TedEdwards

Home

Talk

Sandboxes

Userboxes

Tabs

Twinkle

Edits

It is approximately 6:59 PM where this user lives (UK). []

Correct time

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Vanquishers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Starkey. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

IP editor's faulty crystal ball

Hey. Just thought you might find this funny. Yesterday evening you reverted an IP editor who said Kemi Badenoch would be the candidate eliminated in today's ballot, turns out it was actually Tom Tugendhat. I think IP needs a new crystal ball! Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Yeah it quite ironic isn't it? It also reminds us why Wikipedia has a consensus not to treat these psychics as reliable sources, doesn't it?! Though I'm not sure that consensus is explicitly worded anywhere... --TedEdwards 21:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election infobox

Hi, I just wanted to ask why you don't like the more detailed info box. If you think having 9 parties is unnecessary then you could have removed all but Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and SNP. It is also the standard template for most major upcoming elections see 2022 United States House of Representatives elections, next Finnish parliamentary election and next German federal election. As well as past elections see 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, 2019 Finnish parliamentary election and 2021 German federal election. The template in terms of the information it gives and the visual representation of it is in my opinion is just better. I have started a discussion on the talk page about it. — RealFakeKimT 22:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi RealFakeKim, thanks for reaching out to me and I'm sorry I didn't see your message sooner. Regarding your comparisons to other pages, I would point you to the essay WP:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments and the guideline MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the latter saying The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. With regard to "other stuff exists", that does not mean one article can't do the same as another, but to make a valid arguement on doing that, I think a) you need to say why it works on that article and b) why it will work on this article.

So, looking at the US House elections, there are only two parties in that House. This means Template:Infobox election is a good idea for the 2022 election because not much detail needs to be brought across, so using that infobox (which, in terms of information, only adds photos of the leaders) is a good choice, as there is room for less essential detail. However, with the UK election, there are many more than two parties, and for the next election, especially since it is likely over a year away, you can't say which of the many parties will be significant in representing to overall result; for example, a previously minor party could recieve a large swing (take 2015 with the swing to SNP, which I don't think was predicted say in early 2014). So while after elections the minor parties can be excluded, before an election you don't know which those parties are, so the best position is to include all the parties, but remove the photos as less-essential detail, to meet the purpose of an infobox to summarise key facts.

Regarding the Finnish elections, I think that the previous election's infobox has way too much information for a reader to absorb. So if I had anything to do with that page (I don't due to my somewhat lack of knowledge of Finnish politics) I would probably overhaul that infobox. --TedEdwards 21:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It is surly not relevant what may or may not happen in the election. The purpose of the infobox before the election is to display information about the state of parliament before the election. Therefor the information provided by the infobox is of value as it shows how the situation has changed. See the infobox regarding the next German federal election it is a PR multi party system meaning the results of the election could be wildly different from the one before. Yet it still uses the more in-depth infobox. — RealFakeKimT 10:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So you're right when you say what the purpose of the infoboxes for future elections is. But TILE does that to the same degree of detail as TIE, bar the photos of the leaders, which are good to have but are not essential so I believe they should be removed if there's a lot of parties (in other words, a lot of detail needs to be conveyed about the current state of Parliament). I think your comparison when the next German election isn't valid, as there are only 6 parties in the Bundestag (technically 7, but it's fairly common to count CDU and CSU as one, as you might already know) so there's more room for less essential detail i.e. the leaders' portraits. But there are 11 parties in the House of Commons, which a) too many for TIE to represent and b) even if TIE could include that number of parties it still wouldn't be a good idea as you're giving the reader too much information to absorb at a glance (see the quote I took earlier taken from MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) with the added leaders' portraits. --TedEdwards 22:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Doctor Who News website.

It's a reliable source and you don't know that they "have no idea" where it's from. If it's an RS and it supports the statement then it can be used as the source. Romomusicfan (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Romomusicfan: Yes, if it actually said explicitly that Ncuti was appearing in the anniversary specials, which it doesn't. The way you're interpreting the caption is really clutching at straws. --TedEdwards 16:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sisterhood of Karn stories

Template:Sisterhood of Karn stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

UK House of Commons Composition

As you stated, Mark Logan did defect to Labour, but the official House of Commons website states he did not defect whilst a member, so technically, the Conservatives had 345 MPs. Source: https://members.parliament.uk/member/4815/career Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 15:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wikieditor019: my understanding is his defection was announced on 30 May, but actually happened on 29 May (before dissolution), from this tweet with his resignation letter dated the 29 May 2024 (and also on Commons' stationary, which would not be the case if he had written that letter after dissolution). Sky News also referred to this letter, also mentioning it was on Commons' stationary. --TedEdwards 16:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Humility

I engaged with what you said - my edits to the page reflect this. I do not find the way you corrected me helpful. I have explained how and why. I have even apologised for my uninformed mistake and corrected it I want to be a helpful contributor but your way of correcting people is just not helpful. I feel disrespected. I mean no disrespect to you but I personally feel offended by the way you go about correcting people… maybe it’s merely a case of being too brief and too assertive? Please can we try to get along better? WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticising how I corrected you is not the issue I have with you. I think it was clear what my problem was, but you're welcome to push back on that in a civilised manner. The issue I have with you is you called my edit "vandalism", which is grossly offensive. --TedEdwards 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As explained, I am still learning wiki policy. I interpreted the edit as vandalism with the understanding I had at the time - I now accept that was incorrect. However, I will stop short of an apology on that point given the way you have interacted with me thus far. You have not been fair to me as a newcomer and I’ve found it thoroughly unpleasant WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)