User talk:Ralbegen/Archive 3

Invitation to the final vote on the bolding issue
Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

London Mayoral election page
Hi, thanks for your edit. It makes sense to put a threshold at 5% of previous votes. I'm just wondering where this consensus can be found? Is it a general policy on political pages, or is it specific to that election? I couldn't see anything about it on the talk page. --Jwslubbock (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi —it's a general convention across UK election articles, though I feel that consensus for post-election infobox criteria for the prior election carries to pre-election infobox criteria for the subsequent election. I could definitely have been clearer in my edit summary though, sorry! There was lots of discussion on the Talk page for the 2016 mayoral election, such as Talk:2016 London mayoral election and Talk:2016 London mayoral election, which resolved in favour of using the 5% cut-off, with some dissent. There are similar discussions for 2012 and on many other election article talk pages. Ralbegen (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd welcome your feedback on my comment in Talk:2020 London mayoral election on this topic please. I understand the application of a 5% threshold but it seems bizarre that no account is taken of more recent election results - however you have clearly been involved in this discussion longer than I have so if there are any counter-arguments I would welcome them! Thanks :) Antonine (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say a quick thanks for creating those new council election pages, including one for my local council. Looking good! 82.21.211.103 (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Next Tory leader election
I thought you would like to be informed of Sockpuppet investigations/Torygreen84. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And again: Sockpuppet_investigations/Torygreen84. Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Correction of founding of JLM from their website
The source, from one of the founding members, clearly states that the JLM was "founded in 2004" as a "successor" to Poale Zion. These words are not ambiguous, it is a new organisation. The examples you gave are much more recent, where it appears the JLM have changed how they see themselves (some may say a political strategy). Please provide earlier source material to back up their claim that they were always Poale Zion, I cannot find any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westpier66 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for engaging. Content discussions should be on the article's talk page rather than my user Talk page. I've just posted a reply to another user's older remark that was on similar lines to your own. Ralbegen (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"Next Plaid Cymru leadership election" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Next Plaid Cymru leadership election. Since you had some involvement with the Next Plaid Cymru leadership election redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Polls
Why are you including a poll which is the only one saying Johnson won when almost every other poll over 1,000 says Corbyn won? JamesVilla44 (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You may want to read this, for instance. Voodoo polls are of no value to the encyclopedia. The threshold for inclusion in articles about polls in the UK is usually membership of the British Polling Council. Ralbegen (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok do it if you want. I don’t believe we should use it but be a dictator if you want.JamesVilla44 (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to go to the article's Talk page and get input from other users. Ralbegen (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t see why a poll is needed we didn’t have debate polls in 2017 JamesVilla44 (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussions about the article should be on the article's talk page rather than my talk page, please. Ralbegen (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Forecast UK
You removed the Forecast UK figures from the 2019 seat predictions as you said it was anonymous, but the About / FAQ clearly states the authorship. Can we please have it back in. Peterould (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC) comment added by Peterould (talk • contribs) 09:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is a discussion that should be on the talk page of the opinion polling page rather than my user talk page. There's some discussion about inclusion criteria there. We can't include a prediction just because it's a prediction. My view is that we should only include predictions that are published in reliable sources or have been taken seriously by reliable sources. Ralbegen (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

OK - I'll move it there. Bear with me as I'm new to Wikipedia Peterould (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine, no worries. Welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions that aren't about a specific issue on a page, please feel free to come here and ask me and I might be able to point you in the right direction. Are you the Peter Ould who runs ForecastUK? You might want to look over Conflict of interest for guidance on editing when it comes to things you're involved with. Ralbegen (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I am. I did consider a COI and that is why I haven't attempted to edit anything *but* simply a copy and paste of the forecast. Certainly editing any opinion on the accuracy (or not) of *any* forecast would be inappropriate
 * PS - worked out how to thread - how exciting!!! Haven't done editing directly in a markup language since a student job 25 years ago..... Peterould (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2016 Labour Party leadership election (UK) into 2020 Labour Party leadership election (UK). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Labour Membership
I see what you mean, however since there is a leadership election the membership had increase by 24,000 as the source says. And 519,000 + 24,000 is 543,000. It’s natural to have an increase in membership when there is a leadership election, ex members and supporters of the party join to fit their own interests. Thanks. Mxnkey72 (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is probably better to discuss on Talk:Labour Party (UK). But it was reported as 519,000 in August. An increase of 24,000 since the election resulting in party membership of 543,000 supposes that it didn't change at all since August. Personally I'd prefer to only update party membership figures when the HoC Library briefings are published. Ralbegen (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Permanent secretary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Barrow ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Permanent_secretary check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Permanent_secretary?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) 13:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)