User talk:Bellowhead678

Hello, You moved the contract value from the lead to the main body in the comments but didn't actually do it. Additionally the removal of the Grayling failing to intervene has been done twice, firstly with a comment saying the source didn't include it which it did and on the second time without comment. These are details that are not widely known and worthy of being pointed out. I see you are active in political wiki pages, please assure me you are not overly invested in any particular side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.100.64 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you discuss this at the article talk page, which can be found at Talk:Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bellowhead678. You have new messages at Alarics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Alarics (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the reference. I asked for one because it seemed a bit inconsistent for many political parties (especially American ones) to have "position" parameters removed for lack of citation while a governing party of a major nation like the Conservatives had unsourced, uncited claims, no matter how obvious the information is.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Musa Raza. Absolutelypuremilk, thanks for creating People's Quantitative Easing!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This page doesn't belong to any categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Musa Talk  09:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your edit summary, can I point you to WP:BLP and in particular this clause of the policy Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately [my emphasis] and without waiting for discussion. It was based on this policy that I judged it was not appropriate to tag a serious POV issue with {{cn}} and move on; removal is the preferred option. Don't get me wrong, your rewrite is good and the remaining uncited element is not contentious. I just wanted to draw your attention to the policy in this area in case you weren't familiar with it should something like this come up again. Thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Absolutelypuremilk,

I made the edit to the Council Tax Page because there was no information about Council Tax Enforcement on the page. The news article caused a big conversation amongst many stakeholders in Council Tax Enforcement but Council Tax Enforcement does not have it's own Wiki page.

Council Tax Managers at various local authorities, CIVEA - professional standards body for bailiffs, Local Government Ombudsman, Met Police, IPCC, CPS, Guardian Money, This Is Money were involved in discussions since the article.86.7.125.24 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit, I realise you were trying to be constructive but that is not the place for it. I would suggest you start a new section in the Council Tax article called "Council Tax Enforcement" and you can source content using that link and others that you can find. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Rail transport in Great Britain. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Absolutelypuremilk/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Absolutelypuremilk, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to be the only other person interested in this article, I thought I would let you know I've just made a few more changes, and would be interested in hearing your opinion (even if it's just a 'no problem'). Basically, I've reduced the 'System' related text down to a single section, split out some material to a new Impact of the privatisation of British Rail, and refocused the Proposals section to be about political positions, which it largely was anyway. I think this now solves the size issue, and from a Table of Contents position the article looks much more accessible. I think it also better identifies current gaps in coverage (i.e., it wasn't immediately obvious before, despite the amount of text, that the info on political positions is patchy at best). Still lots to do, but it's still all only really putting lipstick on a pig until such time as someone wants to put some serious effort in. Such a shame that most rail people here seem to see this website as some kind of a hobby, rather than feeling any shame for foisting totally incoherent/unorganised rubbish on the unsuspecting public. Kristian Jenn (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at page 84 and noticed a whole host of other agencies with slightly varying figures for the GDP growth forecast. I'm wondering what, if any, thought went into choosing the Office for Budget Responsibility's estimate? According to the report the IMF recently forecast it at 2.5%, which was the previous source on the page. Jolly Ω Janner 03:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure, to be honest I just saw that the OBR had published the 2.4% figure and updated the page (from 2.3%) accordingly. If you think 2.5% is a better estimate then feel very free to change it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there are seven different forecasters and none of which warrant their use any more than the last, I think an average of their figures might make sense here. A couple of them were published in October, but the rest in November, so all pretty recent. The mean average would be 2.5 anyway. Jolly Ω Janner 19:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think just putting 2.5% and the IMF as a reference is probably the best option then Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done also updated the source for Q3. Jolly Ω Janner 21:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the IMF, the growth rate was 3.0% in 2014 and according to the ONS, the growth rate was 0.7% in Q2 2015. The growth rate has decreased... Jolly Ω Janner 22:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but its an increase as in positive growth, not as in higher growth than last year Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I took it and I wonder whether the average reader might make that mistake too. Is there a guideline to suggest doing it that way? Jolly Ω Janner 23:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any guidelines on it, but this is the case on pretty much every article I have seen Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why they are needed at all, since the growth itself tells you whether it's going up or down. With the other facts in the infobox such as GDP per capita, it is going up because it is now higher than the previous figure. This is helpful when the previous figure is not included. Jolly Ω Janner 23:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that it is an easy way to see whether it is increasing for those short-sighted people who might not be able to tell if there is a minus sign? Possibly something you could take up with the powers that be Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a post on the talk page and see if anyone else is interested in the matter. Jolly Ω Janner 00:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , The very same user who posted that there was a grammatical error says there are grammatical errors despite those errors having been fixed and without explaining why. Kind of outrageous isn't it? [1] (N0n3up (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

This is probably best discussed on the article talk page Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have shown interest in previous UK housing topics and I would be interested in your views on this:

Cost of moving in the United Kingdom

I put a lot of work into this article which has been nominated for deletion and I'm not sure why. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cost of moving in the United Kingdom I think it should stay. Thanks. Tomintoul (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say thanks for this edit on Jude Wanniski. I think you were right that there is a consensus against including the material you removed. Unfortunately, when I tried to remove the exact same material from the Art Laffer page, Volunteer Marek/lipsquid reverted [2] me, declaring that i would need to create a new RfC and that the old one wasnt resolved. This is despite the fact that the edits in question were literally identical and i specifically mentioned both in the RfC and on the Art Laffer page my intention to change both. I cant help but notice that neither of them challenged you when you made the change to Jude Wanniski, which leads me to believe that they (assuming they are even different people) have some kind of grudge against me specifically, although i couldnt for the life of me tell you why. Because of this i was hoping that you would remove the same material from Art Laffer that you did from Jude Wanniski, assuming, of course, that you agree that it should be removed. Thanks in advance, and feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or concerns. Bonewah (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Absolutelypuremilk,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Rail subsidies for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By promotional, I meant that it seemed to be promoting a product or a business without giving proper explanation of why the topic was important or providing adequate references. Since these were absent, I had assumed that this was not a legitimate topic . . . we do get lots of spam and pages of questionable value created here and I patrol new changes sometimes. I am sorry if I marked your page as spam prematurely. What you could do next time is to create the page in your own userspace or sandbox and then hone it there and when you believe that it is ready for Mainspace, just copy and paste it there. This may cause an editor to think twice before deleting a new page. Also, if you disagree with a speedy deletion or prod tag, they can be removed (not AfDs by the way, which need to be subject to consensus). If you wish to recreate the page as a redirect, you may do so. You can use the inprogress tag to indicate also that you may be working on the page and that not has not reached a mature state. Again, my apologies if I tagged your work for removal when I should not have. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, my problem was that "rail subsidies" can be divided up into European rail subsidies and American rail subsidies. I wanted to create a page which will direct a user to both of these, from rail subsidies. However, what I have done instead is to add a section about both of these to Rail transport and then created the Rail subsidies page to redirect to there. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice solution. Best wishes. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion on the George Osborne article, I was unaware that he had changed his name by deed poll! Feasey (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you're a member of the biography wikiproject. Could you please weigh in at this RfC regarding Georgiy Starostin and whether his hobby as a music blogger should be included in the article and attributed to citations from his personal website/blog? Dan56 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Absolutelypuremilk; I saw this Special:Diff//722147730 revert on High Speed 2. I'm loathed to revert it again, but I would infer that these corrections had been made by somebody from Scotland/Wales/North Ireland/IoM/… which have their own Parliaments and so where the disambiguation is important. Per WP:EGG, we do not allow piping where the shortened link is the name of another topic; the reversion appears to have re-introduced this issue, because "Parliament" is a generic topic. Could I encourage a self-revert, and then if you still feel strongly to very carefully revert only those changes that are absolutely (purely) necessary. —Sladen (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partially reverted in Special:Diff/722876328 per WP:EGG. —Sladen (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Laura Kuenssberg". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 June 2016. 

The request for formal mediation concerning Laura Kuenssberg, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Neoliberalism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 June 2016. 

The request for formal mediation concerning Neoliberalism, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 

Your latest edit on Corbyn was correct, but be mindful of 1RR; I suppose you could have labeled it as vandalism, as a way to reduce the prospect of being blocked for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Policy Innovation Research Unit, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no result - as there is no declared challenge - thanks - please don't add result as a header - Govindaharihari (talk)

You gave the reason as “Undid revision - needs a secondary source”. Maybe your action was correcting according to a Wikipedia policy. You are a “PhD student and science geek”. I am a 92-year-old old fart. You have made more than 5,000. I have made only 3,000+. However, I question it.

As I read in the vast material about Wikipedia policies, “the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual” and “a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person.” Even if your opinion that my edit lacked secondary sources is correct, would not my edit be acceptable according to the following policy with which, it seems to me, my edit complied?

“Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care.... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.”

I am going to try a similar edit using more resources, some of which should be classified as secondary. If you undo that edit, I’ll give up. I don’t have the time or energy to fight about it. Cheers, Vejlefjord (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing on talk rather than edit warring. Number of edits shouldn't matter, in general we should be able to come to a consensus, or if not then ask for comment from other editors. In this case, the reason that I felt a secondary source was required was that a secondary source would show that it was notable. I am sure that Blair participated in hundreds of debates, is there any reason we should add this one? If secondary sources thought it was notable enough for an article then maybe, but otherwise not. I would accept a primary source if I thought that the information was notable, e.g. if someone added a primary source for his date of birth then obviously that is notable enough to be in there, but without a secondary source then this debate doesn't seem notable enough to be included in what is already a fairly long article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally right about that.That guy has nothing of official.The only official national source for Italy is ISTAT as requested by the article (NATIONAL SOURCES).The fact he called you before it doesn't mean he is right.No official data at the moment for Italy.Sad9721 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you discuss on the talk page of the article for everyone to see please. Perhaps you could post there the link of where you found the data you have posted in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK ,but that guy seems to be depth..but he isn't..he realizes just what he likes...Sad9721 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added again that Forexdirectory source that isn't an OFFICIAL ITALIAN STATISTIC DATA.Consensus on what to revert?Italy without the page of ISTAT named "retribuzioni" hasn't any official value.1560 is just a value fixed by a private company named JP so not like for all other states.Why all the other states have a national statistic data and Italy not?This is required by the article officially.The reference isn't correct.Italy at the moment has no value for the average net wage.1560 and other data must be deleted.Sad9721 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People here acting without answering.Forexdirectory data aren't italian official italian statistic agency data as required in the article .The article in fact asks natoional sources.Forexdirectory has inside just a private study by a society named JP.It must be deleted.Sad9721 (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on the talk page of the article. I will not respond here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding content deletion on the page Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution, see here. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Lancastle (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Electro-diesel multiple unit, Absolutelypuremilk!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Added a category, filled in the reference titles with Refill and linked to WikiProject Trains. Hope that's OK.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Just spotted your response to my comment on the talk page for Theresa May re the paragraph about domestic violence and have responded. --Prh47bridge (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. When you make updates such as this, can I ask that you update the full details of the source, including the title? It's a bit confusing to have data for June 2016 referenced to a source with the title "Labour Market Statistics, January 2015", and is likely to cause further work down the line as someone will need to check whether the data is verified by the source and then update the title. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to my defencePlease add to my defence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeneral28#Suspected_sockpuppets. Have I not been a great contributor to many defence articles especially to Type 31 Frigate? Cantab1985 (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Traingate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traingate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Absolutelypuremilk!

I'm a journalist who was looking for some statistics on Japan's rail system, but couldn't find good sourcing for the stats I was looking for at this Wikipedia page. Then, I found them at Japan's own statistics bureau: http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c0117.htm

These figures vary drastically from the ones quoted at Wikipedia (23 billion passengers vs 7.289 billion, and shows rails accounting for over 70% of domestic transport!), and I was curious if you might want to sort it out? I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and thought you might do a better job.

Thanks and hope I did this right!

172.56.17.238 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, it looks like someone has added the figure up incorrectly from the source given just above the table at Rail usage statistics by country and I have changed it now to 9.147 billion which approximately matches the figure given in your source for Japan Railways (allowing for a bit of growth).

The rail figures we quote are just for heavy rail, i.e. not including trams or metro systems (I know the line is sometimes blurred!) so this will account for the difference given in the table you quote, which says that around 9 billion trips are made by Japan Railways but 23 billion in total by "the railways".

If you're not sure about anything else, then feel free to post at either the talk page of the article concerned, or my page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Hatnote?. Hi Absolutelypuremilk. Should we include a hatnote above the lede at Margaret Thatcher for The Iron Lady redirect? --Neve–selbert 16:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working from Starved NHS ‘at point of no return’ and ‘no longer envy of the world’. The text is diffucult to read because of an advertisement obscuring the text that I could not get rid of in the original document. If you copy the text and paste it somewhere else you can get rid of the advertisement. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edit to Andy Burnham. I was not sure about it. I thought he had quit according to the media, wasn't fully sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.26.83 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the reporting of it was very unclear! He said in his speech that he wouldn't leave until Corbyn found a replacement, but many websites reported that he had already quit. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Andrew Bingham and his wife have separated, which presumably explains the "unexplained removal" of the sentence about his marriage (I'm one of his constituents). Not sure what to do about this as obviously it's a personal matter and not the sort of thing that is likely to be reported in a reliable source. I've left your reversion alone at the moment. Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your comment, is there a Twitter source for this by any chance? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - I don't follow Twitter. Just heard this locally through mutual acquaintances. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is unsourced (and the editor doesn't seem to be competent enough at English to contribute), so I agree with your reversion, but I think it's good practice to only call vandalism vandalism to avoid scaring people off. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 04:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just googled it and according to some (admittedly not WP:RS sources) a jitney bus is a real thing - I assumed it was made up. Apologies.

I can help on the Fillon article.

Positive attributes include that I know some French, I am not a French citizen, I have no opinion on the man or French politics.

Negative attributes is that I am not French and have not kept up with the news about French politics.

In conclusion, I will start to help but if there are experts, I will defer to them. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. I don't know enough of the man to write an article. It would be like asking me to write a textbook on brain surgery by copying sentences here and there from research journals. Instead, I will add some text periodically. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Absolutelypuremilk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Absolutely, you may have missed my input at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Party affiliation since 2015 section, since we posted almost simultaneously. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had missed that! I agree that if it was covered in the sense you describe it then it would be notable, but the section seemed to be more about debating the exact status of Sanders at different points in time. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zac_Goldsmith#he_is_not_an_active_politician_now b Govindaharihari (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Cameron&diff=752853494&oldid=752851852 Govindaharihari (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zac_Goldsmith&diff=752856348&oldid=752856140 Govindaharihari (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Active_politician.3F Govindaharihari (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Absolutelypuremilk: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 16:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you very much and the same to you! -- Alarics (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Absolutelypuremilk,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks! All the best to you for 2017! - Coradia175 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was working on the page Poverty in the UK going through the manifestos of the political parties and citing their mentions of poverty, partly because someone had left a previous tag asking for the section to be updated - but you wiped the whole thing! Can you explain a little more please for this particular decision; this will help me get it right next time. Also, I see you have edited the page before so I'd be happy to discuss on the article's talk page and work with you on improving it. Thank you Xcia0069 (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick!
Cheers! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Crossrail page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that sentence shouldn't stand between those two dates is because it gives off the false impression that Iraq was attacking Iran all the way up to the date when the conflict ended, and we know that's not how it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.93.108 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read it that way, but make the argument on the article's talk page and see if others agree with you. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You reverted an edit I made to Paul Nuttall and I'm curious about it. I removed what I considered excessive 'early life'-type information about his birth and education from the introductory paragraphs. I'd think a strong introduction for a politician would include their current roles, some basics about their general political views, and a potted career history. Not objecting to your revert, but hope to discuss the ideal. Do you know if there's a guide anywhere?

Hi, thanks for your message. I agree that the original material was excessive, so I trimmed it down a bit when I restored it. I haven't seen a guide anywhere, I generally include the place of birth and university education. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Milky. Ultimately happy to defer to your judgement but consider that Nigel Farage, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, Michael Foot, Clement Atlee, Tim Farron don't have that level of biography in their intro (though, in your favour, Jeremy Corbyn and Teresa May do). To me an intro should say who that person is, i.e. the role and any decoration that makes them noteworthy. What do you think?

Sure. Again its a question of judgement and down to the editors on each page - Farage, Blair, Thatcher, Foot and Attlee all have fairly lengthy leads already. Farron's lead seems to be way too short - I will try and rectify this. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for catching the unreferenced changes to Manchester-Preston Line, but I'm curious why you reverted my edit, which added another reference for the December 2017 date. Was it an edit conflict, or is there an issue with the source?

Cheers,

~SpK 20:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was an edit conflict and I have self-reverted to this version. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for this edit. I wasn't sure about the precise wording - and I was worried about phrases like even as late as and let alone "driverless" which you so masterfully removed - saving me much embarrassment! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad you approve! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Crossrail line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Grid. 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) 10:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about? Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just wanted to inform you of why the Greenford branch has been shortened, its actually because of the new GWR Class 387s running between Paddington and Hayes & Harlington. I put this down ages ago, but somebody seems to have changed it to Crossrail.

Hope that helps 86.183.182.67 (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thanks that makes a lot more sense. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Absolutelypuremilk, your thoughts would be welcome at a discussion at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Photos. User:HopsonRoad 13:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on More2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. -- Dane ^talk 23:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2020 UK election. Since you had some involvement with the 2020 UK election redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Philip Stevens (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Undid vandalism", please do not defame me please.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them anyway. An account with a username identifying themselves with a political party, and then falsifying opinion poll data, is not something we want or need. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For diligent work tracking UK 2017 general election polls Alarichall (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling it to my attention. I've added a comment on the talk page. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good work in creating and updating the moving average graph for the UK election.
I draw your attention to a couple of comments that have been made in the "Moving average graph" section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017 and invite your comments. Ordinary Person (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:First Cameron ministry#RfC about what to rename this article. Hi Absolutelypuremilk. Please comment if you find the time. --Nevé–selbert 07:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn#Antisemitism and Holocaust denial.  Seagull123  Φ  22:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you just undid my edit to the poll numbers saying that these are the result for the GB only. The page title is very misleading in this case given the name (Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017) and I did not find any reference to this information anywhere near the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portisch (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead states that most polling is carried out for GB only. The line where the results are stated also states that these are GB results only. The polls (and results) for NI are given later down in the article. Perhaps you could suggest on the talk page somewhere in the article where this could be stated again to avoid confusion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added important historical information (that does not require citation). Thank you.

It does require a citation, as everything does on Wikipedia. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My warmest thanks for the Barnstar. Nobody's ever given me one of those before! Most kind. 10:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Absolutelypuremilk, I've noticed you've made some edits to Wera Hobhouse's wiki page. I thought I should introduce myself, I work for Wera as part of her comms team and have been tasked with fleshing out her page. I've not worked much with wikipedia before, so want to make sure I'm not breaking any rules or stepping on anyone's toes. I've re-worked the Councillor section, adhering to the guidelines to the best of my knowledge. If you could have a look at it and let me know if I've overstepped at any point it'd be appreciated! --Pencilsfromacup (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pencilsfromacup: thanks for posting here, it's always much better to seek advice and post on the talk page of an article before doing anything too controversial. I've had a look at your edits, which mostly seem fine, apart from you adding a space between a full stop and the reference supporting the sentence. You also should not use Wikipedia as a reference for itself as you did for the majority. Finally, you should be very careful about removing content which is sourced, especially without providing an explanation in your edit summary. The edit summary is very important to let other editors know why you made certain changes. I've fixed these problems and restored the content. Removing this content in particular (the criticism of Hobhouse for not calling a by-election) is dangerous to do as someone with a conflict of interest for obvious reasons - "Lib Dem MP deletes negative content from her Wikipedia page" is probably not a headline you will want to see!

For more information about editing the page of someone you are associated with, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Let me know if there are any more edits you want to make and I will try and give you a hand. If you want to add another photo of Hobhouse, say in a different context, e.g. going on the campaign trail or giving a speech, then add it to Flickr and I can add it to the page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and restoration, I'll be a little less delete key happy in future! I'll also make use of the edit summary, and have a look through that page. There were a few things that I wanted to do concerning her early life section, but I fear they may be in conflict with the OR policy. I'll find some more sources and get to grips with policy, thanks again! --Pencilsfromacup (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've got some more content, plus an updated photo that I'd like to add to the wiki page. I've uploaded the photo here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/157716848 My understanding of the COI rules is that as a paid employee involved in politics, I shouldn't really be editing the page myself. With that in mind, I thought I'd draw your attention to Wera's biography, currently hosted here: http://werahobhouse-ldbath.nationbuilder.com/biography. In the interest of academic integrity, I imagine it's best that you make the changes! Pencilsfromacup (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that photo link didn't work, try here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/157716848@N08/with/35590389054/ Pencilsfromacup (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding these sources. I've started to add some content from the biography. However, I personally think the current photo is better than the one you linked to. Feel free to post it as a suggestion on the talk page if you disagree. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]