User talk:Doktorbuk/Archive11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Next United Kingdom general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Foster (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) 09:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Next United Kingdom general election may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • #[[Anne McGuire]] ([[Stirling (UK Parliament constituency)|Stirling]], announced 14 January 2014<ref>[https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/423127232110809089 Torcuil Crichton Twitter feed [retweeted by

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election, 2014 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • chief executive of Movement for Change<ref>[http://www.movementforchange.org.uk/mike_kane] Profile] Movement for Change</ref><ref>[http://www.leftfutures.org/2014/01/another-by-election-stitch-up-in-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election, 2014 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • https://twitter.com/LucyMPowell/status/426839388761653248 Lucy Powell MP] Twitter - Lucy Powell MP (Manchester Central, Labour}</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/IvanLewis_MP/status/426841995089571841 Ivan Lewis MP] Twitter -

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

re: Wythenshawe and Sale East

Locked and loaded. Maybe request page protection if I run out of live ammo. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nottingham South

Did you mean to move this back to "Nottingham S"? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back to it's original starting point of Nottingham South (UK Parliament constituency) - I'm not offering an opinion on where it ultimately should reside as a result of the move however. Nick (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Next United Kingdom general election may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • # Ann Clwyd ([[Cynon Valley (UK Parliament constituency)|Cynon Valley]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Take it easy

Hi Doktorb. I agree with your point of view on the constituency names, but accusing people of "acting [...] out of spite" [1] is not helping the situation. Please, just take it easy. --RFBailey (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Hi, re this edit - we still have an inconsistency, see Talk:Crime and Disorder Act 1998#Short title and page name. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Hello

I don't think you are coming to this article with clean hands with your self declared lib dem membership, I think it is very bad form you to remove sourced criticisism, simple because they are negative about your preferred political party.

I am going to restore the content you on mass reverted, and would ask you to reflect on if it is appropriate for you to edit the article in such a fashion.

happy to discuss on the article talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Lea

Lea is a parish in the City of Preston, Lancashire, district but it's not in Preston, Lancashire, because that article takes its definition of "Preston" as the unparished part of the City of Preston district. -- Dr Greg  talk  00:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Parliament election, 2014 (Sweden), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MEP (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) 08:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

New proposal at Talk:Independent (politician)#Requested move

The proposed move of Independent (politician) has been altered to the new title of Political independent. This notice is in case you would like to review your vote. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom)

Can you please read the talk page of this section, instead of undoing edits without making comments or showing any regard for other editors. Could you also follow Wiki policy on this please, you haven't in that: a controversial edit was boldly made without taking to talk page for consensus, edit was disputed on talk page with solid argument that hasnt been talked through. In the mean time Wiki policy is to revert edits back to "baseline" or original version of section (before controversial edit). I did this, you undid this and gave no reason why. Can you please follow Wiki policy. No hard feelings or anything but can we try and do this properly. 86.139.40.247 (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom by-elections (1979–present)

What does TBD mean? Could we please avoid using such abbreviations? Headhitter (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

To Be Determined. It's not that uncommon. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course. But it's an unnecessary abbreviation: there's plenty of room to write it out in full. Headhitter (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Newark by-election Infobox

Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election here. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Lokie Dokie

Just FYI I have brought Lokie Dokie to the edit warring board for thrice reopening the discussion at the VP that you closed. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Patriotic Socialist Party

Information icon Hello, I'm Wavehunter. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Patriotic Socialist Party without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Wavehunter (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Doktorbuk. Once again I have restored the party colours and thousand separator to the text of the Patriotic Socialist Party article. I understand your opinion that the party is not notable, but not your edits removing the colours and the comma from 4,000. If you should wish to add a notability tag to the top of the article I'd certainly not dispute it. Best wishes. --Wavehunter (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Patriotic Socialist Party

Hello Doktorbuk. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Patriotic Socialist Party, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Newark by-election

Hiya, just a heads up that you're on 3 reverts at Newark by-election, 2014 and another would put you on the wrong side of WP:3RR. On a related note, I'll try and pop by the talk page later to explain my thinking regarding descriptions of Helmer. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A Czech beer for you!

Thank you for saving the wall in our flat. My head banged against it many times trying to move the "Qn magazine" article. Then, you came along and, in one fell swoop, presto!
LukasMatt (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Cheers Doktorbuk for removing that content from Eurovision 2015. I noticed the source (ESCUnited) is one that Project Eurovision has deemed to be COI; because there are a few Wikipedian's who have confessed to being editors of ESCUnited; and in respect to the outing policy, we decided it is better to not use that website in order to preserve their real-life identity. Wes Mᴥuse 22:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Liberty GB

An article that you have been involved in editing, Liberty GB, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ivanvector (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't bite

[2] Hello, Doctorbuk. It's surely not necessary to bite somebody who's upset about having their viewing experienced ruined and make them feel even worse. How easy it would have been to give them the same advice about avoiding the page till after they see the show, without the crack about the person not being "mature". Please try that next time. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Next United Kingdom general election may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • # [[Gerry Sutcliffe]] ([[Bradford South (UK Parliament constituency)|Bradford South]]))

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cottam (Preston) railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston (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) 08:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

re: Newark by-election, 2014

Evening. Or indeed morning. Hmmm, interesting edits! I'll keep an eye on the page and see what happens. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

For info. And the user's talkpage too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

List of MPs for constituencies in England 2010–

Would you like to give me some help with this article please because I need some help.

I have done the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland though.

Mr Hall of England (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Next United Kingdom general election may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • #[[David Blunkett]] ([[Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (UK Parliament constituency)|Sheffield Brightside and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Non-Inscrits, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hans Jensen. 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) 08:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

2014 Man Booker Prize
added links pointing to The Dog, The Wake, Orfeo, David Nicholls, Joseph O'Neill and Neel Mukherjee

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ipswich (UK Parliamentary constituency)

I am at a loss as to why you keep insisting I have defied convention here. My edits in removing N/A where it was not appropriate were entirely confined to occasions where it was used wrongly when the party had stood in the previous election (my summary, N/A means party did not stand at previous election ... and that is the standard I used in my edit when I removed N/A from all other instances), and when it was used as a placeholder in majority, change, or swing fields (my summary "N/A" does not mean "don't know how, or can't be bothered, to work it out" spells this out). I think we both want the same here, but your summary, Revert changes. No explanation as to why this article has to be different from every other constituency article in using N/A, shows that you haven't really understood the changes made - all I have done is make the article conform to the standard every other constituency article aspires to reach, while your reverts move us further away from out goal. Instead of basing your decision to revert on the Difference between revisions try pulling up both versions and checking line by line, then see if you're so confident in your reverting my work. FanRed XN | talk | 00:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

After you last attempt (Ipswich) at edit-warring you were shown to be in the wrong I believe you are policing my edits in lieu of doing anything constructive yourself. Burying your head in the sand over the facts (recent UK by-elections) that clearly show the convention of requesting appointment to one of the stewardships wasn't followed by the fact that recently two MPs have failed to play the game, and were appointed to stewardships when they'd purposely made no such request. I had hoped you'd calm down some after I clarified the situation as anomalous but you don't seem to be able to let it go. Please stop being so disruptive. FanRed XN | talk | 15:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at List of United Kingdom by-elections (1979–present). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Timrollpickering (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, User:Timrollpickering, I have been CORRECTING mistakes, how can I be blocked? I am being constructive and helpful, User:Fanx is the one who should be blocked, he's putting incorrect, factually untrue content into articles? What kind of twisted logic makes me blockable, when I am right, and he is wrong? How on earth can it be right than I am blocked from editing? Utterly bonkers decision. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Four reverts of substantially the same material within 24 hours is precisely what the three-revert rule is trying to stop. Who is correct and who is incorrect in a content dispute does not come within the exemptions and is irrelevant to the block. Two other users have reverted you; neither has yet exceeded the three-revert rule. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Utter rubbish, User:Timrollpickering, and you know it. I don't accept, and won't accept this block, and from the moment I am unblocked, I will do what I am RIGHT in doing - correcting the material being put without reason on that article. The content was left unchanged for YEARS until Fanx came along with his half-truths and ill-considered edits; I am simply putting back what should always be there. Not a blockable offence, editing constructively, I think you'll find. You're wrong, I am right, and that's the end of it. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
That attitude suggests you'll wind up blocked again. But if you're right, try appealing this block. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not an attitude when I know that I'm right. The article was FINE until Fanx came along. I removed his untruths/half-truths, and I'm the one getting the block? Where the hell is the logic in that? You aren't supposed to block ME for undoing somebody else's mistakes, you know. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Your claim that you are correcting mistakes, or that this editor is inserting untruths/half-truths or anything else you happen to disagree with is entirely your POV, or is somehow offensive to your political views on the matter. In any event you really should take your argument to the talk page where it can be properly considered, and by more than just you and me. Just deleting my edits because you find them unpalatable is not typically how collaboration works in wikipedia, nor is repeatedly deleting edits you don't like "constructive". FanRed XN | talk | 13:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
As I remain unfairly blocked because of a bizarre misunderstanding of the rules, I can't join in any talk page discussion. I am not offended by the political opinion you are trying to edit into the article, I am offended by the decision to pull me up on a constructive use of editing Wikipedia. You are in the wrong, and you will be defeated in this, trust me. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 2

Of course it's not resolved, and archiving says more about your determination to have the last word than it does of any closure - you may have been unblocked but you still fail to understand why, and if you carry on with your attitude that you're right no matter what it is likely that you'll be blocked again for something else. All you've done in this dispute is bully and abuse me, and talked about nothing else other than "winning". You only "win" here because no-one wants to have to deal with your obnoxious behaviour. Since you're you're determined to remain uncompromising and uncooperative Wikipedia probably isn't for you is it? You should probably take up a pastime better suited to your temperament - cage fighting perhaps? I'm also offended that you try to paint me as having a political agenda in my editing - truth is apolitical, unlike censorship. FanRed XN | talk | 12:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Fanx - the issue appears resolved because the article (s, if we include Ipswich) appear to be just as they should be. I've been here long enough to know that Wikipedia is right for me, I bruise far too easily for cage fighting. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Constituency elections results

Hi doktorb, I've just spotted there are no election results listed for Widnes (UK Parliament constituency). I am prepared to do the early ones and wondered if you fancied tackling the post war ones? Graemp (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Graemp. I will certainly try my best! Lack of computer access makes it trickier than it used to be but I'll have a go doktorb wordsdeeds 09:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Medway (UK Parliament constituency) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Following the [[Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies|boundary review of parliamentary representation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Conservative Party (UK) parliamentary primaries may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • to get chance to have a say in choosing Tory successor to Mark Reckless in Rochester and Strood] KentOnLine</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

National Liberal

Hi, in August you kindly set up the short name and colour for the Constitutionalist (UK) to be used in election boxes. I was wondering if you could direct me to the appropriate page where I might set up similar. I am dissatisfied with the current arrangements for the National Liberal Party 1931, and would like to create additional options for the various labels used after 1947. Graemp (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I added that info to the talkpage. I am none the wiser as to how to create new variants. Graemp (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
These templates exist as {{National Liberal Party (UK, 1931)/meta/color}} and {{National Liberal Party (UK, 1931)/meta/shortname}} and Liberal National Party (UK) already redirects to National Liberal Party (UK, 1931). My solution would be: Edit template {{National Liberal Party (UK, 1931)/meta/shortname}} to read National Liberal (for post-1947 use), and create {{Liberal National Party (UK)}} to read Liberal National. As {{ Liberal National Party (UK)/meta/color}} already redirects to {{National Liberal Party (UK, 1931)/meta/color}} no change is needed. Ignore variants such as National Liberal and Conservative or Liberal and Conservative if they were essentially the same party, or create them as outlined if they were different. All that remains is to edit pre-1947 National Liberal links to use the Liberal National Party (UK) link and all relevant templates will work correctly. FanRed XN | talk | 14:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your ideas. I have created a new page National Liberal Party (UK, 1947) with relevant templates. This will allow for a description of National Liberal where applicable. I am choosing to ignore other variants as you suggest. Graemp (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

next UK General Election description of polling shifts

Hi, I notice you on the next United Kingdom general election talk page. Bondegezou and I have been discussing the possibility of a prose summary of the major shifts and trends in public opinion over the Parliament (where that can be seen reported in reliable sources) on the article page. I have started to draft, but would like others' views before I put too much work into it. Please comment! DrArsenal (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Lancaster City Council election, 2015
added links pointing to Leyland, Silverdale, Overton, Kellet and John O'Gaunt
South Ribble District Council election, 2015
added a link pointing to Leyland
Wyre Borough Council election, 2015
added a link pointing to Carleton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Recall of MPs Bill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geraint Davies. 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) 09:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Political party AfDs

Hi Doktorbuk. You've nominated a number of political parties at Articles for Deletion recently, many if not most of which have been kept. Could I ask you to take a little more time in looking for reliable sources for these articles before nominating them in the future? It seems that as little as a quick internet search has demonstrated notability of many of the articles. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)