User talk:HughTubex

Welcome![edit]

Hello, HughTubex, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to People of Northern Ireland. 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! RashersTierney (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derry/Londonderry[edit]

Hi RashersTierney. I'm new to wikipedia, as you probably guessed. Am I doing this right? Not sure. Can you help me with discussions please, Cheers. About the People of Northern Ireland page: not sure if it is you or not, but the Londonderry statistics are being changed to Derry. Despite opinion, Wikipedia is based on fact no? The legal name of Derry is Londonderry. Republican or not. Don't want to get into a political debate or an edit war, but is there any way we can sort this out. Maybe Londonderry/Derry or more accurately Londonderry(Derry)? Cheers and hope you reply.

Hi HughTubex, and thanks for opting to discuss this issue. Yes, Wikipedia depends on verifiable facts, but because it is produced by individuals who may have opposing points of view, it also depends on consensus. As you can imagine the 'stroke city' debate has been discussed for years on Wikipedia, exhaustively some might say. Here's just a selection. A methodology for addressing it has finally been agreed to at WP:IMOS, specifically the section WP:LONDONDERRY (or WP:DERRY, as some might prefer). It isn't to everyone's liking in all regards but it is a compromise that is generally respected by 'all sides'. If you think, having read the huge volume of discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration (you can search 'Londonderry' or 'Derry' at the archives search box on top) that a 'better', more workable compromise might be achievable, then the place to discuss it is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. Happy reading and good luck. RashersTierney (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand this, but surely consensus defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia? For example a lot of people think that Justin Bieber is a homosexual, but he clearly isn't. Therefore you can't say he is on Wikipedia. That is just one (extreme) example. Another example could be Great Britain/Britain/UK. The former two are more used, and easier to say/refer to. However the name is the United Kingdom, including NI. Whether people like it or not. I am half Northern Irish and a Unionist, but I fully respect Republican opinions, however by law the name of Derry is Londonderry. Whether people like it or not, surely?— Preceding unsigned comment added by HughTubex (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 May 2014‎

As another example, by law (Irish Contitution), the name of the Irish state is Ireland, but after years of debate the article about it on Wikipedia is called Republic of Ireland. Things aren't always intuitive on Wikipedia. Laws too can apparently be inconsistent. Judges often differ on their opinions even though it is the same canon of laws they are interpreting. Like I said, consensus decisions rarely satisfy everyone, but it is how the system has developed here and is a core principle. Consensus can also change over time, usually through debate with a broad participation of interested editors. If you wish to test the waters, you can raise it where I indicated above.(By the way you should sign your posts on discussion pages. If you type 4 consecutive tildes at the end of your comment, the squiggle usually above '#' on your keyboard, your comments are signed and date-stamped automatically). RashersTierney (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al-right, that's fully understandable. The Ireland isn't a great example. The name is the RoI. Ireland in the RoI is just a shorter, "Derry" equivalent. Like America, USA. And even China, China. I might "raise the waters" as you suggested, but I won't change the article in discussion for now. Thanks a lot for your help mate. Hope to come in contact soon yeah? HughTubex (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. See you around. RashersTierney (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local Elections 2014[edit]

Hi mate, before anything else is changed, the swing vote is not and actual swing percent. It is based off of an estimation by the BBC. Therefore it cannot possibly be a swing. For example the Conservatives did horrendously bad but they have a "swing" of plus four. I think a new section should be made with your findings, under say "Polling" or "Predicted Share" just not in the factual part of the page. Looking forward to your response. HughTubex (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already use the BBC's "National Projected Vote" (NPV) for swings across all local elections, with the swing being every year as opposed to every four years. You can go right back to the 2005 local elections to see that every page has a swing comparing it with the previous year so that for example 2010 is compared with 2009, not 2006, 2011 is compared with 2010 not with 2007, 2012 is compared with 2011, not with 2008 and 2013 is compared with 2012, not with 2008. In my view, since the BBC extrapolates the results to take into account that some counties aren't voting in these local, while some areas such as London are obviously all voting, the NPV compared to last year is the correct, accurate way that swing should be shown. The NPV that the BBC calculates, is not done by simply adding up all the votes for UKIP, Con, LibDem and Lab and then working out a percentage, its so much more complicated than that, meaning that even if you did want to change the way wikipedia shows the swing to the elections happening four years ago then you would have to change the percentages because if you looked at the actual votes, I'm sure Labour won very much more than 31%, as most of the areas voting this year, London and the Metropolitan Boroughs, are heavily Labour, the vote percentage that we have reported, is if these elections had happened across the country.

The reason, that for example UKIP can be seen as doing very well (winning council seats) but also down on the vote share is simple, compared to 2013, UKIP did slightly worse, in that it get a slightly smaller share of the vote, however compared to 2010, it did a million times better as it got virtually nothing when these seats were last up. The Conservatives, they've recovered ever so slightly from 2013 when both the main parties got historic lows of under 30% each, but that four point recovery still puts them down on 2010 causing them to lose council seats. The Liberal Democrats, haven't really done that much worse now than last year, hence there vote share is down only by one point, however as these seats were last up in 2010, they lost a lot of councillors. Hope that explains it :) Guyb123321 (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks, but it still doesn't make much sense. Only 2 unitary authorities were putting their entire council up for election. The results are added on top of what existed. So how UKIP could possibly have had a negative swing is quite unusual. It is not a swing though is it? Because it is self explanatory. National Projected Vote. Not the actual difference. HughTubex (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Timothy John Hegarty (June 30)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

.

To edit the submission, 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.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sionk (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Timothy John Hegarty concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Timothy John Hegarty, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to UK Independence Party[edit]

Hello Hugh. I just wanted to let you know that your edit on the UK Independence Party has been undone. The fact is, while UKIP itself do not like being termed a "radical right populist" party (instead favouring the term "democratic libertarians") there is a very clear consensus among political scientists that that is exactly what they are. UKIP's civil nationalism, anti-immigration rhetoric, economic liberalism, and socially conservative policies are all deemed hallmarks of radical right populism. This does not mean that they are far right or fascist, however; in this context, "radical right" means something distinct from the "far right", a movement which in the UK is embodied in groups such as Britain First or the British National Party. You are of course welcome to contribute to the Wikipedia article on the subject of UKIP, but please do not push your own opinions and interpretation of the party beyond that of academic specialists who have published extensive studies of the party - remember Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightblueowl, Ok, it very clear that UKIP is not a Radical Right wing party. Evident by the fact that a significant number of Left-wing Labour supporters voted for them three weeks ago. What exactly do you mean by radical right? Because at the moment you have only sourced an ISBN to a narrative that is not impartial, and is not also publicly available. I am not putting personal opinion in this. I do have UKIP sympathy but I do find it frustrating how people have asigned that party by that 'radical' label, when it is quite obviously not true. I can cite other political commentators who have differing opinions too. We could fight for ever on this. And judging by a quick review of your profile it does seem that you may have polar opposite opinions to UKIP and possibly upset by the results of the 2015 election.. But what do I know. I would ask you to kindly take down the 'Radical Right' link. Regards, HughTubex (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Hugh. However, what do you mean by the claim that Ford and Goodwin's book is not "publicly available" ? It is not an unpublished work stored in an archive (as for instance many PhD and post-doctoral theses and datasets are), rather it is easily publicly available from any bookshop or library, and thus is very publicly available, even if it is not freely available online. Let's be clear; I didn't just decide to call UKIP "radical right" because I think it should be referred to as such. As it stands, academic specialists in the study of the radical right consider UKIP to be radical right, and have stated as much in their academic, peer-reviewed works, which count very much as reliable sources. As they point out, UKIP does bear many of the hallmarks associated with European radical right politics (the anti-immigration rhetoric, the social conservatism, the anti-establisment stance etc). While I personally am frustrated when I see some leftist activists label UKIP as "far right", "fascist", or even "racist" (because it simply isn't any of those), the term "radical right" is conversely a very appropriate term to describe the party, as those academic sources attest. The fact that it has attracted much support from former Labour voters does nothing to change that (indeed, across Western Europe radical right parties have attracted much of the support that formerly went to centre-left, social-democratic parties, reflecting the fact that these older, blue-collar voters are not ideologically devoted to the left, but rather go wherever they are being wooed and where they feel welcome). If you want that "radical right" reference to be removed from the UKIP article, then you will have to produce academic sources from political scientists who state that this is an incorrect categorisation. Until then, it must stay. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By not publicly available I mean the fact that one must purchase a copy in order to view the source. Surely it must not be free and open sourced? And the term "radical Right" is not an accurate term in its self? I mean anyone can see that UKIP is evidently not "radical". It is very misleading. What I mean is 'Hope not Hate' backed the violent actions taken against Nigel Farage and his family a few months ago. As one example; Hope not Hate does very much fit the term 'radical' (extreme; especially in colloquial English); is it not evident that UKIP is most definitely not a radical party nor have very radical ideologies. Contrary to the definition of 'radical right' and the meaning of 'radical' in that sense - against the status-quo, similar but not quite reactionary- the majority of people identify the radical right with groups such as the KKK, National Front and sometimes even the Neo-National Socialists. You must be in affirmation that within popular culture, 'radical right' is considered to be something else that it truly is... alas it's 'extreme-nationalist' label sticks with it, even when in the most part it is not true. HughTubex (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources[edit]

Hello Hugh,

I see for the second time you have deleted the references and entry to Renewable energy in Scotland in List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources. I was hoping to avoid any edit warring WP:EW and instead discuss why you feel these edits were necessary (As your edits had no summary comment) given the presence of Renewable energy in Scotland on Wikipedia. Do you dispute the sources? Or do you feel the content does not fit the page in some way?

SAMurrai (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SAMurrai,

Yeh that would be best! Whilst extremely impressive that Scotland contributes so much to renewable energy, there are two reasons why Scotland shouldn't be included. 1) The primary source (IRENA) used for this data does not indicate Scotland as an individual entity as it is: 2) Not a sovereign state or territory recognised by the United Nations - The United Kingdom.

I think entries like the Falklands are included in the source report as they are recognised as a British territory by the UN. To say Scotland is a territory of the UK is not only wrong but offensive as Scotland is a constituent nation. So I think for wikipedia's sake it's good to have consistency in the regions included otherwise there would be different US states, Swiss canton, Chinese provinces etc.

Although being quarter Scot myself I am impressed. Maybe we could create a footnote above the United Kingdom highlighting the percentage of different sources and / or total generated by Scotland alone?

Look forward to hearing your thoughts, H

Hello again Hugh,

My reason for querying this removal was based on the presence of Renewable energy in Scotland, which is a featured article WP:FA and move-protected WP:MOVP for the purpose of preventing it being merged with Renewable energy in the United Kingdom, which is what you are suggesting for List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources. The list itself is originally sourced from IRENA but makes provisions for more up-to-date information. "The raw data is from IRENA [4] unless a more recent source is available" On whether Scotland should be included from the perspective of it being recognized as an independent state is moot, for Wikipedia refers to Scotland as a country consistently, and the examples you listed: US states, Swiss canton & Chinese provinces are not so.

Hoping for your understanding or opinions otherwise, SAMurrai (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon SAMurrai,

Any other recent source would thus be included in the United Kingdom. You're correct in saying that the conversation surrounding Scotland is moot which is why I believe there should be some consistency in what is considered a country or not; i.e a recongnised sovereign state or territory of which Scotland is neither. Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom as you well know and has no more internationally recognised legitimate claim as being a country (sovereign entity) as say Catalonia or Sealand (joke). Other countries such as Abkhazia, Somaliland, or Western Sahara who are not on this list but have very limited recognition have more of a justification on this list than Scotland does for example. Thus I don't believe Scotland should be included, unless it does become an internationally recognised sovereign state.

I just believe there should be some standards as to what are considered countries and the default UN country list is the only acceptable international standard that enshrines internationally recognised law. But maybe I am getting a tad passionate because I personally believe Scotland is British, such is the problem with wikipedia and personal opinions, but I guess what my opinions are, happen to be what is law and acceptable. But really it's your opinion too Sam so do what you think is acceptable pal. I'm not that ardent about this enough and I assume you're some sort or engineer / student from Scotland so if you want to be proud of ren. ener. in Sco. then be proud of it.

But we voted to stay in the UK and we are British and always will be. All the best mate.

Afternoon to you too HughTubex,

My reasoning for including Scotland in said list is the significant differences between itself and the United Kingdom as a whole in regards to renewable generation, hence why Renewable energy in Scotland and Renewable energy in the United Kingdom are not merged, and instead are move protected. With up to date sources, would you settle for me bringing up-to-date the entries for both Scotland and The United Kingdom? SAMurrai (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SAMurrai, Renewable energy output generated in Scotland is combined with the rest of the United Kingdom, a wikipedia page on Scottish generation is an elaboration of the Scottish contribution but it that doesn't justify it being considered on a country-ranked list. Let's say for example wind power generated in Scotland is sold to Norway. Although generated in Scotland, Scotland does not sell this energy, the United Kingdom does because Scotland is the United Kingdom. May as well include the South East of England on the list because there are discrepancies in what they produce and Wales. There are discrepancies between different US states, hell why not include every parish in the world that has a discrepancy no?

A line has to be drawn somewhere surely? And shouldn't that line be at real countries (Sovereign states)?

HughTubex (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)HughTubex[reply]

Hi HughTubex,

Your point seems to be along the lines of "Scotland should not be on the list because it is not a real country". Whereas my point is that it has a place on the list as because of its significantly different renewable generation to the rest of the UK, and this is recognized on Wikipedia by the presence of Renewable energy in Scotland. Since you are not refuting my argument, but continue to disagree based on a separate argument, I suggest we move to dispute resolution. As the compromise of updating both the United Kindom and Scotland was not accepted by yourself I suggest we get a 3rd opinion. WP:3 Is this acceptable? SAMurrai (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SAMurrai,

That sounds like a good solution.

Update: May I refer you to Wikipedia's categories list that lists renewable energy / energy production in different countries such as this page which does not include Scotland ^[1] in an attempt to answer your question. I personally don't believe having a Wikipedia page on the topic constitutes Scotland being classified as a separate entity in a list of countries. California, Africa and the EU all have wikipedia pages titles Renewable Energy in (...), for example. And obviously they are a state, continent and inter-governmental organisation and the same goes for Scotland being a constituent part of the UK which is a country. So that's why I don't think it should be included. Hope I've answered your question!

ATB, HughTubex (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary for WP:3

The disagreement is as to whether Renewable energy in Scotland should be included on List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources.

FOR Addition: (SAMurrai) Scotland has significant renewable energy differences to the rest of the UK which is acknowledged by Renewable energy in Scotland being WP:MV to prevent merges with Renewable energy in the United Kingdom.

AGAINST Addition: (HughTubex) Scotland is part of the UK, and hence not viable as a separate entry on the list.

My view on it is, first, that this discussion would be better held on the article talk page rather than a user talk page, and that might allow for more input. That being said, Scotland is not, by the common usage of the word, a "country"; the country is the UK. Indeed, Scotland recently held a referendum on becoming an independent nation, and explicitly rejected the proposal. So I would say that information on Scotland specifically is indeed best handled at renewable energy in Scotland, but the list by country should list only the UK as a whole. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted as 3rd opinion, I will leave Scotland out of the list, what do you suggest Countries of the United Kingdom be renamed as? SAMurrai (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of regions of the United Kingdom by GRP[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of regions of the United Kingdom by GRP, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of regions of the United Kingdom by GRP[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of regions of the United Kingdom by GRP, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Renewable_energy_by_country

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Renewable_energy_by_country

[1]