User talk:Doktorbuk: Difference between revisions

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

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:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

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)[reply]

Re: [1]. The voting system is not the same every year and has changed plenty. Saying that it would have been the same just because it had been the same the previous year and has not (yet) been announced to differ is WP:Original research. This is equal to saying that the contest always takes place in May, or that Germany always participates just because this has been the case in recent years. Moreover, the article makes no mention of the voting system allegedly being used, and therefore provides no source for it or its use in the previous contest(s), thus failing WP:Verifiability. Per WP:Burden, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." There is no burden for "unverifiability", as the principle of "everything is true unless proven wrong" is not valid on Wikipedia. Lastly, the contest has not taken place, wherefore no voting system has been used. Hence, the voting system should not be mentioned in the infobox for the Eurovision Song Contest 2020. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider this a reliable source for updating List of electoral wards in Suffolk to include Newmarket's new wards in West Suffolk

https://www.doogal.co.uk/AdministrativeAreas.php?district=E07000245

I'm not an expert in the topic, but you seem to edit politics-related things, so thought I'd ask.

--Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chelston-temp-1: Hey. Thanks for the message. I would say possibly not because it seems to be a personal hobby site collating information rather than an official site providing information. My best bet would be the council website itself and/or the LGBCE at [2] . Hope this helps. doktorb _words^deeds 04:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On the articles like List of electoral wards in West Yorkshire, should some of the actual wards be added, e.g. for the blank ones in Leeds, under Wards from 1 April 1974 (first election 10 May 1973) to 1 May 1980:[1]

Wards from 1 May 1980 to 10 June 2004:[9]

Wards from 10 June 2004 to 3 May 2018: where sources are cited? I don't know if my edits would mess the formatting up! --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chelston-temp-1: Aah. Anything that old might need a bit of research. If you try the Legislation.gov website, you might get some success if you search the local authority name. It's not quite my area of expertise! doktorb _words^deeds 00:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding this deletion of yours, I'd hardly call it nonsense. The question refers to the article on Black the Ripper, pointing out that it lacks a date of death. Reading the article, it says that he was found dead on 6 April, but the RD questioner is correct to point out that there is no actual date of death given. Presumably, if he was found dead, there is no certainty on the actual date of his death. But the question should have been allowed to stand. --Viennese Waltz 08:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, a reply would be courteous. I see that you've been very active on Wikipedia since I left the above message, but for some reason you haven't had the courtesy of replying to me. --Viennese Waltz 19:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doktorbuk, you recently reverted an edit I made to the short description of the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 page. As you likely know, a short description is supposed to be as brief as possible, and preferably not include words already in the article title. Why did you feel that my edit was inappropriate and should be reverted, without even providing a reason for the revert? werewolf (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Revirvlkodlaku. Apologies. I thought it was appropriate to have the title in the short description. Consider my wrist slapped for the error. No malice intended. doktorb _words^deeds 15:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doktorbuk, not a problem at all, no wrist has been slapped, this sounds like it was a mere misunderstanding :) werewolf (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think it would be better if you help me create a Wikipedia page for all of the recorded nominees for the Nobel Prize in Literature. I got the record from Nobel Prize Nomination Database. Thank you. WeCareICare (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you could please make some fixes on some polling tables? On the page Leadership approval opinion polling for the next Senedd Cymru election it is stated to use dmy dates but the tables are incorrectly dated month and then day. I managed to change this around (see my edit in the history section for how) but it messed up the 'date to' section. I realised how to fix this but I have no programme or automated way to do it and I kept messing up somewhere along the process of individually fixing each date. I was wondering if you could please help? Helper201 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Helper201: sorry for not getting back to you, I have been meaning to respond quicker. I'll take a look and see if I can fathom it out. Thanks for the message x doktorb _words^deeds 00:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw you were involved in the discussion on List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present) regarding maintaining their age on this page.

Unfortunately the other user is intent on removing their age, focussing on the very narrow view that the page is specifically about seniority and therefore other metrics such as age are not relevant.

I have looked at other similar articles which DO have ages - such as List of current United States senators, List of current members of the United States House of Representatives - and have therefore decided to create a new page which contains ages and seniority which you can find here:

List of current Members of Parliament for the United Kingdom

Very happy for edits on here and for any comments you might have in the talk page of List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present)

Hi,

Thanks for the elevation of this. I have added context on "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" page so you can understand why the term "nationalist" is inappropriate in it's usage on the Alba Party page. Kez321 (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with 19.000 edits behind their belt should know better than to re-nominate an article for deletion 2 weeks after the last AfD was closed as "keep". This is highly disruptive. Do this again and I will block you. If you want to contest the previous close, go to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have changed the templates on all of the Scottish Constituency articles. This isn't necessary - the template automatically detects whether the party has an article, and links accordingly. Your edits have also had the effect of removing the /meta/color and /meta/shortname functionality, which can be used even if the party doesn't have an article (I had created templates for all of the minor parties that are standing to minimise the amount of grey boxes and standardise the formatting). I hope you don't mind if I add this function back in again. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 09:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PinkPanda272 Oh PP, I'm sorry, really sorry, I didn't think about that. Wrist slapped, didn't mean to mess things up. doktorb _words^deeds 10:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I've fixed it now. I had been meaning to go through all of the constituency articles anyway, to check how many needed updating with the AMS template (fortuitously only one - Glasgow Pollok). Best, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 20:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely puzzled by your admin action on Talk:2021 Scottish Parliament election to close down discussion of Alba as Decoy Party. In particular, I think that your tag of "this falls foul of WP:NOTFORUM" is less than helpful. To be more precise, did I fall foul of the policy in trying to engage with the person making the proposal? Or are you saying that the proposal itself falls foul of the policy?

On the whole, I think you should have let the discussion run and see if other editors have a different view from mine on the proposal and I definitely think you should have engaged with me more directly if you think I engaged wrongly with the proposal, rather than shutting the discussion down. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doktor B, I've noticed that you've added results boxes to a couple of pages on my watchlist for elections tomorrow. They aren't blank and contain placeholder 1s to prevent the template from breaking, and consequently they are quite confusing to try to interpret. I've reverted the London one, but would you like to self-revert the others? Those pages are going to have one of their peak readerships tomorrow and a misleading results box is not going to help the general reader. Thanks for your work on getting them set up, all the same, though; it's going to make inputting the results once they arrive much faster and easier. Ralbegen (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ralbegen. I did wonder about keeping them hidden because of that very reason. I've tried to "zero" them and it breaks so the holder numbers can't be avoided, I don't think. But yeah, I'll put them in hider-arrows (or whatever the correct term is!) and then as the results come in we can reveal them again. It was in my mind to hide them, I thought it might be better to show the candidates in a box as a summary, both Tees and Yorkshire seemed far too text-heavy. Fair point though, the holder numbers could be misleading. doktorb _words^deeds 23:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, you think the author of four best selling books, with articles about her in the Guardian and Times, who is a household name in the UK, doesn't meet notability criteria? Why?Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not WP:BADGER and remember to be WP:CIVIL. I have set out my reasons on the AfD page and all discussion should be contained there. This is my talk page, not the AfD page. doktorb _words^deeds 10:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're a liar as well. I have not "almost exclusively edited the Mrs Hinch article". Jesus, why are prolific Wikipedia editors almost universally tossers?

Your recent editing history at National Party (Ireland) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. While I fully understand new WP:SPA accounts promoting particular views, can I say it's disappointing to see an experienced editor not even try to keep to the spirit of WP:BRD. You (and the other editors) were bold, you were reverted, it is therefore time to discuss - not to edit war. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m adding this because I noticed that a while ago you had considered leaving Wikipedia because you felt harassed. I understand the feeling, as I felt the same way and changed my username so I could edit in peace. Please don’t leave! Your contributions are important and your hard work on fixing articles and a variety of other things on Wikipedia haven’t gone unnoticed! Thank you for your hard work here, I for one appreciate it. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Doktorbuk:. I noticed your edit here and I agree with you. In addition, @Stephen: has reverted the edit 3 times in less than 24 hours - Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. Please see @Deb: @Doc James: @Gamaliel: @Ixfd64: @Ixfd64: @Pegship: @Vanjagenije: @Rosiestep: @Amakuru:. Do some rules not apply to Administrators? Can content directly related to a talk page be purged like that? Ear-phone (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see only 2 reversions. Deb (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless I think the reversion of talk page content is to be discouraged. Personal talk page control is fine within limits. Perhaps something for ANI if it's not improved doktorb _words^deeds 20:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you @Doktorbuk:. I'm not sure if you can restore the content? Otherwise something for ANI awareness. @Stephen: Ear-phone (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally follow politics related AfDs and have come across a number of your nominations. Please take this as a comment made with good intent irrespective of inclusionism/deletionism. According to this for 2021 you're running at around 20% for your AfD nominations ... it would be less if the no consensus and withdrawn nominations were included. Please reconsider your nominations for 2022, there's far too many keeps this last 12 months. It would help if you didn't use cut and paste nominations. If an article has been to AfD previously and consensus was keep, please indicate why DRV is not appropriate and what has changed that requires a new AfD. Finally, please indicate what WP:BEFORE processes you have undertaken in relation to the subject. Thanks and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Far too many keeps" is a problem for Wikipedia, not me. I believe, genuinely, that we are too lenient with non-notable political parties. They seem to have a free pass for reasons I can't fathom. So I'll carry on AfDing articles until they are deleted. doktorb _words^deeds 12:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I had to undo your edits on ESC 2023 page because with your rollback it has again added some duplicate pragrafes regarding the "Location" and a portion of the "Other countries", which were inadvertently added despite these paragraphs were already present.

Furthermore, it has also mistakenly restored some dates (which have not been confirmed by any official source or by the EBU itself) and the organizing country (given the delicate situation Ukraine is currently experiencing with the war).

I hope these reasons have cleared up the misunderstanding and that we will continue to cooperate on the platform in a peaceful manner :) -- « Ðømīnīk • Cåpuån » 01:12, 12 jun 2022 (CET)

I believe your revert to the most recent edit to the article was unwarranted without discussion on the nature of the edits. I decided to be bold because it generates discussion and ultimately makes for a better article. Reverting good faith edits without discussion can start destructive edit conflicts. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit explained that I edited out the Union Flag from Northern Ireland due to my understanding about WP:TROUBLES and related policies. I thought it was absolutely on topic to explain my edits in main space. doktorb _words^deeds 18:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doktorbuk. Thank you for creating 2022 West Lancashire by-election. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 20:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering why you deleted the plot summary. The whole article does not make any sense without it. Either put the whole entry up for deletion or rewrite the summary yourself. What you have done borders on vandalism. I'm not saying this because I wrote it a long time ago but because I'd be just as frustrated if I were looking up something and found an unintelligible rump text.

<KF> 18:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OWN to see policy on what happens when you create anything on Wikipedia and how its open for editing or removal. Please see WP:PLOT about what is acceptable content and also remember that Wikipedia is a n encyclopedia so the tone of the "summary" was far too chatty and blog-like to be acceptable. Further to all this, please see WP:AGF about accusing editors of vandalism. Thank you doktorb _words^deeds 19:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I have not accused you of vandalism. If you are happy with this removal, so be it. Users who are interested in the novel will have a look at the earlier versions of the entry and find what they want.

I have always found it hard to discuss things with people who feel attacked no matter how I phrase my concerns. Good luck to you! <KF> 01:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]