Talk:2012 London mayoral election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

LibDem results table

Can we combine the two rounds of the LibDem candidate selection process into one table to save space? Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also can we include "Non-transfers" in the final round please? The idea that the turnout is different in different rounds of AV is contrary to how the system works. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BNP candidate

I think there's a picture of the BNP candidate on their website - http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/regional/carlos-london-british-national-party-mayoral-candidate-announced - but not sure of the rights issues for Wiki.

doktorb wordsdeeds 05:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just undid an edit made by (a person who claims to be) the BNP candidate, due to its inclusion being unsuitable for the article. I will add the edit made below for no particular reason (mostly it has potential to be interesting)...

"I Carlos Cortiglia have referred this article to the British Metropolitan Police and will be referring those responsible for libel, defamation and other criminally related charges. There never was any such interview and information provided by the Argentine Ministry of Defense confirms that there never was any such volunteer, soldier or combatant. Those who use anonimity to publish falseties and distortions believing that they will never be caught are mistaken.

I am also contacting those responsible of Wikipedia who could be liable for criminal behaviour by allowing the publication of falseties and distortions. A copy of the article has been saved and will be sent to the British Metropolitan Police for future reference."

Let us presume, in good faith, that the editor is Cortiglia. He should be informed about appropriate editing policy in terms of making legal threats, the use of article space vs. talk space,
WP:NPOV, we need to be balanced in how the issue is reported. The text needs to make clear what is claimed: so he said in an interview that he volunteered, not that he actually volunteered or fought. A reliable source citation saying "Cortiglia denies..." would be a useful addition. Bondegezou (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Have looked at this more... the La Nación piece is about the most reliable and lengthy article on this person available. It is hard to see why it would be in error. It pre-dates his political activity in the BNP; it's not some sort of attack piece. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doctorbuk had a go at re-writing the section, including a rebuttal from Cortiglia. While I mostly think the re-write was good, I've now re-jigged it further, so I thought I better go through my changes here. I felt Doctorbuk's edit left the text rather confusing if you don't speak Spanish, so I've added in an explanation of the Spanish-language quote, using one citation to support it. He also included what looked to me like
original research as to whether Cortiglia actually did fight in the Falklands War, so I've replaced that with a second citation saying that Cortiglia didn't actually fight in the war. Cortiglia's rebuttal quote doesn't actually make any sense to me, but I presume that's Cortiglia's problem rather than ours! Cortiglia does appear to implicitly accept that the La Nación quote was him, which is reassuring in terms of including it under BLP concerns. Others may feel I've got the balance wrong in this latest version: fellow editors, please do change it further as you see fit. Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

--English Heart (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC) First off, I must apologise for not following Wikipedia protocol, this is all very new to me, so please forgive me. I was asked to remove the Argentinian passage of the write up, basically because it is unsubstantiated and has no relevance on the GLA elections. Mr Cortiglia assures me that there was no interviewer and no interviewee thus there cannot of been an interview, so the article must be a fabrication, a mixture of lies and half truths taken from far left sources. So could you please leave the delete passages out. With the situation between the UK and Argentina being so precarious, please don't add fuel to the fire with what amounts to media smears against Mr Cortiglia and the British National Party.[reply]

Presumably in response to the above comment, Doctorbuk has removed the La Nación quote. I have now reverted that change. In this case, it seems to me that we should respect what
conflict of interest (and I am accepting as a matter of good faith that English Heart really is speaking for Cortiglia). As I've said before, the La Nación article is the most reliable and longest article we have on Cortiglia. The claim that it is not reliable but somehow politically motivated seems dubious: it pre-dates Cortiglia's political activity in the BNP, whereas Cortiglia's and English Heart's criticisms clearly have a political motivation. Moreover, Cortiglia has, already, implicitly accepted the interview did take place, so the claim that it never took place is incoherent. Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Carlos G Cortiglia has now started editing this page with the same complaints as English Heart. I presume he is Cortiglia himself. His most recent edit, which I've now reverted, includes legal threats against Wikipedia, so I have referred the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Carlos_Cortiglia. He repeats the claim that the La Nación quote is fabricated. This is preposterous: it is in a reliable source publication and appears to pre-date Cortiglia's involvement in the BNP. In addition, as I indicate above, we have a BNP press release at [1] that appears to accept that the quote is from Cortiglia. Bondegezou (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Cortiglia-named account has been
blocked for the blatant legal threats. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Youreallycan suggests removing the contentious material about Cortiglia as not being about the Mayoral election; I and Doctorbuk have reverted those edits. As it is currently written, I can see how the material appears tangential to the Mayoral election. However, the dispute about what Cortiglia said only came up and is only newsworthy because of his candidacy, and it clearly reflects on his candidacy, so I wonder if the current text can be tweaked to make that clearer. If I can think of a re-wording, I'll try it out, or if someone else would like to have a go... 20:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Lawrence Webb.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lawrence Webb.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 7 November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is
    non-free
    then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
    fair use rationale
    then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --

talk) 13:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

UK Independence Party

There needs to be a better picture of the UKIP candidate, and that does NOT mean there has to be no picture of the UKIP candidate. ( E.P. Davies (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

File:LawrenceWebb2.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:LawrenceWebb2.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review

deletion guidelines
before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is
    fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try
    Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --

talk) 19:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Photos of candidates

Whilst I do find it funny when I look at the pictures of the top four candidates for Mayor I suspect they aren't exactly fair. It's clear that three have 'normal' photos and poor old Ken is praying and wearing some sort of antenna. Amusing... but should we not change it? Jim Jay (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly biased but no, as these are the photos from the pages of each candidiate. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The infobox appears to render Jenny Jones as a conservative candidate, looking at the underlying code, I can't see why it would do this. Perhaps someone with more experience could explain? 92.7.41.173 (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who to show in the infobox

This is indeed a widespread concern; see the current discussion and edit-spat going on at

Talk:United States presidential election, 1920 and in the article's infobox. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a perennial problem. For an upcoming election, achieving more than 5% at the last election is one approach (a rule that fits the current position of showing Lab, Con and LDem, but not Green). On the other hand, the treatment of reliable sources of the election can also be important (e.g. if debates choose to include the Green candidate) and prevents giving too much weight to history. Polls can also be considered (on polls, Paddick is clearly the third candidate, consistently above Jones, with indeed UKIP arguably outpolling the Greens; although with Paddick's polling hovering around 5%, one could argue whether he should be included and the infobox should just be Boris and Ken). At this time, I am minded to stick with the current position. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is something we suffered with at Bradford West. My view has always been "summary means summary". That disallows all candidates being included (because 'all' is not 'summary'). We already have results boxes further down the article, so summary boxes can't replicate those either. I think the 5% cut-off is fine, Bondegezou. Actually, I'd always consider the Top 3 as the standard unless there are extreme counter examples. (Talking about Bradford West, if there's ever a by-election again before 2015, we'll have to include Respect, Labour and Conservative then argue the toss on the others). doktorb wordsdeeds 09:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paddick should be replaced by jones, she beat him by 7000 votes! --94.195.31.45 (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty fair to say that Jenny Jones should go third in the infobox as she came third in the election. It OK to go ahead and do this? Ixistant (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither should be in the infobox. Jones and Paddick both got less than 5% of the vote, and there is no compelling reason why either should be included. -Rrius (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Rrius: let's use the 5% cutoff. Bondegezou (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's unreasonable. Every previous article includes the third placed candidate, not every candidate who won over 5%. 109.148.192.181 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.192.181 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every previous candidate to come third in a London mayoral election received well over 5% of the public vote. The 5% cut off is perfectly reasonable.
Zestos (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with the IP address that not including the other candidate is inconsistent. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be a four-person infobox of all the candidates whose parties won Assembly seats (Johnson, Livingstone, Paddick and Jones).

talk) 18:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

If it were entirely up to me, I would only include the two candidates who made it to the second round of voting on every London mayoral election page, but maybe that's just me. Personally, I just don't think that 4% of the popular vote is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox.
Zestos (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Webb/UKIP's description

Webb's party (UKIP) is described as "Fresh Choice for London" with no source. The BBC & Sky are saying "UK Independence Party". Which one to use? 09:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spa-Franks (talk • contribs)

The official ballot paper description - http://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/who-vote doktorb wordsdeeds 09:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs

I have started

AfDs for two of the losing candidates: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siobhan Benita and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Cortiglia. Bondegezou (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

To do

I suggest we take a look at

London mayoral election, 2008#Results, as a model for further changes to this article. The full second preference vote counts is available on the London Elects site, but so far only on a constituency by constituency basis. Bondegezou (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Carlos Cortiglia

I put the

Carlos Cortiglia article into a redirect here. Do other editors concur? Bondegezou (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I have now incorporated these additional links and photo in this article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of further comment, I'll now turn the
Carlos Cortiglia article into a redirect. Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.bnp.org.uk/freedom/regions/lonasscand.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 20:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on

London mayoral election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

London mayoral election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on

London mayoral election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_London_mayoral_election&oldid=1196617865"