Open main menu

Contents

ArchivesEdit

ArchiveOne - 8 August 2005 - 22 January 2006 ArchiveSix - 12 April 2010 - 27 July 2011
ArchiveTwo - 25 January 2006 - 3 November 2006 ArchiveSeven - 12 August 2011 - 26 August 2012
ArchiveThree - 22 November 2006 - 4 August 2007 ArchiveEight - 12 September 2012 - 19 December 2012
ArchiveFour - 12 February 2008 - 9 March 2009 ArchiveNine - 20 December 2012 - 24 July 2013
ArchiveFive - 23 April 2009 to 18 April 2010 ArchiveTen - 5 July 2013 - 27 November 2013
ArchiveEleven - 9 January 2014 - 7 December 2014 ArchiveTwelve - 9 December 2014 to 21 November 2016

SIZE 3.5 GB (34,927 bytes)

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.


Welcome!

Hello, Doktorbuk, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 04:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 JanuaryEdit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

EdmontonEdit

Every local history scholar in London would probably know Edmonton had a large working class and all the businesses associated with the Lea Valley and its terraces boom. Even in uneducated circles, it is well known for example (as a matter of interest) Bruce Forsyth often talks of dancing on the tin roof in Edmonton and the area was generally of modest incomes in the 20th century. I will however ensure to put a taster of local history on constituency websites where a seat has a definitive industry at its heart. Don't expect me to do that for Stoke on Trent or Burton or whatever though as I assume you know a little of those places.- Adam37 Talk 13:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

By-election gains presented as general election holdsEdit

Hi. Yes we do. Newbury (UK Parliament constituency) Orpington (UK Parliament constituency). Graemp (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, no we don't. A gain is a gain. However general elections are compared like for like. If a seat is won by the same party in 05 and 10 with a different party winning a by-election in between, it is still a "hold'. This is standard practice. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hold on there sparky. UI give you examples where you are wrong, like Brent East (UK Parliament constituency), Eastleigh (UK Parliament constituency), Christchurch (UK Parliament constituency) and you go and change them. Thats not how we do it is it? Graemp (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Clearly there is a difference in practice. I can't refer you to a project discussion. Unless you can, perhaps that is our next step. Graemp (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC) 07:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought you were cleverer than this. It is self explanatory that general elections are compared like for like. That's how results are compared and reported. Why are you now going down this cul-de-sac? We have always respected that byelections do not count, why the change? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, regardless of what you and I think, we have identified a difference in practice that needs sorting. Graemp (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. We have identified that I'm correct and you're not. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
That is not helpful. I know from working with you in the past you are better than that comment. Graemp (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
In 2006 this discussion was held (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(1979–2010)#Holding_party_-_at_the_last_election_or_at_the_vacancy.3F ) which is useful here. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It is interesting but not quite what we are dealing with. Perhaps we can dig up a more relevant discussion? Graemp (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It is exactly what we're dealing with. A by-election result does not effect comparing results from one GE to another, it's right there in front of you. We have not had an issue for years and years, why are you causing trouble now?! doktorb wordsdeeds 08:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I read the discussion as how to present the information in the more complex examples such as where an incumbent changes party. Please get it out of your head that I am causing trouble. I demonstrated to you that there are a number of examples that present the information in the other way and those include examples that I was not involved in editing. Please be less adversarial. Graemp (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
You have read the discussion but taken the wrong conclusion. This isn't just Wikipedia policy I'm defending, this is how elections are reported from Butler and others, and the media. That discussion also mentions by-election victories by parties other than the holding party at the general elections either side and the principle is exactly the same. I'm sure you watch BBC election coverage: they have always reported general elections "like for like" disregarding by-election changes in intervening years. It's statistical nonsense to do differently. I am serious about this, I will not move from the universally recognised position that by-election results do not count. General elections are reported "like for like", and that's the end of it. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
That 2006 discussion just does not represent wikipedia policy, let alone project practice for what we are talking about. Forget about what you or I think about this issue. Between us, we have identified an inconsistency in the way this information is presented in UK constituency articles as a result of actions taken by editors who are neither you nor I. It is highly likely that editors, not including either of us, will make edits that contradict either one practice or the other. These edits may result in edit wars. All I am suggesting is that it is up to two experienced editors like ourselves to resolve this, and avoid problems for others. In the meantime, we should respect the status of the articles at the time we discovered this inconsistency, this means I will not revert Leicester but I will revert Orpington. Graemp (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Leigh (UK Parliament constituency)‎Edit

Hi. You undid my recent revert and I note your explanation. I failed to include in my edit summary a note to see my explanation on the talkpage. Sorry. I would be grateful if you could check this out. Your undo covered more than just middle names. At the least, I would hope you would revert those edits you made that do not have anything to do with forenames, so that we can avoid an edit war. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Middle NamesEdit

We actually do need middle names. The usual argument about middle names is that we should just use the first name. Many assume that the first name is the name an individual was more commonly known by. As a result, articles are created with the wrong title. This morning I have come across an example of this problem at Michael Bass, 1st Baron Burton. In carrying out research I have come across sources that refer to him as both Michael Bass and Arthur Bass. I don't know which is right, but I do know he can be correctly referred to as Michael Arthur Bass. Many problems are created by article titling by people who assume that the common name is going to be the first. We also need middle names to distinguish between Sir John Brunner, 1st Baronet and Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet both Liberal MPs at the same time. The Brunner example is just an example from the Leigh article you edited today. Graemp (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Does that incorporate putting middle names for each and every candidate? Sometimes Graemp you have added three or four names for a single person, that's far too many on the off-chance that maybe there's a researcher out there looking for them. Maybe adding names will be useful in the limited circumstances you describe (although even then, Wikipedia will have disambiguated article titles and the time of the election should make it obvious if the candidate is father or son). doktorb wordsdeeds 10:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and accepting that there are cases when including middle names is acceptable. The case for including middle names will vary depending on the example. To me it makes sense to habitually include middle names in these election results for two reasons. One, it is good to be consistent in presentation and two, it encourages other editors to follow the same practice and avoid them leaving out information that may be important. As for how many names, I don't think we should arbitrarily decide how many middle names we regard as acceptable to present. Someones full name is their full name and we should probably accept that. While wikipedia allows the reader to move from article to article via links, I think it is good to save the reader the trouble of having to click on links to clarify what they are reading. Graemp (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue is around candidates who have links, such as Bessie Braddock, or Harold Wilson. We are attempting to create an encyclopaedia that can be reasonably well read and understood, so describing Wilson as "James Harold Wilson" in an election box is confusing, similarly "Jeremy John Durham Ashdown" instead of Paddy. We don't do it elsewhere, so why in election boxes? The issue was discussed at length last year, and there was a clear view that linked candidates should be listed under their commonly used names at the time of the election (which would usually be the title of their article), and that female candidates' titles should not be displayed. There was less agreement over full names for other candidates, hence the compromise which was broadly acceptable. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 6#Names and titles of candidates in election boxes. Frinton100 (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Docktorbuk - adding extra middle names is not particularly constructive and adds little to an article. When they become excessively numerous it's a distraction and makes the encyclopedia look messy and unprofessional. I also have an issue with WP:Verifiability and where this information is coming from, which should be raised on Graemp's talk page as the principal editor involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.88.70 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Last year's discussion was a useful and thorough airing of the issues. Differing views were expressed. It did not conclude with any particular consensus or agreed compromise. I don't think it is particularly useful us going over all those arguments again. I took away from the discussion some points which I have subsequently taken on board. It seems as if others did also. Clearly it is helpful to the reader to list some names more fully, to avoid confusions or wrong assumptions being made about 'common names'. That being the case, it still makes more sense to me to list all candidates names to the full for consistency of presentation. Election boxes bring together names of very well known people with those that are very obscure. Despite this difference, it seems logical to me to try to present them in a consistent manner in what is a very formal format. Graemp (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

HmmmEdit

I see you added the UKIP vote in Uxbridge to the "lowest vote shares" section in the by-election records page. Surely "major party" means one with parliamentary representation at the time (that, I believe, is the definition elsewhere on that page)? UKIP polled less than 2% at most by-elections prior to Hartlepool in 2004, including (but not limited to): Ipswich, Brent East, Wirral South, Islwyn, Littleborough & Saddleworth, Winchester, Tottenham, and even Eastleigh (1994), when Farage was the candidate. I don't think we should include all of these, and similarly, we probably shouldn't include any more UKIP figures from now until they next have an MP. If Uxbridge is their lowest ever, and it could well be, it could be added in text below the table. Frinton100 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VerifiabilityEdit

Please do not go around deleting citations from articles on UK parliamentary constituencies. This is against the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not. There are citations already next to the headings for the 2015 election, and if you bothered to check, you'll notice that the citations I'm removing are often dead links, links to pages which are now for 2017 candidates (therefore not links connected to candidates) or otherwise irrelevant. With citations already next to the 2015 heading confirming the candidates anyway, there's no need to replicate citations next to each candidate. You'll notice that we never put citations next to candidates anyway, citations should always go next to the heading. I'm only tidying up and removing unnecessary links. doktorb words

deeds 15:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Candidate namesEdit

Agreement exists to use full names where common names are not known, which is what I have done.Graemp (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!Edit

  Just a little note WP:FILEUPLOADWIZARD very helpful for adding covers to book articles. It is okay to use jpgs from the web, no need to take a photo of the book. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Lancashire County Council election, 2017Edit

Hi there!

I've spotted some reversions to the LCC2017 article by you, in which a number of detailed results are removed, with the reason cited being that they belong in a separate article.

A cursory look back through older LCC results shows that they have mixed results (of the type you removed from the 2017 results) with no edits referring to a need for the data to be put in a separate article. Is there a reason why the LCC2017 article is being held to separate standards to the articles that precede it? Seems like consistency is key, here.


Bulgaroon (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Lancashire County Council election, 2017Edit

Your contribution to this discussion would be greatly appreciated. Regards - Galloglass 14:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Doktorbuk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy BirthdayEdit

Wishing Doktorbuk a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Lambeth EastEdit

Hi,

I just wondered why you removed my edit to the Lewisham East By-election page? I've referenced the piece of legislation.

Regards, DD — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirtyDog90210 (talkcontribs) 16:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey DD. I thought that it looked a bit too much like editorial or commentary. Remember that you are responding to the Huff Post's reported quote from an anonymous source. If you want to add that content, you may have to think about re-wording, or putting it in a more relevant section doktorb wordsdeeds 17:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


Lewisham East - For BritainEdit

Hello Here is a problem. The page just becomes a Labour Party page. I get why you made the change (if in good faith), but without reference to other parties, it is totally unbalanced. Chwyatt (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afzal Khan (check to confirm | 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) 10:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Libertarian Party (UK)Edit

Hi — you've asked a participant in the ongoing Libertarian Party (UK) discussion whether they have an undisclosed conflict of interest. The user in question declares their political views on their user page, and has recently participated in a series of AfD discussions, arguing almost exclusively for articles to be kept. Whilst, naturally, as nominator I disagree with the argument the user is making, I don't think there's any basis to question the user's editorial integrity!

Just thought I'd let you know. If you want to strike through your question, it might make further discussion of the party easier and more focused, whilst avoiding escalation. (Though of course, that's your prerogative.) Ralbegen (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hashtag_United_FCEdit

You are now the second editor who replaces the official website (official youtube) on Hashtag United F.C. with the Twitter, whereas the club's notability, per the lede, seems significantly due to their postings on Youtube. I have therefore brought the discussion to a broader audience for discussion on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Hashtag United FC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Birkenhead (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Doktorbuk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Doktorbuk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of CrashlandEdit

 

The article Crashland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No true indication of notability. Major sources now 404 and nothing new has been published.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

An invitation to discussionEdit

I kindly invited you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to the final vote on the bolding issueEdit

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#Final voting. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Please guide me throughEdit

I do find trending stories on Wikipedia sometimes like trending s relating to politics and government. I don't really understand how this work. Is it that they are linked from other sites or they're independent stories created my Wikieditors? I'm new here and aside from creating new pages I would like to be submitting news articles if it's accepted hereEdyreuben (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy BirthdayEdit

Nomination of 2019 Brecon and Radnorshire recall petition for deletionEdit

 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Brecon and Radnorshire recall petition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Brecon and Radnorshire recall petition until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LukeSurl t c 13:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituency election results in the 1929 United Kingdom general electionEdit

Are you intending on fixing/finishing this AfD proposal? I'd also recommend adding to this AfD the three other constituency election results articles that you allude to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to sort it now. I used to do AfDs all the time but it's been ages so I'm a touch rusty on all the separate parts of the manual process and all of that. Give me a few minutes to re-learn what to do :) doktorb wordsdeeds 10:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Doktorbuk".