User talk:Doktorbuk: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:10, 11 March 2011 editWarofdreams (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators127,553 edits Infobox for Barnsley Central by-election, 2011 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:27, 11 March 2011 edit undoO Fenian (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers13,173 edits →Community restrictions Next edit →
Line 153:		Line 153:

	:Regarding your comments , there is no requirement that a template has to be placed on the talk page to be under the community restrictions, and edits to the article relating to Gerry Adams are clearly under the definition above. ] (]) 16:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)		:Regarding your comments , there is no requirement that a template has to be placed on the talk page to be under the community restrictions, and edits to the article relating to Gerry Adams are clearly under the definition above. ] (]) 16:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

			Please self revert , or I will request arbitration enforcement. Thank you. ] (]) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

	==Infobox for ]==		==Infobox for ]==

Revision as of 18:27, 11 March 2011

Independent

Hi - thanks for your message. I've always linked every independent - and, in most cases, there are one or two at most, so it's not a great issue. I do prefer to have them all linked, as that seems most likely to avoid any potential confusion and get consistency although, as you say, it can get rather repetitive in cases such as Luton South. Warofdreams talk 11:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

New Scottish constituencies and regions

We should really start the new articles ASAP, now that the final Boundary Commission version is clear. However, I personally have no great desire to pump hours of my time into creating 73 stubs (+ the new region stubs).

I recommend that we draw up a quick template, with perhaps only a couple of lines of actual text, but with standard Ref, See also, and Ext link sections, and just get the ball rolling. Let other editors fill them out a bit as desired.--Mais oui! (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

2010-11 Northern Premier League

Thanks :) I've become a bit of a non-league geek over the past year or so, so I had to get all the new info ready ASAP! Good luck to Burscough next season, and enjoy those away trips! Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Notional results

Hi Doktorbuk. You're right, notionals are guesswork, but they have to be used. The Rochdale constituency which exists now is not the same one which existed last month: it may share its name and most of its area, but it's a different creation. It's incorrect to quote changes as you have done, as you're not comparing like with like. Wereon (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom regarding this, if you're interested. Wereon (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A boil shed

Happy to be of assistance. (Ass-sit-ance, perhaps?) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Boundary info

Hi! Happy to be able to help, it's a huge area of information that's really interesting and I can see that you've done loads of valuable work already. Hopefully I'll be able to help improve articles in some small way, you are not alone! If there's anything in particular you'd like any help getting through just shout. Oxenhillshaw (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2010 United Kingdom general election result in Glasgow

The article 2010 United Kingdom general election result in Glasgow has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Should be already covered in general election article; Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of election statistics.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Compact election box

Hi Doktorbuk

Hope you're well.

If you have a few minutes to spare, I'd value your thoughts on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Compact election box. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:21st Century Conservative Democrats/meta/color

Template:21st Century Conservative Democrats/meta/color has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:21st Century Conservative Democrats/meta/shortname

Template:21st Century Conservative Democrats/meta/shortname has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw this and thought of you

http://www.esds.ac.uk/findingData/snDescription.asp?sn=3803 contains the following:

con65-74.txt - UK Parliamentary constituency names; 1965 to 28 Feb 1974
con74-83.txt - UK Parliamentary constituency names; Mar 1974 to 9 Jun 1983
con83-91.txt - UK Parliamentary constituency names; 10 Jun 1983 to end 1991

Dunno if that helps any, but there y'go. regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Pending changes reviewer granted ...}} with {{subst:Pending changes reviewer granted ...}}. Nev1 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Doktorbuk! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Misplaced Pages, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of Witney

You may have an opinion :) http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wereon#Reversion_of_Witney Cheers. Crooked cottage (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DAW

Please try to remember not to abbreviate Misplaced Pages as Wiki if you can. Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will refer to Misplaced Pages however I see fit depending on context. "Wiki" is as much acceptable shorthand as "US" for the country inbetween Canada and Mexico. doktorb _words 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind taking the time to read Misplaced Pages:Don't abbreviate Misplaced Pages as Wiki, if you haven't? It offers a pretty good explanation of why using "Wiki" is problematic. --Yair rand (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have. And whilst I understand the issue, I am not going to go out of my way to follow the rule, tbh. When I talk about "having a bit of a Wiki addiction", more people than not will immediately think of this place. If it's a biggie all of a sudden, then I'll look out for correcting myself in edit summaries and such, though please don't start keeping a tally because it's not the most important factor round these parts at the moment. doktorb _words 22:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dundee City

Hey I asked the question what to do with these sort of minor changes here, the consensus was to keep the original articles and create an entire new one :) --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you recently tried to give Dundee East (Scottish Parliament constituency) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Dundee City East (Scottish Parliament constituency). This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Misplaced Pages has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 electorate figures

Evening

I saw your comment on Mirrorme22's excellent work in adding the 2010 electorate figures - which has largely saved me a job so great. I don't know whether you saw the discussion between BHG and myself regarding these figures a few weeks ago and how I wanted to add them in to List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies as a separate column from the already existing December 2000 figure, so that the reader can see the figures which brought about the current lot of constituencies, and the ones which will create the new lot. (At this point I inferred that BHG would rather drop the 2000 figures, but I may be wrong).

Given you have created the Sixth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies page I would have thought only the new constituencies and theor electorates would go in there, but I'm not sure of how you are planning. Thoughts? I know the discussion needs to go on WT:UKPC before I do anything, but your ideas are key here I believe. I was going to wait, but we now have all the constituency articles out of line with the list, which I would like to resolve sooner rather than later.

Thanks. Crooked cottage (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Community restrictions

The article Belfast West by-election, 2011, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
- Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

Mo ainm~Talk 12:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your comments here, there is no requirement that a template has to be placed on the talk page to be under the community restrictions, and edits to the article relating to Gerry Adams are clearly under the definition above. O Fenian (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please self revert that edit, or I will request arbitration enforcement. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox for Barnsley Central by-election, 2011

Hi - I see that you undid my edit to add names to the infobox for this article, without explanation. I made the change following a discussion on the talk page of the article which appears to have reached consensus. If you disagree, please join in with the discussion. Warofdreams talk 17:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)