User talk:Ralbegen

Nominations in the 2021 Scottish Labour leadership election proposed deletion
Hi,

I understand your point but I made this extra page as the main one is likely to get very long.

LC1829 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, if it gets long we can split it but we shouldn't presume it will! The 2017 article didn't need to be split, and that was a much longer campaign than this one will be. If you're happy to collapse your split-out article into a redirect to the section of the main article for now, I'll be happy to discuss a split if the prose size of the article gets too high? Ralbegen (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election after 2019 (LOESS).svg
Just a thought, but I reckon the position of the labels of the political parties should be reversed, as the Conservative line is above the Labour one for the full stretch of the chart now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At the moment the labels are pegged to the most recent result. I've tried a few times to find a way to get the labels to follow the averages but haven't been able to make it work yet. I agree it would be better that way because it does look messy when the most recent poll doesn't sit on hte average, so I'll have another run at it today. Maybe I can find a way that I can manually set their locations if nothing else works! Ralbegen (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Got there! Thanks for the nudge :-) Ralbegen (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Republicanism in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Sun.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Alba Party
Hi,

The "English" pronunciation of Alba is entirely incorrect and unsourced, which is why I originally removed it. The ongoing discussion has yet to find a reliable source for this supposed English pronunciation of Alba. As such I think your reinstatement of it is perhaps in error? I'd like to hear your thoughts though. Vitalis196 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think someone pointed you to WP:BRD: when you removed the English pronunciation you were editing boldly. The editor who reverted you was doing the middle part of the cycle, which should then lead to discussion under the status quo before the bold edit in contention, i.e. with the disputed pronunciation. On the Talk page I linked to a respected English dictionary which gave the word with both English and Scottish Gaelic pronunciations and explained why I thought that was a suitable source for the dispute in question. The article's Talk page is the best place to discuss matters of article content, though, so it's better to talk about it there than here! Ralbegen (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry I didn't notice you'd posted on the talk page! I'll reply to you there. Vitalis196 (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also on Alba, whether it is pronounced minster or minister, I think you'll find that the written form has the extra i.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary makes a lot more sense now, sorry about that. I didn't pay enough attention to the diff and thought you were just capitalising it. Ralbegen (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 London mayoral election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Rose.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK)
I think you need to change the Grammar for this article as it is Leader not leader. Mr Hall of England (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Dan Norris semi-protection
FYI I've requested Temporary semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Rwendland (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Ralbegen (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thank you! Ralbegen (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2016 Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Malone.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve Sharon Graham
Hello, Ralbegen,

Thank you for creating Sharon Graham.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"This article references a living person; kindly attend to matters given in WP:BASIC for Biography. Thank you"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Unite the Union
Hi Ralbegen, you deleted the election turnout and winning vote percentages at the introduction; no reason was given. I have reverted. The figures are correct and noteworthy; it is appropriate that they are in the introduction in brief, then developed later in the article. Please do not delete again. I am happy to discuss here or at the article Talk, where I have also left this message. best wishes, Steve SteveCree2 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve, I left an edit summary which explained my reasoning: your edit was synthesis, which is a type of original research. I've left a more detailed explanation on the Talk page of the Unite article, including a link to WP:BRD, which is the usual etiquette for making controversial changes: discussion takes place under the status quo ante, and you shouldn't generally undo reversion of bold edits until consensus has been achieved. Best wishes! Ralbegen (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 United Kingdom local elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

London council elections
Hello. Good work on the new election articles. Probably worth updating Greater London elections to include all the 2022 elections if you're planning on creating the whole set. You could also create 2022 United Kingdom local elections (based on 2021 United Kingdom local elections etc., as this will eventually be added to them once created. Cheers, Number   5  7  21:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That's a very good idea, I'll get it sorted. Ralbegen (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Graph dispalying oddly
The graph at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election you added seems to be causing some presentation issues when text is zoomed in, not sure if this can be addresssed somehow? It seems the CSS does not to relate the size of the graphic to the column width, so where there is a narrow column due to a narrow browser window, the graphic appears oversized and the page width is determined by the graphic rather than the columns. This may be awkward on mobile or tablets particularly. BTW I expect it has always been thus and I just noticed, and also that it may well not be fixable, unless the CSS is altered to allow some kind of scalability for images, so may not be something you can do anything about just now. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for flagging this issue. I can see what you mean by viewing the desktop version of the article on mobile. I've only ever used the en.m. version on mobile, where it displays correctly. I can see the same issue with the seat predictions table there, though, so I am not sure that there's a solution waiting. Looking through Template:Image frame, I don't have any ideas. Please feel free to implement any solution you can find, though! Ralbegen (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, the text I added was intended to summarise the general picture graph and not as a partisan statement. Happy to discuss Crookesmoor (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, it'd probably be better to talk about this on the article's Talk page. Please don't think I was accusing you of partisanship: my issue was more that linking polling to concurrent events is a kind of original research that consensus is generally against in the Talk pages of that article series. For example, there's been consensus for a while against including events in the tables, with very few exceptions. I'm also not that keen on the principle of a text summary of the graph, because I think there's quite a lot that the reader can take away from the graph and reproducing that as text would either be missing crucial information or very very long! Ralbegen (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Constituency Opinion Polling
Hi there - I think you may have made an error with the numbers you've posted 158.180.192.10 (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for flagging—I'm not sure how I messed that up so completely! I think it's fixed now but please feel free to leave another message if I've missed something. Ralbegen (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much! It was a really interesting exercise to complete. Ralbegen (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Ralbegen, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ARalbegen added] the "autopatrolled" permission 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 autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! clpo13(talk) 17:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Croydon Council Election 2022
Hi Ralbegen,

Firstly I'd like to thank you for your work on 2022 Croydon London Borough Council election. It's clear a huge amount of work has gone in!

I think there's a fundamental issue on the subject of whether a Council Leader's seat is relevant - the sheer number of local news articles when a council leader loses their seat would suggest that it is! You pointed me to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE where I feel it would meet those definitions - as the leaders seats are shown in the article in the ward results tables but are currently (and rather sensibly) hidden. This is made even more relevant in Croydon given that the Conservative Leader's seat is sometimes viewed as marginal in local news sources. If you feel it necessary I could easily add some text detailing the background of what seats the Leader's represent.

I think I do actually agree with you on "Leader since" dates. The figures are largely kept secret unlike at national level when there are entire articles about the leadership election. Trimfrim20 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi : we should probably have this conversation on the article's talk page so that any other users with a view can easily contribute! I'll quickly reply here: I think a council leader losing their seat is worth including in the body of an article, but I don't think that means that leaders' seats have due weight for inclusion in the infobox. I think the key thing from INFOBOXPURPOSE is The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose: I think each element needs to justify its inclusion, which I don't think leader's seats do here! When they're not included, it's much easier to see the core information about the election. Ralbegen (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

UK opinion polling
Not sure if you got the ping from my message here. Are you happy to please add the Greens to the tables and graphs for Scotland and Wales now we have a general consensus in that direction? Helper201 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did catch your ping but I was waiting until I had time to implement things before responding. I might be able to today. (I think waiting for a bit longer than two days might also not be unwise when you want establish a consensus when there's already non-unanimity!) Ralbegen (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the additions. You're right, I was probably a bit too hasty. On a related note, you may be interested in updating the tables and graphs on Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. A lot of sections on that page need updating, specifically the tables for Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay, as well as Nicola Sturgeon and the tables and graphs in the sections for Preferred Prime Minister and Chancellor polling, those in Hypothetical polling and those in Topical polling. Helper201 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe one for the future, but at the moment I fear that would be quite a lot of work! I'm planning to polish my updated graph code to share again soon, which will be easier for other users to apply to other scenarios. For example, a user could produce graphs for that page in the same style as the Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election page fairly straightforwardly. The main issue from my perspective would be the upfront work in establishing that the page is as complete and up-to-date as OPFTNUKGE, given that far fewer eyes are on it. Ralbegen (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Election box help please
Hi, since you have experience with election data, I would greatly appreciate your help on something please. I have added an election box to the page Liberton/Gilmerton (Edinburgh ward) for the 2022 election with a list of candidates provided on 2022 City of Edinburgh Council election for the ward. However, the election box I added for the 2022 election on the Liberton/Gilmerton page is appearing under the 2017 election, rather than the section for the 2022 election. Can you help me fix/move this election box of candidates to the correct section please? Helper201 (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looks like someone else has got there first! They've done what I'd have suggested anyway, which is to use a plain wikitable: I think it's best to avoid using template tables that are going to have lots of blank entries. My guess would be that the issue with the STV template you were using was that it required an end piece? That looks like the only difference between the 2022 table you added and the previous ones. Ralbegen (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

UK council election maps
Hi! I see you've been the main contributor for the 2022 UK council election articles. For councils that elect by thirds, would it be more useful to show the 2018 result maps instead of the 2021 maps, as it's the seats elected in 2018 that are being contested this year?  dummelaksen   (talk • contribs) 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dummelaksen That's a fair point. It could even be worth including both! I'm conscious that not every council has maps for every year, though. 2021 is pretty complete, I think largely down to your work (thanks for that!) and it's still useful context for thirds councils. For places like Dudley or Plymouth, say, showing both side-by-side can be very helpful to the reader. I'll have a look at making that change where the 2018 maps exist—if you'd be interested in uploading some 2018 maps where they're missing thirds councils that'd be very helpful. Ralbegen (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do the 2018 maps!  dummelaksen   (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Wales opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election after 2019 (LOESS).svg
Hello, please may I ask if you can update the Wales and London opinion polling image for the next United Kingdom general election after 2019 (LOESS) with the latest polls as you did for the Scottish one.

Many thanks, Riverheart248 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've had a slight issue with my code for Wales which I needed to sort out before I could update it. Your message has prompted me to take another look, and I've fixed it now! I'll update it presently. The London image is up-to-date - if the March poll isn't appearing there you may need to clear your browser cache. Ralbegen (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Problem with colours
Hi. I see that you maintain the graph on the UK general election opinion polling page, and I wonder whether you could help with a problem with the graph on Opinion polling on the United Kingdom rejoining the European Union (2020–present). I am colourblind and the colours of yes and no are so similar that I have trouble telling them apart. Could you change them to different primary colours such as red and blue? Thanks if you can help. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the message! I don't maintain that graph but it's quite easy to edit as it's formatted in the article source. I've changed it to some colours from a colourblind-friendly palette I've used before, hope those work - if they don't, you can see the values I changed in the diff and change the hex values to anything better! I'll look at getting the table colours to match and maybe making a graph like the one I maintain for the general election polling page. Ralbegen (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help. I made several attempts to sort out the problem by changing the hex values but they were all unsuccessful. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2022 (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) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Next Indian general election
Hi Ralbegen, I have a question regarding Template:Infobox legislative election. Does it have a maximum limit? I tried to add Independents as party38= but it didn't show up in the Infobox of Next Indian general election. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, from the look of the documentation it's only supposed to support up to 35 parties. Even before that limit I suspect there's going to be some conflict between completeness and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. At some point it would probably be worth deciding through local consensus on a cutoff before including an "other parties" row - parties with fewer than five representatives, say — in order to make the infobox more legible, including to users on mobile. There's no such limit to space to tables in the body of the article, which would be better suited to detail. Ralbegen (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2024 London mayoral election
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 London mayoral election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are 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:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_London_mayoral_election&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1155519334%7C2024%20London%20mayoral%20election%5D%5D Ask for help])

Bob Kerslake
Hey, you wanted a discussion at Talk:Bob Kerslake so I've started it. Would appreciate you joining it as no-one else seems to care. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 08:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

UKIP Far Right
Thank you for the helpful, expert assistance in the UKIP Talk. I have replied to you there. No one's bothering with UKIP because for all legitimate political purposes, it's out there with the dodo.

My reasoning re classification is simple. During the regime of Batten and Yaxley-Lennon, there was general consensus that the party had moved to the Far Right. Then there was a reaction from the moderates, and the party veered back from extremism. But more recently - considering the totality of evidence I provided, including very recent social media output from the Leader and Chairman arguably worse than anything Yaxley-Lennon can be proven to have written or said, and especially the unanimously-passed reversal of the ban on UKIP membership fascists and neo-Nazis implemented more than ten years ago by Farage, of which I provided direct proof (before and after captures of the UKIP "Join" webpage) - it has arguably moved further right than Batten's position, where he took no step to remove the membership ban, just to make an exception for Yaxley-Lennon as his "special adviser".

The recent drawing of the attractive white girl on a bicycle on an official UKIP site that I cited, with a caption perhaps implying refugees/immigrants come here with a view to raping people like her (other interpretations are possible, but this is the first that will spring to mind for most - as intended), is still present months after it was put up (before the 4 May 2023 local elections), and the administrator who presumably posted it (or could remove it) still holds a half a dozen regional, county and branch level posts in UKIP. In a non Far Right party, including the UKIP of a few years ago, such an abomination would have attracted an immediate expulsion.

UKIP is uninteresting now to most editors. Of the other two commenting, one tries to be helpful but is unwilling to read anything longer than a few lines, so misses most of the reasoning and remains out of date, e.g., apparently trying to correct me on the status of Anne Marie Waters when his information is from 2017-18 and he had failed to read even the first few lines of my original submission, which explicitly explained, with citations.

Of the argumentative other, less said the better. He is correct that the only website I've found that is (a) recent, post-April 2023) (b) absolutely explicit that UKIP is now Far Right, cannot be classified as neutral. But was only repeating the disclaimer I'd already put into the opening paragraphs of the discussion. On most else, he/she is simply wrong. Reiterating what I put there, there is no hard and fast definition of "Far Right" applicable for all time and in all places, any more than there is for "Far Left". It is all relative to other movements or parties operating in the same era and political jurisdiction. His subjective assertions that UK politics are "dull" and so no UK (he seems to think it's a synonym for British) party can be classified as Far Right is, well, too absurd for me to address. His assertion that even official tweets cannot serve as sources is false (https://archive.today/YXXma and https://archive.today/vTUQn are two other Wikipages which discuss Far Right politics; they cite official tweets frequently. Further, they, as well as https://archive.today/RASkP, treat UKIP as Far Right. I showed this to my partner, an experienced editor in other spheres of interest, who assured me I am being trolled. Having reviewed his editing record, I don't agree with that. He is just very dogmatic and, IMO, breaches NPOV repeatedly.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ukip+%22Far+Right%22&tbm=nws provides no end of articles classifying UKIP as Far Right from back when it had the membership ban in place, and to which UKIP frequently referred as evidence/proof that it was therefore not Far Right. Sauce for the goose must serve for the gander - by UKIP's own logic, publicly reversing (not just removing) this ban thus renders it Far Right. I suspect those who call the shots there would like that, to give them a USP over the Reform and Reclaim parties.

I welcome your comments, specially as to where you think I may be going wrong or getting my balance wrong. :-) Thank you. Thomson-archiving (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . We do have to follow Wikipedia's policies on sourcing—which means reflecting the balance of reliable source coverage. There are lots of discussions about the categorisation of political parties which typically don't go anywhere because of insufficient sourcing. It's also a topic that sees a lot of discussion that approaches WP:FORUM territory—it's much more productive to focus entirely on sources. Especially for this kind of claim (and contentious claims in general) we want multiple reliable sources that use specific terms or near-synonyms. Where multiple competing options exist in reliable source coverage, such as descriptions of a political party as right-wing and far-right, the balance between coverage is more important. When it comes to classifying political parties, academic papers and books are often better sources than newspapers, too.
 * We should avoid WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:SYNTH. Using first-party sources is okay in a limited way, ideally when supporting material the inclusion of which is justified by secondary sources, but we shouldn't interpret them or add original analysis, either on Talk pages or especially in articles. I can't see the archive pages you've linked. If you click on a revision in a page's history on Wikipedia you will get a link that will uniquely return that revision. If they are using tweets as sources without secondary coverage. When reliable source coverage is sparser, it's harder to judge and it will be harder to form a consensus to make a change like the one you proposed. The best option may be to be patient and wait for more reliable source coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * It seems we agree that a main reason that UKIP had not been classified as Far-Right, instead of Right-Wing to Far-Right, was the party's explicit, long-standing ban on admitting those who used to or did have membership of what UKIP considered a Far-Right party.
 * The unanimous NEC decision of 15 April 2023 reversing that ban, to replace it with one on those considered left-wing, at least requires UKIP's classification to be reconsidered.
 * The archives you couldn't access were of
 * Far-right politics in the United Kingdom
 * Far-right politics
 * and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Far-right_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom
 * which have for years up to the present day supported the classification of UKIP as Far-Right. I supplied archives because the pages are editable and dynamic.
 * It is my fact-based opinion that only one of the two controllers of the party -- no one else serves except as window-dressing -- is historically Far-Right, and that too at most only marginally, at least by the stringent standards of the user kashmiri. The two have adopted this political stance in desperation because, as chronicled in many places, membership has plummeted through the floor. Whether this increasing extremism will have the desired effect on rejuvenation remains to be seen. It is too early to tell.
 * We shall, as you advise, have to wait for more sources, which I foresee being a long wait. For reasons detailed by me in Talk:UKIP at 15:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC), and summarised as UKIP now merely obtaining the votes of one or two in two thousand in the electorate (2023 Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election, where UKIP's Deputy Leader got 61 votes from an electorate of 67,000+) to vote for it even in by-elections, UKIP with no elected representatives at all in public office no longer has any ongoing (as distinct from historical) political relevance, and so few serious journals want to expend even a column-centimetre on its current status.
 * Googling for UKIP News I found a follow-up article in the non-neutral source implying the only reason UKIP appears to be operative is "the harvest of legacies that have been left to UKIP in the wills of elderly members [...] that they hope to reap" (https://www.searchlightmagazine.com/2023/07/ukip-desperate-move-to-refill-the-ranks). However, that article opens the door to the possibility that a secondary reason UKIP still exists is to act as a barrier to entry for emerging Right-Wing parties and split the vote with them in First-past-the-post voting elections, thus maintaining the political status quo for the Conservative Party (UK). It is a murky world out there. Thomson-archiving (talk) 12:55, 27 July 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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible help on some graphs?
Hey, resident political nerd here, I was wondering if you needed / wanted some help updating or helping to manage some of the graphs you upload :D (like the British polling ones mainly) I've been pretty fascinated with politics (and stats / graphs) for a little while so I'd love to help if you wanted any! Raiiyarai (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Thank you for the offer—I've been working on a new version of the code I use to generate the charts which I am hoping to make publicly-available in a more useful way than a (now quite old) version is currently available through my user page. That will mean that other people can update charts as easily as I can. Hopefully it shouldn't take too much adaptation to use for other Wikipedia polling tables too, as long as they're formatted in an easily machine-readable way, if that interests you! Ralbegen (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely! :D I might need a pretty simple guide to the whole process tbh as I've never done this kinda thing before, I just thought I might offer, and a publicly available version of the code would definitely help! Raiiyarai (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I've got a bunch of spare time and would pretty much be able to update the graphs daily, like the main one on VI polling and some others if I see polls for them, and I just thought having someone available basically all the time would be a help! Raiiyarai (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just following up on this now, is there anywhere I can contact you better than here? And also I'm still interested in helping ya with the graphs :D Raiiyarai (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just bumping this again :D Raiiyarai (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Norwegian EU membership polling
Hey Ralbegen!

I've seen your work on the page "Potential United Kingdom rejoining of the European Union". Escpesially the graphical summary.

I want to do the same for Norway but I googled, tried my self and manage to do it. I want to make an own Wikipedia page with the potenial of Norway joining the EU. Now the polls are highlighed in the Wikipage called "Norway-EU relations".

Could you help me create an own page for Norwegian support for EU membership with a graphical summary and extensive table?

Best wishes. Marsvart97 (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Polling Charts For American Elections
I've noticed that for quite a while the normal poll charting system integrated into Wikipedia has been broken and, seeing how the Polling Charts are being done on the European end, I've been curious as how best to replicate that for the American Elections, particularly the Presidential ones to start. I've talked with Quinnnnnby on the Wikimedia Commons briefly, once, but I haven't heard back from him. Working off the code given I have the below, with the attached result; Now, on a technical level, I had wanted it to be closer to yours but, as a relatively green user of R-code, I couldn't understand how to make yours work. Could you possibly give me a quick rundown of how I would be able to integrate my data into your R-code model? The only question I'd have beyond that would be how to place an "end-cap" to the Poll Chart, as the elections I'm going to be working with are finished; I'd gather that'd it be about much the same as placing a "start-cap", the results of the previous election, but I just want to be sure. Thanks! Ariostos (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Norman Lamb Endorsements
Hello,

I debated whether to add the Norman Lamb endorsement but decided to at the end of the day as he had in fact endorsed another party? Surely representing that endorsement and not the other is a misrepresentation of the situation. I can only see MANDY applying if he hadn't endorsed the Greens in the Waveney Valley.

Best wishes,

LookBackInOngar (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)