Talk:2013 Lincolnshire County Council election

Infobox

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) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not the editor that created this info box, this was added way before I even looked at the article, you are therefore acting against consensus by removing it. Can you try and be constructive, instead of removing material 94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. Not "acting against consensus" if the other editor as you claim wants to contribute they can silence though from previous editors does not confer support for your position just because you are doing the same thing as them.Llogging out and editing as an IP is a common tactic to appear as an additional editor to garner support or try and demonstrate support for a position. I am not say that is what is happening here but that must be known. Slowly upgrading is also not acheived by cluttering up the ppages and duplicating information and adding confusing images such as pie charts or separating out "independents" The best way to upgrade these articles is to add the ward by ward results and canidate percentages and change from previous election not adding duplication of information which is at best clutter and at worse confusing to the reader. Sport and politics (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC).

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)

The duplication of information renders the infobox rubbish. The use of the word rubbish is perfectly fine and correct in this context calling rubbish rubbish is not impolite its factually accurate. Also please refrain from personalising comments and stick to the issues here, straying from the content and commenting on the user is a violation of assume good faith. if you want to format wikipedia please format pages where the standards are not consistent or where the formatting is of genuine benefit to the articles, in this case the formatting is is adding duplication and cluttering the pages. So it is being unhelpful and not constructive, though is being done in good faith. Sport and politics (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry but you have breached good faith before I did and you have personalized things, I have merely reacted. I dont want to go down that road and I don't want to fall out so please stop threatening me and be constructive.

The Matter in Hand: By your definition EVERY info box is rubbish because every info box is a duplication of information that is already on the page, including the info box for United Kingdom general election, 2010 and European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom) etc etc etc. I intend to add the info box to all pages and then add sourced text below it, I am editing the articles from top to bottom. Your argument is "rubbish" as you put it. Can I ask you to adopt a more civil and constructive tone. Your argument does not work, clearly we need other editors to discuss this because you are being stubborn with your inconsistent argument and also persistently threatening me with blocks and failing to assume good faith. 94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No, in these small and local election pages where the summary of results and Infobox convey the same information or virtually the same information they are redundant and duplicative. For example the 2010 General election infobox is useful as it provides a quick glance at the top parties and the summary provides all parties and there are loads and a quick glance is not possible. In these small election articles a quick glance is easily achieved from the summary box and the infobox is duplication and redundant. Going ahead unilaterally and adding them all and making that threat is bad faith and will likely result in a ban for using wikipedia to make a point, bad faith, ignoring constructive discussion and not acting in good faith. This is a constructive discussion just because you disagree with my POV doesn't mean yours take precedent or that you can simply just plough on with what you are wanting to do as you disagree with the other users. The discussion has started it now needs to run its course. When it concludes what ever the consensus reached is what will be carried forwards. Bold has been done, revert has been done its time now to discuss and work towards consensus, free from threats that say no more than "This is a waste of my time I'm right and I will just add and ignore this discussion". Sport and politics (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now this is a sensible discussion, it was you who was initially slamming your fist on the table refering to the edits as "rubbish" reverting edits just because you disagree with them....now I am pleased to say you are engaging in debate.

The Matter in hand' right, your argument still doesn't hold because we use info boxes for parliamentary by elections e.g. the most recent South Shields by-election, 2013. Basically we use an info box for everything except this because you don't want one. This is not a valid reason. Furthermore you seem to suggest that I will not be adding text to the articles, I will. So it will not be a case of having a results table next to an info box as you seem to assume. May I repeat I intend to standardise ALL of these local election articles starting from the top of the page and working my way down. I am intending to model these pages on the layout and formatting of the layout and format used for Parliamentary by-elections, General elections, European Elections and local elections nationally i.e. info box followed by a few sections of text followed by full results table. I can't get my head round your argument, you are arguing that these pages should break current precedent used for ALL other elections. 2.120.46.143 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide evidence of historical use of infoboxes on local government articles for places such as wet sussex East Sussex Kent Essex etc (and even if you can see below as to why they should not be included). I have also provided detailed explanations of my POV as to why the addition are complete rubbish (and that the use of the word rubbish is justified). This is not a case of I don't like this is a case of prevention of duplication and clutter. In long articles where there are loads and loads of candidates from many many parties an infobox is justified. When a handful of parties stand and the summary box is near the beginning of the article is is nonsensical to add a summary box and an infobox. The summary box is more comprehensive. Also do reader understand all the content of the info box who are uninitiated to the article and have no prior knowledge. There may be an assumption that because these individuals are listed in the infobox they are notable when wiki policy clearly states they are not except for MPs and exceptional cases of very well known council leader or high profile councillors or celebrity councillors. Also how notable is the information of which was a group leader on a council at disillusionment. The Euro elections list the national party leader and not the Euro group leaders. Also what is the relevance of the division/ward they stood in to the lay person. This is not a technical magazine or politics repository. It is an open access encyclopedia which has to be accessible as far as possible to all readers. These infoboxes fly in the face of that open and easy accessibility principle. If it cannot be justified the addition (such as these infoboxes, which has yet to be done) is helpful, relevant, easily understood and necessary, then it fails to meets the standards to be included on this encyclopedia. Sport and politics (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept your argument, you seem to argue that local elections should be treated differently to EVERY OTHER elections page (General, Local, EU, By-election etc) with no sufficient reason. Furthermore, you have once again ignored the fact that I intend to flesh out all the County Council articles, following the same layout as by-elections and other elections. This involves the addition of text Please stop ignoring what I am saying. It is one thing to disregard what I say but to ignore what I say and focus on one aspect is unhelpful. We want the encyclopedia to be consistent in layout, this is how encyclopedias generally work. Do you want to help me flesh out these articles or do you wish to continue to be obstructive? All I am doing is starting at the top of the article and working my way down and doing each section all in one go to save my time. Do you want to help improve Wikipedia or hinder? Or shall I go down your preferred route of threatening to have you blocked?(as you did with me) I'd rather not 2bh. 2.120.46.143 (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) You would be correct local election should be treated differently due to notability those who are elected at national level are notable for being in politics those elected at local elections do not meet Wikpeidas criteria for notability as a politician. The only exception being Regional bodies which are equivalent to devolved legislatures in Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland such as the Greater London Authority.Te encyclopedia has to adhere to notability criteria and has a robust policy which trumps your vague consistency theory. Notability differentiates and as such the notability policy must be adhered to. There is no obstructiveness here just a reigning in of addition of clutter and duplicative confusing rubbish which is in violation of policies on notability. Sport and politics (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Im not proposing we use any local politicians names, merely the partys (of national significance) and the number of seats (also of national significance as they compose the national figures), so no, you have once again misinterpreted my edits and tried to say that I intend to use local council members in order to fit your own argument. I do not intend to include council leaders in the info box 94.9.98.107 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What does this infobox give that the summary box does not? Nothing it is just duplication. Sport and politics (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again: By defenition ALL info boxes for election articles are a duplication because they provide a summary, this argument does not work, nor does your local politicians argument, I've done my best to discuss this with you sensibly but you keep ignoring the facts and accuse me of breaking wiki policy when Im not 94.9.98.107 (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between a summary of information for a quick view such on General election article where hundreds of parties stand and simply repeating identical information where only a handful of parties stand in a Council election. In this case the addition is just duplication and clutter and not a useful help in summarising the results in a quick glance format. Sport and politics (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

OK you pick general election the extreme example of hundreds of candidates and parties. What about European Elections or by-elections? The info box does exactly the same thing for those elections as it does for these elections, it cuts away the fat and gives a summary, to pretty much exactly the same proportion as these electionjs, so this is yet another flawed argument that we can immidiately discount. Its a shame, its not often I get the opportunity/time to offer time to improving wikipedia and you have wasted most of this weekend for me. I do not get the chance to edit often and much of my effort has been in rebutting your nonsensical arguments, when I could hve finished the entirity of these local elections articles. As for reporting me, I think you've made a fool of yourself. 94.9.98.107 (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To use your terminology there is no fat to cut away. By election articles are usually long and detailed and usually attract lots of candidates eg Eastleigh had 14 Candidates East Sussex had 5 parties standing and 2 types of independent. so where is the fat as you claim to cut in the East sussex article. Nowhere as there is none. it is just duplication and clutter.Sport and politics (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that Sport and politics has been warned about their disruptive behaviour and notice the unsuccessful attempt to have 94.9.98.107 blocked which resulted in a formal warning for Sport and politics. Now that the heat has died down and that both Sport and politics and 94.9.98.107 seem to have left the page for a few days and calmed down I have re-added the sourced material that had been deleted. The layout is now consistent with that of its sister articles. I have also added information and a new source relating to the formation of a coalition cabinet and the new opposition. I have not used local councillors names as per Wikipedia policy. I hope that this puts an end to the edit warring and trust that Sport and politics will refrain from removing sourced material in future. 130.88.52.43 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I find this new IP very suspicious and as has been said before personal comments and bad faith are not welcome. New IP addresses do not spring up and start backing up the position of other IP address on fairly obscure articles with out warning. This looks to me far too suspicious. The previous edits of that IP address were 2008 and then a load of edits today supporting the other IP I shall be reporting this highly suspicious activity. Sport and politics (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This IP is a public library, it has a number of IP's, I occasionally edit Wikipedia from this library on various different computers, as do many other users of this library. Hence multiple different IP's will show up. I had not assumed bad faith, so please do not go down that road. I had merely looked at the edits and thought why on earth has that been deleted, I then went into yours and 94.9.98.107's edit histories and found what had gone on. I found that you had received an official warning from an administrator. I found that you had been reverting the ediits of 94.9.98.107 and that you were the first person to do that. I don't take kindly to being accused of bad faith only to be met with it by yourself in the form of a spurious accusation. Given your record on this issue I see no reason for anyone else to believe you. You cant accuse someone of not observing good faith in this instance. 130.88.52.43 (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding results for individual wards

If others could help do this that would be great, I'm doing as much as I can but I am mainly focusing on formatting and getting as many of the articles consistent with each other whereever possible....also if someone wants to find or create a coloured map of the seats that would be great. 94.9.98.107 (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)