventh Periodic Review" or not, so in the absence of being absolutely sure, I used a placeholder title which can be moved to either Seventh or Eighth as required. There's no rush yet, obviously. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Latest edit: 2023 Review
Hey JS, thanks for the amount of work you've just landed in the 2023 Review article.

I am the bearer of bad news. None of your work is cited or sourced, and as there are a lot of claims, statistics, numbers and the rest in your edit, we're going to have find sources from somewhere. It does look, if I can say so, like you've dumped it inside the article without thinking about whether other editors would mind. Having an interest in number crunching is great, I've got a lot of spreadsheets and number-crunching going on myself, it's just there comes a point when we have to stop adding every last factoid we've created to a Wikipedia article.

That article does not need all the information you've provided. I will keep it up there - for now - until we agree on what can stay and what can go. I just think it's a bit much, a bit too "Wikia" or forum/messageboard, and knocks that specific article way off course.

I'm eager for the boundary process to begin, just like you. But I know when a significant addition to an article looks more like hobby-ism than constructive editing, so let's see what we can do to sort it out.

Cheers doktorb wordsdeeds 13:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Doktorb. Thanks for your constructive observations. I must admit, I wondered if I was getting a bit carried away with this addition to the article. I am therefore quite happy to remove the 2 tables relating to individual constituencies.

I agree that I haven't given thought as to whether other editors "would mind", but I would have thought that the criteria for adding material would be whether readers would be interested. I think that making a general comparison with the previous review in terms of how the electorate has moved over that time is relevant to the article.

In terms of sources, the underlying data is all sourced from the 4 Commissions' Fifth Review reports and the data published so far for the 2023 Reviews which, as you suspect, I have analysed myself. I can, of course, cite the reviews, but I am wondering if this approach is acceptable or should all such analysis be derived from published sources. Perhaps we should wait until the Commissions publish their Initial Proposals - they may well make some observations on how the electorates have moved over the last 20 years.

I look forward to your further thoughts.

JSboundaryman (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey JS, thanks for your response, and I'm happy to see that we can find a compromise here. I think you're right that the provisional recommendations are likely to have electorate figures for current seats, and those publications can be used as sources. A thought occurs: the ONS published electorate figures in December so we could use that too. I take the point about analysis of figures, that could fall foul of WP:SYNTH. As a starter, could you remove the 2 tables you mention in your reply, and we'll take it from there? Cheers. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have now taken out the 2 tables and text which could be construed as original research. It seems that basic calculations are OK. Also added citations and changed the title to avoid confusion with the aborted Sixth Review. JSboundaryman (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Informal RFC on Constituencies article.
Hi there, I see you edit Constituencies_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom on a regular basis, I added a modest proposal to the talk page and would appreciate your input.

JeffUK (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

2023 Final Recommendations
Hey

Just a heads up - the Boundary Commission for England has published its Final Recommendations here:

https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2023-review/2023-review-volume-three-maps/ doktorb wordsdeeds 10:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have added a new section re Final Proposals. Feel free to expand. JSboundaryman (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Runcorn and Helsby (UK Parliament constituency) moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Runcorn and Helsby (UK Parliament constituency). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Runcorn and Helsby (UK Parliament constituency) (August 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Runcorn and Helsby (UK Parliament constituency) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Runcorn_and_Helsby_(UK_Parliament_constituency) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Runcorn_and_Helsby_(UK_Parliament_constituency) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 has been accepted
 Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Parliamentary_Constituencies_Act_2020 help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Cerebellum (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)
Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 00:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Seats Chart London 1951
Hi, I believe the London seats chart is wrong in 1951. Labour had 51 seats and the Conservatives had 49, can you review it for me? I'm producing content about the elections and I want to know if it's correct.

Article link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_constituencies_in_London Gcb019 (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have checked my data and believe that I am correct (50/50). JSboundaryman (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)