User talk:Doktorbuk/Archive5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doktorbuk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, The pdf of the Statement of Parties Nominated has "Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship”" in bold and then "The Christian Party - CPA" in light: I understand that to mean that the first is the name of the party, and the second the slogan they want appearing on the ballot paper. The first phrase is the official name of the party at The Electoral Commission. What source says that they are joint candidates? PamD (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see I've butted in to editing in these results while you're already doing them. Apologies. I'll stop if you like, or start from the bottom and work up? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I finished them, hope you don't mind :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that reference. Do you know if there are similar pages for the other electorates? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A second RfC has been started on sourcing for Eurovision articles, you can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. You are being notified as you participated in the previous RfC on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 3#Reliability of ESCKaz. You are free to participate in the debate once again if you wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the tables at United Kingdom local elections, 2006 full results? Would they do the trick? Warofdreams talk 23:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[1] Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed that you are from Lancashire and I was wondering if you have heard of the new WikiProject group of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria. If you are interested in joining please feel free to become a paricipant and help us achive our goals. If you do join I am looking forward to your contributions. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The full boundary commission report for 1983 used to be online - David Boothroyd once posted a link on the google group uk.politics.electoral but I can't find it and it seems that it's no longer online. I have the Almanacs of British politics post 1983 election and post 1992 election but not to hand so will have a go in the future when I've a chance. By the way maybe it's time that Boundary change recommendations for the next UK general election was renamed to "Boundary change recommendations for the 2010 UK general election" as right now a 2009 election is about as probable as a 200 seat Labour majority? Valenciano (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The first UK Politics newsletter is currently available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Newsletter. All participants of the project have been subscribed to receive copies of the newsletter. You can unsubscribe simply by removing your name from the Subscription list. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As you have previously participated in discussions to move "Next United Kingdom general election" to "United Kingdom general election, 2009", I am writing to inform you that the discussion is once again taking place at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#Page move, revisited. -Rrius (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Doktorbuk! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Kamil Mikulčík - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Nela Pocisková - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Johannes Hahn - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted the question on malysz as nearly no one who responsded appeared to think it was a genuine question and give the history of similar questions from that IP. Feel free to discuss it here Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Why can't X be a Y word: Proposed response Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that. I'll take a look. doktorb _words^deeds 11:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Preston is listed as cited in the actual report itself as smallest seat and on page 195. Possibly you've looked at page 195 of the pdf? If so its on page 702 (of 1092) of the pdf file, the section which lists seats in England in descending order or electors. All the best, Valenciano (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I live in the above constituency and had a look at this page and found that there was no information about any of the prospective parliamentary candidates (other than of course the incumbent). I thought it would be useful to include links to a source of information on the internet about them - in most cases this is to their own personal pages since although there is a small amount of information about each of them available from "neutral" source, their personal/party sites seem more useful.

Now I've had a look at the policy and I don't think I'm obviously spamming. Certainly I have no particular interest about seeing anyone in particular elected (I'm struggling with this at the moment) and I'm not promoting them. Is there a way this information could be usefully provided on the page without violating a standard? What do you think. I notice that the MP's page on wikipedia does link to her "official site". It seems wrong in principle that she should have a link to her site and her opponents not. She's notable (for many reasons) so gets her own page. I don't think the others are but this isn't about that. Would "external links" at the bottom be more appropriate?

This is obviously a wider question. Francis Davey (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses on this. I can see your concern about self-promotion. What I wanted to see was some information about the candidates on the constituency page. It would be much more preferable to have links to local newspaper (or even national newspaper) reports about them which would give a more objective account of who they were. As we get nearer the election that does become more likely. I'll see if anyone objects to my putting them in external links and replace them with local media reports as they become available. I couldn't see anything obviously relevant that wasn't internal party stuff when I last looked. Francis Davey (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for beating me to the undo button there, you just saved me from a 3rr :) Cheers - Galloglass 11:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your fair mediation, by which I abide. I would welcome one link from every candidate to confirmed election campaign pages, removable in the event of any commercial/non-election use of those pages. The more opportunity the electorate has to compare and contrast candidates, the better! NigelHarris (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have replied on the talkpage here , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi please discuss you revert on the talkpage please. Off2riorob (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The article 21st Century Conservative Democrats has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I have searched long and hard and I can find no coverage of this party in reliable source, nor any coverage of Mr de Braam (other than a snippet mention of him standing in Tottenham in 2000, before this party was registered). The only web presence is a website dead since 2007 (viewable on the Internet Archive) and the Electoral Commission entry and report of accounts: but being registered =/= being notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia 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. Fences&Windows 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello - You, or someone with your username, has voted in the Global Sysops Vote but you don't have a Unified Login (SUL account). Please could you:

• merge your accounts
• or add a link from your Meta user page to your local user page.

This is necessary to confirm your identity or your vote may not be counted. Thank you --(RT) (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Islam Zinda Baad Platform, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam Zinda Baad Platform. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fences&Windows 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The article David Braid (campaigner) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:NOTE

While all contributions to Wikipedia 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. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit away, I only added the tags so it was not CSD'ed Codf1977 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Doktorbuk! You may remember me from last year (when I still had a functioning laptop). I read on the BBC website that the date for the 2010 UK General Election has been set to May 6th 2010. So I imagine you and the others at Wikiproject UK Politics (or whatever it's called these days) will be working like dogs for the next month. My laptop is still FUBARed so I can't help with Wiki too much but if you want something looked up or some factchecking, just holla on my talk page. Regards and good luck, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dok :) As one Wigan Athletic supporter to another, can I suggest not arguing on the Manchester thread in another place as its probably counter-productive. Cheers - Galloglass 18:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the above comment as everyone and his mother is now joining in! - Galloglass 05:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The article Linesearch (website) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not demonstrated due to lack of sources showing the website has been the subject of multiple non-trivial works

While all contributions to Wikipedia 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. Adambro (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)