User talk:Doktorbuk/Archive9

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

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.

Bethnal Green and Bow (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Plaistow and Blackwall

Wansbeck (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Newbiggin and Morpeth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

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.

Sleaford and North Hykeham (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Heighington and Kyme

East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Burnside

Tottenham (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Seven Sisters

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Serious?

Are your contribution at [1] meant to be a joke? Toccata quarta (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

About growing up

About this edit of yours. Please read Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing and environs. 219.79.90.26 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

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.

South Down (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dromore, Donaghmore and Quilly

The Wrekin (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Albrighton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for your comment about the old electoral data I used in Manchester Rusholme. There is no single on-line location for pre 1945 constituency data that I have found but I have collected data for all elections from 1906 onwards from various sources. Graemp (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cunninghame North (UK Parliament constituency), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Garnock and Kilbride (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) 11:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Rhys Morgan article deletion

I agree that the article is a puff piece, and many many if the authors are his personal friends! At least one of the cited articles is by his personal friend Martin Robbins.

It doesn't appear to break any Wikipedia rules but Rhys Morgan article is dubious. His father is a doctor, a consultant. Off course he advised his son not to drink bleach, for goodness sakes!

Thanks for your efforts.

--Zoara2010 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

re: Vauxhall helicopter crash

Hi - no probs! I created an initial stub, and then was going through the obvious alt. names and found your article. I'm sure the correct name will be sorted out later. Glad there's no tall buildings here in Manchester. Oh, wait... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also listed here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:53, 16 January 2013 (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.

---

Vandalism, yeah?

If I'm a vandal, you better do something about it, otherwise, don't spam my page with your baseless nonsense warnings Getting (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Try talking to fellow editors who aren't disrupting Wikipedia in a civil tone, or your stay with us won't last that long. This is a collaborative effort, and telling editors to kiss your ass isn't collegiate in the slightest. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Try not calling me a vandal or as you did above, try not calling me disruptive, or if you are going to, at least find some examples of this in my contributions. Otherwise stay the hell away from me, my talk page and my contributions. Getting (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Show me where I called you a vandal. And moving the article and simply blanking the talk page. That's disruption. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

here, you called me a "vandalistic editor, then here, where you sarcastically refer to other editors, but you do it in a way that is blatantly an attempt to call me "distruptive". Getting (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2013 (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.

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

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.

Mid Worcestershire (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lovett

Penrith and The Border (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Penrith

Sheffield Hallam (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Broomhill

Stalybridge and Hyde (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hyde

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove comments by other editors.

Please do not remove comments by other editors, as you did here. Such actions are generally considered vandalism. Please note that the offering of a prize in the disambiguation contest has already been discussed by the community, and determined not to be in violation of policy. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:18, 17 January 2013 (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.

---

Your comments at WP:ITN/C

Hi, I noticed your comments on the Long March section of WP:ITN/C. Your comments to Lihaas here could be considered a personal attack, so I just wanted to remind you to assume good faith with other editors, and to comment on content, not the contributor. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 22:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I do love the irony of this. Not only are you personally attacking other users, you've been vandalising as well, as in the topic above this one. Your hypocrisy is staggering. Getting (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting, unless you have something actually constructive to say, I suggest you go back to building up those many articles you've been working on. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You really are an acidic little man aren't you? Personally, I am quite happy to point out Doctorbuk's hypocrisy. In the meantime, maybe you'd like to explain why you have failed to answer me when I pointed out the times you used personal attacks against me? Getting (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to point out that you moved an article without discussion, causing a problem with reverting it back, then ordered me to "kiss your ass" when I advised you on best practice. If you're now stalking my talk page to leap on whatever you can find, may I request you could be much more constructive by sorting out my disambiguation links as and when they occur. doktorb _words^deeds 16:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting, see WP:NPA. I would have replied to you but you blanked it all out, remember? At no point did I personally attack you. Feel free to continue this discussion at my talk page, along with diffs to back up your accusations since I konw Doktorbuk won't want this nonsense continuing here, nor would I. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

And had you not referred to me as a vandal, when such an attack is completely unjustified, I would have dealt with you in a far more civil tone. Sadly, you chose to be needlessly hostile towards me. As did your mate Rambling Man, he too called me a vandal. Getting (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. Maybe you're not a native English speaker? What I said, explicitly, was "Just to let you know, continuing to move pages without consensus, particularly if they're moved back through a bold revert, would be considered the act of a vandalistic editor.". So, if any editor "continued" to move pages without any kind of consensus then they would be considered acts of vandalism. At what point did this become me using "personal attacks" or accusing you of being a vandal? Can you provide me the diffs please? Also, calling me "an acidic little man" is a direct contravention of WP:NPA for which blocks are a standard outcome. Do you want to retract that? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A standard outcome is it? The standard being one that you have just decided to make up, presumably. Getting (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. Personal attacks result in blocks all the time. Perhaps you're not aware of that. Calling someone "an acidic little man" is a direct personal attack. Suggest you retract it and apologise. And read beyond the first sentence of WP:NPA, one of our policies, where it actually says quite clearly: "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.".... ouch. On all the other points, I'm still waiting for you to provide the diffs. Come on, let's go. I haven't got all night, I've actually got content to improve. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I love the way you think you can blackmail me into to retracting my opinion of you, how sweet. Utterly futile, but sweet nonetheless. Well, if you have content to improve, I suggest you go and improve it. Getting (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2013 (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.

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Davies (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) 11:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Preston elections

Hi, just to let you know there is already a category for election in Preston it's Council elections in Preston. NtheP (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stonewall (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) 11:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastleigh by-election, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ewhurst (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) 11:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Next United Kingdom general election

Can you please go to Talk:Next United Kingdom general election and scroll to the bottom to explain your conduct with regard to recent edits please.81.149.185.174 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your response is unsatisfactory. Please return to the necessary talk page!213.120.148.60 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought I should let you know that I have reported this issue and indeed your conduct.213.120.148.60 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit to UK local elections 2014

The previous local election pages reflect the council control directly before the current elections - NOT the situation at the past like-for-like elections. Please do not undo my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.192.93 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2014 and make comments to avoid edit warring. Thank you213.120.148.60 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Doctorbuk, please stop vandalising this article. There is nothing in the 'WPCrystalBall' policy that backs up what you are doing. The updated page does not try to predict the future, but shows the CURRENT situation regarding council control (which is consistent with all other local election pages). Please stop amending the page to show historical results which reflect better on your party of choice.90.205.192.93 (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing no such thing. There is no evidence you can provide which shows that, at polling day 2014, the councils will be set up as you have them. There may yet be no elections in 2014, they are not guaranteed. You are projecting today's situation onto over 12 months hence - that is the very definition of CRYSTALBALL. doktorb _words^deeds 02:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to realise that you are changing the article to reflect how the councils were in 2010, where as I am changing the articles to reflect how they are NOW. Do you see why what you are doing makes no sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.192.93 (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I do realise that. Because that's how our elections work. The elections in 2014 are those fought in 2010. We have always, and will always, compare like for like. Here's a tip - go to Preston local elections, and see what they compare to, like for like. Or go to the UK elections, 2013, and see how these are compared, like for like, with 2009. Our system has always compared one election with the previous, corresponding election (see how general elections disregard by-elections for example.) What you are doing is trying to keep the 2014 elections "up to date". This is wrong. It's also projecting, and that's Crystal Ball. doktorb _words^deeds 02:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No I'm afraid it is you who is wrong. And here's an example - take a look at the 2012 UK local election results page and look at Stockport. You will see that the 'Previous Control' is given as 'No Overall Control', which is what this council became in the previous election in 2011. It does NOT reflect the like-for-like situation in 2008 when the LibDems had control. You seem to be mistaken into thinking that the pages have always shown results on a like-for-like basis when they have not. The phrase 'Previous Control' means control directly before the election. If it was done on a 'like-for-like' basis based on results 4 years earlier it would say so.90.205.192.93 (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you are wrong (as is, alas, that article). A councillor has a four year term in some councils (such as all the County Councils being run this year). They were first elected in 2009. We compare like-for-like. Ditto 2014 - London Councils were elected in 2009. They are being fought again "like for like". Councils which elect "in thirds" - such as Stockport - *should* be compared like-for-like, not year-for-year. If that is the case on Wikipedia, it is wrong and should be corrected. I point you towards the article Preston local elections and others (I think Manchester) which makes this point clear. If you don't understand the electoral system of the country, don't mess with the articles. You may be causing confusion and misinformation. As it happens, you are in danger of breaking 3RR, so please be careful. doktorb _words^deeds 03:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems it is you who are confused here. Take a look at the BBC election page for Stockport in 2012. Does it say that this was a NOC gain from the LibDems (since the LibDems held this council on a 'like-for-like' basis in 2008?) No. Because that is never how the electoral cycle works. Everyone is aware that councillors are elected in 4 year cycles. This does not mean that you would show the 'previous control' based on the results from 4 years ago as this information would be misleading and incorrect. Please stop wrongly editing this page, or you will be reported for vandalism. Thank you. IpswichBlue74 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems you are confused. The electoral cycle always works "like for like". A councillor elected in 2008 is up for relection in 2012. That councillor's result would have to be compared "like for like". Ditto all the results that year. Ditto all the results, for all the councils, in that year. That the BBC has it wrong is of no concern to me. That you have misunderstood this simple concept is, as you're going to continually spread misinformation without cause. Given that 2014 will see London Boroughs fight elections that will be compared "like for like", what makes everything else exempt from this? Or have you invented a new rule? doktorb _words^deeds 03:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So are you seriously trying to tell me that the BBC is wrong, all of the previous wikipedia articles are wrong, and only you are right? You need to learn that you are very much wrong here. Everyone understands that the elections work on a 4 year cycle. But when you are stating what the 'Previous control' of the OVERALL COUNCIL is before the 2014 election is - that refers to the control of the OVERALL COUNCIL BEFORE the election, not the status of the 1/3rd of councillors elected 4 years ago. I will give further examples from BBC, Telegraph, Guardian.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/vote2012/council/E08000007.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/local-elections/9242816/Local-elections-2012-results-map.html (Check Stockport)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/03/elections-2012-english-councils (Check Stockport)

Now you will see that everyone of these is completely consistent in NOT showing 'like-for-like' results, as with all previous National wikipedia pages. The fact that you have shown this wrongly for Preston is not my problem. So for the last time, please stop vandalising the article with your incorrect information or I will report you.IpswichBlue74 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously suggesting that media organisations don't understand how to report local elections. It's not my fault that this shortcoming exists. If the BBC wants to compare the local elections of 2012 with those in 2011, then they are wrong. It's misleading, it's statistically meaningless, and simply incorrect. I don't think you misunderstand as much as you pretend, for you clearly accept that "like for like" is the only way to compare London Borough elections and County Council elections, so you can't possibly argue that Stockport is an exception, where councillors are elected for yearly terms. If you do believe this, you are wrong, and by editing the articles on these terms, you are vandalising them. I suggest you consider whether you would be better suited working on other parts of the Wikipedia, for this is clearly something you haven't got a handle of. However, with all that said, I will wait until other editors are awake before continuing to work on this. doktorb _words^deeds 03:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous. The difference is that the London council elections and the county councils are all-up every 4 years. So for the 2014 election page it is perfectly acceptable to show the 'previous control' for the London councils as the 2010 results as there have been no changes since then (although if control were to change as a result of by-elections then the information would have to be changed).

This is not the same for the unitary authorities or district councils which have held elections since in 2011 and 2012. Therefore control of many of these councils has changed since 2010 and this needs to be reflected in the 'previous control' in the 2014 page.

The only things that need to be shown are previous control before the election, and new control after the election. It does not matter whether you believe the national media or previous wiki articles to be wrong - that is not my problem (it is in fact you who is wrong and can't seem to understand how the election cycle works). But the wikipedia articles must be consistent and reflect the accurate reporting of serious news organisations, not one individual who can't seem to accept the truth. IpswichBlue74 (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard discussion about UKIP IP editor

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:81.149.185.174.2C_213.120.148.60_and_others regarding the IP editor making a number of UKIP-related posts. I thought you'd like to know as your name has come up in the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash

This is to inform you that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

List of pundits

Hello. As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pundits back in 2009, you may be interested to know I have renominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pundits (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

ConsciousKipper‎

Hi Doktorbuk. Feel free to restore any of ConsciousKipper‎'s edits if you think they are worth keeping. I tend to err on the side of trying to discourage sockpuppetry, but it's perfectly ok to restore the material if you think the content is more important than the sockpuppetry incentive. Here's a convenience link to all the reverts I made. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ynys Môn by-election, 2013 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:

• <nowiki>{{Election box begin |  |title=[[National Assembly for Wales election, 2011|Welsh Assembly Election

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Next United Kingdom general election 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:

• }}
• *[http://www.bcomm-wales.gov.uk/index.html Boundary Commission for Wales] ([http://www.comffin-cymru.gov.uk/bcwwelshreviewareas.htm (in Welsh)]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harvest (disambiguation) 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:

• * [[Harvest (Jim Crace novel)|''Harvest]'']], a novel by [[Jim Crace]] nominated for the [[Man Booker Prize 2013]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)