Talk:2013 Kent County Council election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Kent Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

ED candidate in Malling Central

seems, that Anna Cleves does not exist, see http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/news/domestic-news/police-probe-english-democrats%E2%80%99-anna-cleves-amid-fake-candidates-claims-ahead-of-kent-county-council-elections ;-)

Info Box

There is no justification for removing this info box. I am slowly upgrading all the CC elections pages so that they are all consistent. However Sport and politics seems to be trying to make this difficult by undoing my edits, they have threatened to have me blocked when all I am doing is upgrading articles, I intend to add more information to these articles (and source it properly of course) so that all CC election articles are consistent. I am starting from the top of the pages and that happens to be info boxes. I notice that some articles have info boxes and others dont, it makes sense to add information, not remove it, this would be consistent with other articles. I would suggest that if any editors are to be blocked it should be those who are vandelising articles by removing information. All I am trying to do is make these articles consistent and another editor is making that very difficult. I from time to time come on wiki to do formatting as no one else seems to bother to do it properly and indeed some intend to remove information...so it seems. 94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not spread this discussion out over many articles please stuck to one article to discuss this the first article where this is being properly discussed is [[Talk:Lincolnshire County Council election, 2013 |here]] please discuss there and not everywhere. There may be a ban for disrupting Wikipeidia to try and make a point. Sport and politics (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please try and be polite instead of saying "rubbish" all the time. I don't take kindly to your accusation, I am the only person who has access to this IP and I do not have an account...that is my right and that is my choice. My history is clear and I have been accused and blocked before and appologised to for being wrongly blocked, so please do not peruse that route again. I have a good record, I mainly format, if you want to help help, I only do formatting really, I am getting the formatting consistent, I will not be trawling through websites to add results, I format and maybe add text, if you want to help adding the results would be a good thing you can do instead of persistently undoing my hard work. Like I say no one else seems to bother formatting at my level so I would appreciate it if you showed a little mutual respect, instead of "rubbishing" and reverting my edits, be helpful to wikipedia, not a vandal. 94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion centralised here Sport and politics (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded introduction as part of re-adding info box edit...more information to be added in the opening section when I add the generic opening paragraph. 94.9.98.107 (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearranged article so that it is identical to it's sister articles. I have followed the above dispute between Sport and politics and 94.9.98.107. I have discovered that Sport and politics was removing sourced material and had indeed started an edit war, the user subsequently decided to try and report 94.9.98.107 for that very offence. This complaint was struck out by an administrator and Sport and politics was given a warning. I hope that Sport and politics decides to only make constructive contributions from now on. I am confident that this issue will not flare up again as both Sport and politics and 94.9.98.107 seem to have lost interest in the article. 130.88.52.43 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Control of the Council

The top of the article states that this election saw the Conservatives lose overall control of KCC. The summary section however states that they retained overall control. Common sense says the second of these is correct (they have a majority of 2 seats against all other parties), however I didn't want to change unless this was a bit more complicated - either way, one of the statements is wrong? 79.123.51.121 (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]