User talk:Owl In The House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Owl In The House, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Darkness Shines (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wales (European Parliament constituency) 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:
  • |candidate = <small>[[Pippa Bartolotti]]</small><ref>[ The Wales

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1997 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:
  • | image5 = [[File:Michael Howard 1099 cropped.jpg|100px|Michael Howard

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

EU election, 2014 (United Kingdom)[edit]

It would be hardly possible, at least for the full 2009-2014 period; there aren't enough polls to even try to think about it. Polls available (the earliest of which, by the way, dates from Jan 13, when the last election was held in June 09) won't be enough to cover a single year, and the resulting graph would feel rather weird. Impru20 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Point taken but there are going to be a lot of polls from various companies coming in over the next few months. I agree that it is simply not possible to do a graph across the whole Parliament or indeed over the whole of the data available. It does seem clear that there are going to be a lot more polls than there were for the 2009 election and that there will (in time) be enough data to do a graph to cover polling movements during the campaign starting from January 2014. I expect there will be a bare minimum of 25 further opinion polls but there could be as many as 50 polls, either figure over a 5 and a half month period would be more than sufficient to produce a graph. Perhaps we should wait until March before a graph for 2014 is started.

I notice a rather crude graph for the 2009 elections was done on a similar basis (graph starting from May 2009). The 2009 graph is better than nothing but as I say it is rather crude, maybe you could look at replacing that if you don't mind? And then look at 2014 when there is more data, perhaps in March. Cheers Owl In The House (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Newark by-election Infobox[edit]

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)

New Zealand election infoboxes[edit]

Your edits are not helpful. I find it rather objectionable when you give edit summaries like this one: "Please dont edit war,I have reverted back to original state until consensus is reached as per wiki policy, take this to one of the talk pages and tag me in please". Fact is that the Social Credit Party has been included in the infobox since it was first added in July 2009. So it is you who wants to change this, and it should therefore be you who should start the discussion on the talk page. Do not expect others to start this discussion for you. If you cannot get your facts straight, may I respectfully suggest that you remove New Zealand elections from your sphere of interest? Schwede66 18:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Where did you find the east of england results?-- (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't me who entered them, I have only been tinkering with formatting and made a bit of a hash of it, check edit history to see who entered those ;) cheers Owl In The House (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Can you do the same in north east England because it is a bit clumsy?-- (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Someone's sorted it, I'd got all the formatting done, then there was an edit conflict but the other editor did it well. Owl In The House (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North West England (European Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afzal Khan (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) 08:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

MEP changes[edit]

Hi, this popped up on my computer, I just wanted to first say that I was the person who was removing the predecessors from newly elected MEPs, my account had logged out and I didn't notice.

The reason I removed a lot of them is because it is incorrect to say that on MEP succeeded another based on the tables in Wikipedia because they aren't an official record of succession from one person to another, but just a way of presenting who the MEPs have been for the region and how the party strength has changed over time. The tables are only ordered in the way that they are for presentational purposes, not because the order is based how seats have necessarily changed from one person to another. This is made clear with other tables on constituency pages - if you go onto a Scottish Electoral region, such as North East Scotland or an Irish constituency, such as Dún Laoghaire, they explicitly say below that they are presentational purposes and no significance should be attached to the order (something that should perhaps be added to the European constituency pages).

You said "the terms predecessor and successor still apply as there is a clear and traceable line of succession", which I completely agree with, but in some of the cases there isn't a clear line of succession.

To give two examples of what is clear line of succession, you would look at the Scotland results. The only change in the number of seats won by each party is that the Lib Dems lost a seat and UKIP gained a seat, so in this case it is reasonable to say David Coburn succeeded George Lyon. The Conservative MEP retired and a new Conservative MEP was elected, with the Conservatives winning the same number of seats, and so its reasonable to say that Ian Duncan succeeded Struan Stevenson.

In the North West, however, it is much less clear. You added to Louise Bours's profile that her predecessor was Nick Griffin, but why? She didn't take over "Seat 2 for North West England", she was merely first elected, with others, at an election where he, with others, lost his seat. The only reason you said she succeed him was because someone put her name after his on the table, but I could swap her name and Steven Woolfe's and it would be just as correct. In the North West two new UKIP and one Labour MEPs were elected at the expense of one Conservative, one Lib Dem and one BNP MEP, and there is no non-arbitrary way of saying which person succeeded who, and how they are added to the table isn't enough to claim a clear line of succession, because the tables are only there to be presentational, they're not any sort of official record.

In short, using the table is a poor way to determine a line of succession of MEPs. If there were only a small number of changes in membership than it might be possible to say who succeded who, but if there are a lot of changes than trying to say who succeeded who would just be meaningless guesses, which means there's little point in including it in the profiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talkcontribs) 14:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have explained all this in full on both the Talk:Nick Griffin and Talk:Andrew Brons, there is a clear and traceable line of succession and I have explained it in full for both cases, it merely requires a further understanding of the electoral system. Owl In The House (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

UKIP infobox[edit]

Despite the fact I actually agree with you that UKIP should be in the 2015 locals infobox, just wanted to give you a headsup that I have removed them from the infobox, and have explained why on the talk page. Redverton (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Dude, I don't understand this. I'm on your side, but trying to force UKIP in when clearly the concensus was against including them for such articles is silly. You're only going to turn people off from our argument! I've removed UKIP again - we need to stick to the current consensus, even if we agree it's wrong. Redverton (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not trying to push any agenda here, so I am not on anybody's side on this. I am merely doing what the evidence suggests. The last time most of these seats/wards were fought UKIP were in the info box Fact, there is no reason why they should not be this time. This is a different article with largely the same content as 2014 (you seem to ignore this) any change of consensus must be freshly sought, currently we have consensus for inclusion of UKIP in the info box. By your own admission you want UKIP there, you are the one damaging the case for inclusion by questioning it, Not me. I shall revert the edit once more in a single edit via undo to take the article back to it's original form which does indeed have. If you undo it again, that will be considered edit warring which is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Now it seems utterly absurd for an edit war to start over something we agree on, so please don't start one. You are damaging your own case here by being overly cautious and raising questions that need not be raised, I cannot understand why you persist. Owl In The House (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
As you yourself have said, you sought and failed to gain a case for UKIP inclusion both in 2013 and 2014 - in both cases, a wide-ranging consensus was reached that UKIP ought not to be included in local infoboxes at this time. The consensus fully applies to this article as well, and you're inviting alot of controversy. The fact you felt obliged to leave a list of reasons why UKIP deserved admission on the talk page shows you realise this is controversial! To be honest, I was more doing this to avoid yet another year-long discussion about whether to include UKIP in the infobox. If we'd done this transparently and openly, we could have resolved this issue once and for all, and reversed the established consensus! Instead, because you're so eager to be sneaky about this, you've now opened up the potential for yet another year-long argument on the talk page. Great going... Redverton (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
If you're so damn eager to bypass gaining a new concensus on this, that's your business. Just don't complain when more people come in who aren't so sympathetic to your arguments as I. If we'd done this properly now, we could have potentially avoided a year-long debate, which could well happen, if 2013 and 2014 are anything to go by. Redverton (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. I have not come here with an agenda. Can you please observe good faith and retract that accusation. I was not involved in the 2012 or 2013 discussions so you are wrong about that. Could you please stop ignoring Wiki policy. You are completely ignoring the reasons why there IS consensus for UKIP to be included in this article's info box. If you continue with this approach I am afraid I will have to take action to protect this page or restrict your access to it. With regard to my comments about being "proven wrong", they are not really of any relevance because the fact remains that last time these elections were held there was consensus for UKIP's inclusion in the info box. Will you please stop arguing about this point. If you want to give specific reasons as to why UKIP should be retrospectively removed from the infobox then please go and make that case. Stop ignoring my requests for you to abide by wiki policy because I will escalate this if I need to. Owl In The House (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I saw your comments in the 2014 local election article talk page plenty (2012/2013 was corrected earlier to 2013/2014). If I've misread your position from 2014, please show me where I went wrong. Good faith is not a cover for ignoring obvious attempts at bypassing consensus - your position on this issue is clear from 2014, and your talk page comments were an obvious attempt at preempting any debates of what you put into the article - an obvious acknowledgement of how controversial this is. And as I have repeated again and again, you know concensus was established over UKIP in local election infboxes, and you're trying to overrride that unilaterally. As I have said, you want to keep them in the infobox, that's your business - just don't blame me if people cry foul. Redverton (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the whole point here. Do you want me to escalate matters or are you prepared to follow Wiki policy? I have no agenda here, you have openly stated what you would like as a desired outcome and I can not believe you choose to damage your case by making an issue of this. I am merely following Wiki policy here and if that "damages UKIP's chances of being in the info box" that is your funeral, not mine, I have no agenda, I am merely seeking to follow wiki policy and reflect reliable sources. Thank you Owl In The House (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

When I made clear I don't need you copying convos to my talk page, I didn't expect you to then re-add it again. A user's talk page is his own business. Please don't attempt to re-add anything, otherwise we're going to have new problems. Policy quite clearly establishes editors cannot try to force content onto a user's talk page. Redverton (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you are editing far too quick for me to keep up, sorry if I have not read things in time for you but that is just the way things go if you insist on continuing to reverse edits at such a rapid pace. As I said in the note of what I put in your talk page, feel free to undo, I was only making sure you could see what I'd put and obviously I hadn't seen your request for me not to do so. This is getting very frustrating, can I suggest that we stick to the articles talk page instead of jumping around. You were the one who opened up dialogue on a User talk page (mine), not me. Lets stick to the articles talk page from now on. As far as the article goes, lets leave the article, with the 4 party's in it (reflecting the the consensus established last time these wards were contested) until other editors have had a chance to contribute. This has got very silly now and very frustrating as you haven't even acknowledged any of the points I have put to you. Despite all of the tooing and frowing and confusion I have at least saught to answer your points. No more on mine or your talk pages Thankyou Owl In The House (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

UKIP renaming in articles edit summaries Suggestion[edit]

Hello, I notice you've been correctly changing the name of the UK Independence Party in articles recently. However, the edit summaries seem to be rather aggressive. May I suggest that in future you use a less aggressive edit summary? Thanks DJAMP4444 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not an aggressive edit summary, it is an exceptionally clear one and seemingly necessary. I do not mean the slightest hint of aggression or indeed malice these edits. There is nothing offensive or indeed aggressive about "eradicating this non existent "United Kingdom Independence Party" and replacing it with its proper/official name "UK Independence Party"", it's just very direct and clear, no aggression implied or meant at all. Thankyou Owl In The House (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but you and User:Sport and politics are both wrong concerning the "official" name of the party. According to The Electoral Commission's Register of Political Parties, it's "UK Independence Party (UKIP)", not "UK Independence Party" and not "United Kingdom Independence Party". Of course, on Wikipedia we normally go by the common name, not the official name, and that seems to have been settled as "UK Independence Party" by Talk:UK Independence Party#Requested move. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If you check the electoral commission's records (parties re register every year), you will see that it is only in the last year or so that the party changed its official name to "UK Independence Party (UKIP)". This still highlights my point that there is no such thing as "United Kingdom Independence Party" and never has been. The newly registered name includes the party's full written name and it's acronym/common name. So for Wikipedia purposes we should be following the same principle as before: when writing the name out in full we call it; "UK Independence Party", in short/in election boxes etc "UKIP" but it can also be referred to as "Ukip" in a sentence. Owl In The House (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is such a thing as "United Kingdom Independence Party": it's a registered description and as such the party is free to use it on election and referendum ballots. Of course, that official permission in and of itself isn't a reason for us to refer to the Party as "United Kingdom Independence Party" on Wikipedia. I'm fine with using "UK Independence Party" and "UKIP" as the preferred terms here; I only wanted to clear up some incidental matters of fact concerning which name is "official". —Psychonaut (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Liberal Democrats[edit]

You have added information to the infobox which is clearly contentious as it has been removed many times by a number of editors. The burden is on you to start a discussion in the talk page. Sticking a source next to something doesn't give it immunity if the source is disputed and doesn't describe what you think it does. A google search would turn up other articles detailing that twenty prominent members of the Pro-Euro Conservatives joined the Lib Dems, but the party itself disbanded; a merger implies that the entire political organisation was assimilated into the Liberal Democrats. I could argue further, but I'll stop now because this discussion should take on the Liberal Democrats talk page. I won't revert your edit again, but I invite you to instigate a discussion. -- HazhkTalk 20:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

next UK General election[edit]

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 would tend to agree, and have started to draft, but would like others' views before I put too much work into it. Please comment! DrArsenal (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)