User talk:Number 57/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

User:Number 57/Elections and referendums

As the list becomes more and more complete and more and more complex, you should start to remove those templates where we both agree that they are complete, and add list them to a subpage.--Antemister (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, shall we agree which ones are complete, at least as far as dates are concerned? I reckon the ones listed below: Number 57 22:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Bahrain
2. Belgium
3. Benin
4. Bulgaria
5. Burkina Faso
6. Burma
7. Canada
8. Central African Republic
9. Chad
10. China (Taiwan and mainland). How to deal with the first legislative yuans?--Antemister (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Are you talking about the four that were appointed? Then we should remove them. Number 57 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
11. Congo
12. Czech Republic: Missing pre-independence data--Antemister (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC). Good point. Keep for now. Number 57 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
13. Czechoslovakia
14. DR Congo
15. Djibouti
16. Ethiopia
17. Federation of Rhodesia & Nyasaland
18. Fiji
19. Gabon
20. Germany
21. Guinea
22. Hong Kong
23. Ireland
24. Israel DO not believe that this is the right place of the 1923 LegCo election.--Antemister (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I think it should be included both here and on the Palestinian one, as the territory was split between the two states at a later date (it can't just be on the Palestinian one). Number 57 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
25. Italy
26. Ivory Coast
27. Jordan
28. Kuwait
29. Liberia
30. Madagascar
31. Mali
32. Mauritania
33. Mongolia
34. Nepal
35. New Zealand
36. Niger
37. North Korea
38. Norway
39. Palestinian Territories
40. Papua New Guinea
41. Philippines
42. Qatar
43. Saudi Arabia
44. Serbia & Montenegro
45. Senegal
46. Singapore
47. Slovakia. Not absolutely sure...--Antemister (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
48. South Africa
49. South Korea
50. South Sudan. Not complete, look at the german one.--Antemister (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Have added the other ones. Complete now? Number 57 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
51. Syria
52. Tanzania
53. Transnistria
54. UAE
55. UK
56. Ukraine. No, elections from 1922 to 1936 missing.--Antemister (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC). Can leave that one then. Number 57 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
57. Zimbabwe
58. Trinidad & Tobago

Remove for other reasons

1. Austrian local elections
2. Bangkok - municipal
3. Davao
4. Malaysian state elections
5. Philippine local elections

Please add the sources to the talk pages.--Antemister (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I answered on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antemister (talk • contribs) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I removed the Chinese non-elections, and added the Czech elections. Are we happy with these and Slovakia and South Sudan? Number 57 21:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there was an additional one in Slovakia in 1948, as http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/15-5-92.shtml says that some man were "1948-54 deputy to SNC". Add the planned (?) Abyei status referendum.--Antemister (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Have added the 1948 election to the Slovak template. Not sure about Abyei - currently it's part of Sudan. If it votes to become part of South Sudan then we can add it to that template? Number 57 22:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, I meant to add it, but didn't do so... Number 57 22:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also need to add to the list the supranational elections to complete. UNGA prsident, UNSC, World Bank, etc. (the latter i created for the first time this year, but we could perhaps make for the past or have 1 page for the numerous ones.)Lihaas (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

LegCo of the Gold Coast

What does the Times' archive tell us about elections in the Gold Coast? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antemister (talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Almost nothing to be honest. A couple of articles confirm that elected representation started in 1925 (and that similar LegCos were established in Sierra Leone and Nigeria at the same time - the SL one was to have 11 appointed members, 3 elected and 7 unofficial nominated members (of which three were Paramount chiefs)). The only definitive information I could find is that there were elections in 1946 after a new constitution was passed. I will create the article on that shortly. Number 57 14:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a book on that topic, but it contains few data on the topic of elections. Hope it is possible to work out enough data for some articles here. Another question, what did the Times write about the LegCo of Cyprus?--Antemister (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

For Cyprus, the Times articles show that a Legislative Council with 15 elected members was introduced in 1883 (the first elections appear to have been held that year), and that there were elections in 1892, 1906 and 1912 (September/October). It was abolished in 1931 after rioting, and it seems there were no national elections until 1960, although there were municipal ones. Number 57 14:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that a partly-elected (for five years) LegCo did exist from 1883 to 1931, but because of early elections, it is hard to find out dates for elections. It seeems there had been numerous ones.--Antemister (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC) [1] contains some data for the Cyprus LegCo. Will get access to a book on maltese election in a few days. Unfortunately it is in maltese language, but if there is a table one might understand it.--Antemister (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the expand tag, why tag when you can do it yourself?

Because my English is worse. ;-) --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am good in translating English into German, bit German into written English? Anyhow, I have a lot to do with the German article. But do't worry: Nearly every source of the German article is in English. By the way: The provisional results are out at: STAE. I will make statistics drawings after the publication of the final results. Greetings, --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I've added them to the (English) article. Number 57 10:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

CNRT: 30 seats, FRETILIN: 25, PD: 8, Frenti-Mudanca: 2, according [2], if there is no change at the final results. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

AGF?

This is an AGF edit? a blind blanket revert? The bad faith edit makes you looke like WP:HOUND. No, you dont OWN WP. Youre bold edit was reverted so the ONUS is on you to get BRD. As an admin you should be familiar with WP guidelines, clearly not, please do so! And see reflinks while youre at it.

Based on youre quite clearly deceptive edit summary what was this then?

And "we dont need" is your subjective opinion. Get consensus for that! IDONTLIKEIT does not count for anything here!Lihaas (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

per BRD and deceptive edit summaries mean YOUR reverted edits need consensus, not your VERSION. READ it!

Youve gone and blindly reverted reflinks and more references as per your whime to edit war and that is no AGF!

WP is not your personal fiefdomLihaas (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"I take it your jiking" about your lies in the edit smmay. Replacing/adding a "/" to a ref cockup is not an excuse for bltant blind revert. As explained YOUR eadditions were reverted, THAT is BRD. Its good you explaimned you have no violated premises. SThe same bad faith lies can go for you too. Ive more than given u with you after your lies and asserting your whim the last time and not bothering to seek consensus till told many times.

And stay away from my talk page. Any further communication can occur on the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Per your blatant lie as cited above seems like you will go to any lenthgs to impose your whim and fancies.

YOUR additions were reverted "You made a change. I reverted it. Now please discuss."! YOUR changes came first, THEN i reverted, THEN you edit warred and THEN you called on me to discuss. Its all in the time stamp.Lihaas (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? You didnt [blindly] revert anything TWICE? did you see the links above? I cleaned for reflinks, then i did reflinks and you undid that too? Ive cited BOLDTITLE and you then reverted the change I made to the esiting addition. Then your edit summary says

wedont need" That needs consensus. (Okey, i can dadmit where im wrong, i agree that should have discussion too, but its not the only thing)Lihaas (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ive kept out the controversial section in which i was wrong, and i , at least, can apologise.

The reflinks bit which gives theformatted data is restored [3]

And for record, i ahvent reven changed your "results".Lihaas (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, sorry. lets end this here.Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Just go ahead and fix the ref bit, generally reflinks is hte better version with data ordered.

I wasnt the only one wrong with the sorry episode. But forget it an dove on. Im off to sleep now. No real new info to add places ;)

Also, dont you have reflinsk installed? its easy and simple.

Also response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of election results by country. seems like a good idea and what you tried once (from that comment)Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

btw- from that discussion you two had somewhere of old elections i took to creating the Cambodia referendum (and found that there were 2 actually even though just one on the template never mind, seems like there are more listed). Dint quite get to finishing it and wanted to DYK. Too late for the latter now as it wont be x5 expanded but ill get to expanding it soon if you cant. Take a look and see if you can.Lihaas (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of election results by country -- goign ahead with making the suggeste changes. Can you add to it too?

Done for today, not much, but ill do more later.

Woops, on Congo...think i read another source on that page which was generic about the system.

Senegal's date section: we usually mention that. not sure its background though (by precedence)

btw, good ideaLihaas (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Whats wrong ith the other entities? We have a link for them. Good page to consolidate links to all.

Also theres a link to Albania's presidential election. Even if its indirect, its still elected. We could add the caveat to the lead that it includes both indirect and direct/popularly.Lihaas (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah! but elections are NOT by definition popuarly election (as in the supranational calendar, theyre still elected whoever the constituent/electorate). Although I thought of adding what you said too. We need to put some date/year thoughLihaas (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC).

Also when youre dont for the sday leave me a note on talk page or eddit summary

We could delete all the redirects now? Little redundant, no?

ps- whats with the edit summary?Lihaas (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I didnt even know about it until someone else used it to change a title (of all things on a political article) , just went along with it. I wouldnt be against a CCC on tha. Thats why its better to ask before such smmaries (and akin to this chats subject ;))Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Done for today. Just check our france though, not sure hotw to do it. 2 houses at different times for upper house (would need the same for the US)Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we get consensus first? Thats the point of moves that areclearly controversial. At any rae, most souces are probs straight of WP.

I also dont thin google is the encyclopaedic pbarometre of righteousness.Lihaas (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well "sigh" b ut at Talk:Justice and Development Party (Libya) see discussion-- Wheres consensus? Thats the most appropriate page to do so and i see nothing. 1-1 it is. and co consensus was cited in the move either.Lihaas (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Anotherthing, should we have a referndum column on the page were working for the latest?

Was also thinking of adding wikilinks to the monarch in the respective positions.. What do you think?Lihaas (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

did ou see the summary? did you see the reflinks on he oher side? pklease stop hunding everything. and that when we start working togetherLihaas (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian elections in 1957

There were partial elections in Syria in 1957 according to the French Wikipedia article sièges réservés find it: fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si%C3%A8ges_r%C3%A9serv%C3%A9s_%28Syrie%29 --Danrolo (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Season Articles

You cannot and have not proven common name. Ive provided you sources yet you think you are correct based on a consensus that does not over rule the common name policy. The challenge cup is neither common name nor was it started as that. If you won't to follow that policy then i will be changing it on every page to the Centenary Cup that is what it was started as and note not Challenge. How many reliable and independent sources do you need to prove that challenge is not the common name. 2.121.30.172 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You are citing a discussion that hasn't closed. Eithier show your sources discuss or back off.2.121.30.172 (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread closed

I've closed the ANI thread you recently opened pursuant to the consensus that the block is endorsed. Please read the comments in the thread and WP:INVOLVED and see me if you have any questions. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes

The bold text is just standard across Wikipedia. By changing it to singular, I'm just making it conform to the article title. Everyking (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What? The singular is standard across the project. And of course it needs to match the title. Please don't start arguments for no good reason. Everyking (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking through your contributions, I see that you have been changing it everywhere you find it. That's why you claim it's "standard"—because you yourself have endeavored to make it so. Next you will be unbolding the subjects in dozens of articles and telling me that's standard, too. Everyking (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not common at all. In principle, I don't even care which one we use—I just want it to be consistent with the article title, so it doesn't look mismatched and incongruous. If this is important to you, fine—I won't change the wording when I see it if you also won't change the wording when you see it. So you can have it that way on the 2012 article, but don't go changing it on articles I worked on ages ago. Is that fair? Everyking (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to find a broader consensus on the article titles—as I recall, that question was settled a long time ago, so you'd have to reopen that. In the meantime, I'll apply the compromise I suggested above and revert any changes back to the original revisions. Everyking (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of election results by country

Since it looks like you're now working on improving the article, shouldn't you close the Afd as Withdrawn? DoctorKubla (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point, have done. Number 57 08:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ariel

Your edit about the university centre is not accurate, yet. It has not yet received the last approval. --Shuki (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chohung Bank FC

Please be aware that I have raised admin issues at the end of the end of this AfD. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

Question

Should i add the vic e presidential election stuff to the Indian prez election page or create a new one? the election is hardly a month a apartLihaas (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

re FYI

OK thanks for letting me know.

reply

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Sport and politics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Purpose of Israeli declaration of 14 May 1948

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel, there is discussion Re - the use of the term, Eretz-Israel being a reference to borders?. I took part in that discussion. Unfortunately it never came to a consensus.

You prefer the following wording for its purpose:

Declare a Jewish state in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine after its expiration.

1 The Declaration uses the words Eretz Israel.

2 Even if Eretz Israel can be translated as Palestine, does that translation necessarily mean the same as the area of the British Mandate? The article on Eretz Israel gives severeal Biblical references which suggest that it may include part of Egypt.

It is easier to use the words of the Declaration as translated by the Israeli MOFA.[4] Trahelliven (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence&pe=1&#Purpose_of_Israeli_declaration_of_14_May_1948 Trahelliven (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Prez elections

Woops. It was originally added by someone else when the result was announced so i was reverting to that not to mine (the page had numerous ip vandalism and was locked) so it must have happened then. (you can check on the first addition of the title). the main point being i was cleaning the poor wording with source (swhich we dont use as that). You can check it out that i dint "go back" as such)Lihaas (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, i only went to the prev 2 election pages because some one referred to it in an OSE arguement. Theyre awfully poor.Lihaas (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You maybe interested in Indian vice presidential elections, 2012 which is utter crap in oh so many ways. Title for one, sectioning asnd as we discussed the article itself.Lihaas (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Election on the Bahamas

Back after some weeks of heavily reduced activity here: What does the Times' archive tell us about elections on the Bahamas in the first half of the 20th century?--Antemister (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sadly nothing at all - I couldn't find a single reference to elections in the islands. Number 57 15:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Football manager list entry}}

I just noticed you have changed a template by removing the {{Football manager list entry}} template. Has there been some agreement not to use this as by using it it gives the templates a standard format without users having to think about the formatting? Keith D (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you help on new knesset Memeber Ahmed Dabbah?

Can you help out on checking and expanding his biography a little ? and sources in English?

Thank you --Midrashah (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 17:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you --Midrashah (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Dissolved cities

There only other one to be dissolved recently is Carmel City. That does require a bit of an update. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Research Library

As I startes doing the Americas in the elections project (the old world is largely complete - means that data for maost countries at least lies around my desk), it turns out that often the necessary books are not avaiable in Germany but in the UK. Is it possible for you to borrow those books, via interlibrary loan?--Antemister (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I can borrow books via inter-library loans, although it costs around £5 every time I do it! If there are any that you think will be really good or cover more than one country, let me know. Number 57 09:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Shaghur split

Thanks for splitting the article into the three original town articles, I was right about to do it myself. And also, ahlan wa sahlan ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Bi'ina, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages North District and Local council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 04:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahmed Dab(b)ah

Why the history merge? It resulted in edits such as this and this, which make it seem as if the entire contents of the page were replaced multiple times. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please unmerge them. I'd suggest that you move the Dabah edits back to Dabah, but even if you simply leave them in the deleted history of Dabbah, it will resolve the confusion. Why couldn't you have simply redirected Dabah to Dabbah? That's the normal course of action when two articles are independently created on the same subject. I'm sorry that I'm sounding as if I'm complaining; I'm not at all unhappy, but I'm not quite sure how to ask this question without sounding angry. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(No flags in infoboxes)

You have your work cut out removing the flags. See all football club entries in this league, China_League_One!! Yabbox (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

and here Chinese_Football_Association_Super_League. Yabbox (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

RE {{Somali elections}}

Not questioning anything, but ive seen indirect election on numerous (non-western) templates. Not sure if there was a recent change on those or something, but was there a discussion for it? That would be the proper avenue to get a cstandard format/understanding.Lihaas (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thought you meant indirect elections, as in not popular, the same ap;lies to the countries you cited there. If not, im confused (and probs wrong)Lihaas (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian article in Israeli foreign Poicy

• Hi. I am really impressed by the potenialities of this article. It has a low rating at the moment, but I think thats slightly unjustified. Its packed with interesting info and appears well sourced (need to look at it again, recently stumbled on it)

Has there been any feedback from the author on improving it? I think it has tremendous scope in the importance scale, the subject being potentially a diplomatic breakthrough with the worlds largest Islamic nation, and the fascinating independence of mind in the Indonesian policy makers, as the article indicates. just wondering as to your views (if any :)) as to how this article could be advanced. Irondome (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. I noticed this (talk page stalker, sorry!) I was actually the one who updated the Indonesia-Israel relations article with the recent 2012 agreement. Could you perhaps explain to me what you're referring to here? Perhaps I can be of use. --Activism1234 23:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• It just struck me that the scope for expansion is excellent. Its a good article on a subject entirely overlooked by the MSN etc. Its highly educational to Wikiusers and browsers alike Irondome (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: Zenawi

Theyre proper nouns when referring to a specific person or title. Not the generic "became prime minister"

For the western media, i referred to the source in question, but putting only media is fine. perhaps tag on one more source?

Ne is for males, nee is for females. But maybe that hasnt come over from french into english. I didnt remember what WP used to have so just added what came to mind.Lihaas (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Micronesian parliamentary election, 2011

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Somali election 2012

can you take a look at the talk page? I say this cause youre not on my side all the time, but aware of election page protocol. (ie- Irish elections' consensus (which i was against but adhered to)). So id suspect to beneutralLihaas (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It is at the moment. Isnt much of a dispute as such, im considering all the other persons points and discussing them (even including the good) but he seems to express OWNership of Somali articles and removes other sourced content sometimes claiming its not sourced and then questioning soures in order to sifle any negative pressLihaas (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Spanish

Do you know someone speaking spanish and being interested in the lection project?--Antemister (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sadly not. Number 57 16:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your great article on Swiss Referendums, 1949. Keep up the good work! RDN1F TALK 19:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swiss referendums, 2008, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User 23x2

This user who you warned already on another occasion is now trying to clear the name of the PKK terrorists in the article by constant reverts. I know it is not good to say this, and you may already imagine, but s/he is only acting with a nationalist drive, i.e., in this case, introduce the most anti-Turkish POV as possible no matter in which article. I kindly request you to intervene to avoid an unnecessary edit war. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Angola problem

According to WP, apparently New Democracy is the same as New Democracy Electoral Union (akin to CASA and CASA-CE). Were 1 party short. Otherwise all clean nowLihaas (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

New Democracy is in fact officially called "Nova Democracia-União Eleitoral". The party is distinct from CASA-CE - and "akin" only in the sense that both are opposition parties. -- Aflis (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Coding

Have you seen the coding for country at 2012 Summer Paralympics medal table? Can we do something similiar to link to "Election in..,"? Would be useful on the calendar and most recent page we did.Lihaas (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need something so complex when we can just pipe links. It's not going to be used in as many places as Olympics-style links. Number 57 09:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 20:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maldivian presidential election, 1978, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ahmed Zaki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swiss referendums, 1953, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wainwright and Saddler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:California elections

Sorry I made it too unreadable. Thanks for your edits!—GoldRingChip 13:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Celtic Nation F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graeme Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Club Notability Tables

I am nearing the completion of my work on the Club Notability Tables. Your views on the work to date would be appreciated - in particular any advice on the removal of any obvious gremlins. I will be creating a Miscellaneous section in the tables where Kosovo, North Cyprus etc can be considered. I also propose to move non-FIFA members such as Niue to this section. There may be issues that you do not wish to raise at the moment and I respect that you may hold back some comments to the formal consultation. Any advice on how to conduct a WP consulation would be appreciated. I am sending this communication to Number 57, GiantSnowman, Kosm1fent and Mentoz86. Kind regards League Octopus (League Octopus 13:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC))

Please note that I have now drawn attention to the Club Notability Tables (and Test) at WT:FOOTY. Kind regards. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC))

RE: et another appalling blind revert

nit included organisational changes, which were per BRD to change.Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wharts hthe blindlness per BRD and [itll come to me when i sober up]Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sweden politics book

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at WP:RX.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

160.94.27.171 (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Occupation of Palestinee listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Occupation of Palestinee. Since you had some involvement with the Occupation of Palestinee redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).

Angola Elections

As far as I can see, the template in "Angolan legislative election, 2012" does not contain a link to the article "Elections in Angola", but to the National Assembly. -- Aflis (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about ther same template? As to the one in the article "Angolan lesgislative election 2012", the head links to the article "Angola", and below it is a link to "National Assembly (Angola)" - but where is the link to "Elections in Angola"?? Maybe it is there, and I am just too dumb to find it...-- Aflis (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, right you are. I simply hadn't paid attention to this template, only to the other one. -- Aflis (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ne/Nee

See first sentence Eric_Hobsbawm#Early_life_and_educationLihaas (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Italian election

I find crazy to link to general regional election and not to the one-region election because for example in 2015 will vote only 11 regions and only one of the four more populous, and in this template there is not a link to the sicilian regional election. So you think my edit is not correct I suggest to add link like this 2012 (Sicily). Stigni (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, the regional elections articles cover years in which not all regions held elections, so I see no problem with you adding 2012 and just linking to Sicily, if this was the only region to hold one in that year? Number 57 13:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now I will work on it. I'm also working on Italian general election, 2008 in particular on the regional result like this one User:Stigni/Italian general election, 2008 (Lombardy). Stigni (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the current template now looks a bit of a mess. Better to create articles for the years in which there were more than one elections, then link out to them. Number 57 14:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Stigni (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin request

Nothing with elections (more data will follow soon), but just an request for an admin: Please delete:

• File:Original Soviet flag.png, as it is unknown if this flag did exist, it seems to be a wrong combination/misinterpretation of File:Flag of the Soviet Union (1923, unofficial).svg and File:Flag of the Soviet Union (1923).svg
• File:Tprpflag.PNG as everyone can see that that flag is completely wrong.

--Antemister (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the first one, but the second one is being used on Tuvan People's Revolutionary Party - it's the flag of the party, not the republic. Number 57 12:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to replace it, with the photo of the original red flag.--Antemister (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say best to clear it with Soman first before getting me to delete it, if that's ok? Number 57 13:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Luxembourgish

Luxembourgish is the proper form. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Luxembourg#Spelling_and_usage. Thanks! Seven Letters 17:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Luxembourgian => Luxembourgish

Hello,

Without meaning to sound rude, I do wonder why you have shifted the revisions I made to the various articles about elections in Luxembourg back to their previous and incorrect titles of "Luxembourgian"?

I would direct you to the section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Luxembourg#Spelling and usage which states that:

"'Luxembourgish' is to be used for the adjective of Luxembourg. 'Luxembourgian' has unfortunately become widely used on Wikipedia, however this is incorrect and should be changed when encountered. 'Luxembourgish', is also the name of the language, whilst 'Luxembourger' is the demonym."

Could you please revert your changes?

Best wishes, (Brigade Piron (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

Hello? Can you please revert your edits - it's a massive pain otherwise.--(Brigade Piron (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC))

Luxembourgian clearly isn't incorrect, as it is widely used. It's merely personal taste which is preferable. And seeing as no editor who moved the articles bothered to fix the links in {{Luxembourgian elections}}, I'm not sure I can be bothered to move the articles back. Number 57 16:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'm glad you've decided to respond, but I don't know how much clearer I can make it. If the wikiproject prefers Luxembourgish, then I don't see why you've gone to all the effort to, in effect, vandalise these otherwise excellent pages. I don't see how the template comes into it by the way since it doesn't say use the word "Luxembourgian" on it...

Look, I'm really not trying to be a pedant, but there are so many misuses of "Luxembourgian" across wiki that it is a massive job trying to get any kind of consensus so any help in that direction you could give us would be much appreciated! Brigade Piron (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(a) Regarding the template, if you move a page, you need to fix the link in the template, otherwise every time someone clicks on a link in the template, they are going via a redirect, and (b) if you're going to accuse me of vandalising these pages, then I really have no time for you. Try having a look at the edit history of some of the pages first. Number 57 11:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't see your point. I note that you created these pages (if that is what you are trying to demonstrate with the edit histories), so I don't see why you are deliberately (and at no little effort) changing the titles to "Luxembourgian" (rather akin to saying "Englandish"). With regard to the template, OK - I didn't know that, thanks - but surely it would be preferable to change that than to have a flagrantly wrong title to your article... Brigade Piron (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Likud Beiteinu - help needed in Expanding and expalining the "merge"

The merge is gonna be made offcial tomorow when the likud's Central Committee is going to convene and approve it. However, the claim about this (of Netanyahu) is that it is not a "merge" only a common list for the elections. Some claim this is exaclly the same as merging. Help is needed in both expanding and explaining.

--Midrashah (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Persian legislative election, 1909

The article Persian legislative election, 1909 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Low notability, bad quality.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mobobber (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Template_talk:Czech_elections#Presidential_Elections_prior_to_2013

Hello, seeing that you have contributed to the Template:Czech elections, I would like to invite you to share your view on inclusion of presidential elections prior to 2013 to the list. Thank you, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

British Caribbean

This is the last area in the world I did nor cover yet during the election project. (have data for most contries now, will publish it here from time to time) I'll see what I can do for the now-independent states, but for the existing british dependencies, practically no stuff is available in Germany. To complete the data is either a job for you or for the RX here. At the moment, two rather interesting conutries wait for completement of the data: The rather interesting cases of the centuries-old parliaments of Bermuda[5] and the Bahamas[6] Can you obtain that books?--Antemister (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

At some point in the next couple of months I may end up spending a lot of time in London. If this is the case, I will try and visit the British Library a few times to check out these books, and will keep you updated. Number 57 11:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Declaration of Independence [7] - Context and content

We had a discussion some time ago on the talk page of Israeli Declaration of Independence [8] - Context and content. I have opened up the discussion again. Trahelliven (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haim Amsalem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sharsheret (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Invited to take part in this matter: Talk:Likud Beiteinu#"Likud Beiteinu" or "Likud Israel Beiteinu"

Talk:Likud Beiteinu#"Likud Beiteinu" or "Likud Israel Beiteinu" --Midrashah (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Metallurgist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

/

Meretz

The claim that Meretz is the only Zionist and left-wing party is not laughable. It is the current state of affairs in Israeli politics. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? The Labor Party, HaTnua, and Yesh Atid are all defined as centrist. And Hadash is leftist, but non-Zionist. Sheli Yechimovich (head of the labor party) herself said that calling the labor party a leftist party is a "historical tragedy". (See this news article in Hebrew: http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/elections/1.1860121) I referenced the claim made by Nitzan Horowitz, since it was the only source in english I could find that directly refers to Meretz as being the only zionist left party. If I find a better article in english that references it, I will change the citation (and I invite anyone else to do so).Orangefoot (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

congrats

--Jayron32 12:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghanaian general election, 2004, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's National Convention (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC) RfA Hi, What happened? Why did you reverted the RfA transclusion? --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I'd like to know why this happened as well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Adminauftrag Kannst du bitte File:Text on Mongolian coat of arms 1940-41.pdf und File:Script on the Tuvan PRP's flag and the Flag of Tannu Tuva.pdf löschen, ich habe die Dateien heruntergeladen.--Antemister (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Done. Number 57 22:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Andorran parliamentary election, 1992 see http://hemeroteca.lavanguardia.com/preview/1992/04/13/pagina-13/33519070/pdf.html for details on the parties in the fray and their results. --Soman (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Bulgaria ellections Hello. I see that you made the articles about Bulgarian elections using the Nohlen, D & Stöver, P (2010) Elections in Europe: A data handbook, ISBN 9873832956097. There are a few ellections which don't have an article. Can you check what the book says about them. If you don't have time to write the articles, just give me the data, I'll be happy to write them. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Also can you check what is this Conservative party in the elections in 1899, 1901, 1902, 1903. The Conservative Party disbanded in 1884. --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Lebowan elections, etc. Re the naming of articles on the elections in Lebowa. I'm happy to accept that I was wrong about "Lebowa" versus "Lebowan", and that "Lebowan" is correctly used as the adjective form. But I don't see how we can call them "parliamentary" elections when the legislative assembly was explicitly not called a "parliament". One of the fairly significant changes when the TBVC bantustans moved from being nominally-autonomous territories to nominally-independent states was that their "Legislative Assemblies" became "Parliaments". - htonl (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC) (comment moved from my talk page:) Ok, by all means please rename them with "legislative". Cheers, Number 57 15:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the quick reply, and for all your work in putting together those election articles! Cheers, htonl (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC) No problem. If you know of any sources which may be useful for completing (and writing articles for) {{Boer and South African colonial elections}}, that would be most welcome. Number 57 15:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Well, I might know sources, but most of them are only available in South Africa. Have a look at the scond part of the bibliography in de:Burenrepubliken, which I created recently. @Number57, loads of information about latin american election will follow the next few days.--Antemister (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC) I don't know of any sources off the top of my head, but I do have access to the library at the University of Cape Town, which may be useful for getting hold of older books and so on. - htonl (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC) I'm on really, really terrible internet at the moment so I can't download it, but maybe you can check this book at the Internet Archive and see if it has anything about elections. - htonl (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC) That's been very helpful for the 1903 and 1904 elections - thanks! Number 57 09:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Concerning the Cape Parliament, a good book does exist. I do have it as a PDF file. Fewer data is available abou Natal and the both the Orange Free State and Transvaal.--Antemister (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Could you e-mail it to me? Cheers, Number 57 09:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Faroese constitutional referendum Hi, you proposed this article for deletion but it was deprodded before (after I proposed deletion) and can't be proposed again per WP:DEPROD. Instead, I opened a deletion discussion - comment if you want. Regards Hekerui (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Asia topic As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the redirection target of "Palestine" from "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Date templates Please do not remove date templates, as you did at Soham railway station. These emit machine-readable metadata and RfCs have established consensus for their use on Wikipedia. The documentation pages of those templates, and the infobox in which they are used, and WP:UF, have details. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Spanish language As the lack of knowledge of that language turns out to be a major problem here, I thought about to write to Mr. Nohlen himself if he wants to join here. What do you thnik about that?--Antemister (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC) I don't see why not, although I wonder whether he'd be happy that I've put almost all the data from his books into the public domain! Good work on all the recent additions to the list. I have recently come across tnfalk (talk · contribs), who seems to be interested in elections, and have invited them to join us. Number 57 23:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Question When was the Knesset officially dissolved? Wasnt it prior to 1 Jan? Also, do you like the new table format? I thought itd be more informative.Lihaas (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC) 2012 Not a fan of the new table. Israel doesn't have constituencies for a start, which I also think makes the incumbent column fairly meaningless. Number 57 09:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Ah! So i put 2012 on the list of Knessets template. And its right then. Removed constituncies. Lets try out the incumbent table when data comes in? Ill be awake for it so will keep adding when affirmed.Lihaas (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC) What is the point of "incumbent"? The members aren't elected in constituencies, but rather on lists, so no-one is directly re-elected. And it's further complicated by the replacement system - i.e. someone could be a member of the last Knesset, miss out on a seat by one or two places, but then re-enter when someone drops out. Number 57 09:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Incumbent shows the change in sentiment with who won what seat. but I realise now that it is more useful with constituencies not lists. We can remove it. The "only 9 seats" published was on a note on the eci page. Anyhoo, it seems the election comm hasnt published data yet.. Also do you know who arab christians end to vote for? Is it the rab parties or others (hadash?)Lihaas (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The nine weren't seats won, they were merely the first nine candidates in that party's list. There are full lists in Hebrew which I'll translate later. No idea about Christian Arabs I'm afraid. Number 57 08:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for January 22 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barkingside F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Redbridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Singular/plural We agreed that you would not change "election" to "elections" in instances where another editor had initially written it as singular. But here you are doing it again. Why? Everyking (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Apologies. I'm just so used to standardising articles (as I said the first time we discussed this, plural is by far the most common usage), I sometimes forget to check. Number 57 15:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC) If it is common and standard, then why are the election article titles always in the singular? Everyking (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Because they are very formal and formulaic. The actual text of the article is less so. Number 57 15:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC) So you're saying the title usage is "formal" but the article text is "informal"? I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. Shouldn't the usage be consistent between the two? Furthermore, our policy on using common names for article titles would suggest that the singular has been accepted across the board as the better usage, and the same logic would apply to the article text. Everyking (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Yes. For instance we have the article title West Ham United F.C., which is formal and formulaic, yet the article refers to the club throughout as West Ham. Number 57 15:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC) That's just a shortened form of the same name. That's not the same thing as using two inconsistent styles. Everyking (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC) It's formal vs informal, regardless of whether it's a contraction or not. Number 57 16:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC) "Election" is formal, but "elections" is informal? Really? I've never heard that before. It seems odd to go to the trouble to be "informal" by adding an extra letter to a word. Everyking (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Why? Informal names do not have to be shorter than formal ones. A lot of people refer to "NEC Nijmegen" when the official name is just "NEC". Number 57 16:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC) First of all, you need to establish that one usage is formal and one is informal, because I don't think that's true. Secondly, you need to explain why, even if that is true, we should use an informal usage when there appears to be no practical reason for doing so, and when doing so creates a jarring inconsistency with the article title. Everyking (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Antebellum (Vietnam) Kannst du diese seltsame Weiterleitung löschen?--Antemister (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Ich habe es gelöscht. Number 57 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Stav Shaffir wiki page Hello, Question: why remove the section with the excerpt from the main article of the 2011 social protests? It's the most relevant piece of background information. Idoshlomo (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Beware ownership issues I'm quite a bit worried that an admin would make a comment like this in a discussion. Seeking uninvolved opinions is the cornerstone of consensus in cases of disputes, and seeing something wrong about seeking advice from outside "the Wikiproject" is troubling – Wikiprojects are excellent tools for helping editors sharing common interest to join their efforts, but they have no particular authority to make rules or editorial decisions beyond a wider consensus and, frankly, it reeks of article ownership. — Coren (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Re: MK Infobox I like the changes very much so far. It is indeed easier to read. I think it will be easier to tell what more is needed (if anything) when we apply it to veteran politicians like Binyamin Ben Eliezer or Silvan Shalom. A side note on Israeli political articles: articles about all the 19th Knesset MKs have been created, but most of them are short stubs. I think we should write much longer articles about these individuals, but writing a serious article about any one individual takes a few hours for one editor, so improving 60 articles would probably take a year or two (considering most editors can't spend a few hours per day writing these things, even if you never get tired of it). I propose we collaborate on at least some of these articles, maybe even for articles about 2nd and 3rd time MKs many of which are short. What do you think? —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I would start with some of Yesh Atid's candidates, such as Meir Cohen (politician), Ofer Shelah, Yoel Razvozov and Pnina Tamano-Shata. Then I'd go for Eli Ben Dahan and Yoni Shetboun of the Jewish Home. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC) By the way, while I haven't had much time to edit during the week, I've added a bunch of recent media articles about the candidates to their talk pages (and will continue doing this). Most are in English. Feel free to use them in the articles! —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC) I have made some changes to the template to clarify that the years refer to when the MK was an MK, not when he or she was in the party, which is usually much longer. Also hopefully fixed the problem that no party showed up for people who already had the Party parameter from the old infobox. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for January 29 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Tzur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Public Security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Portland Thorns Ummm, nope. Not a cut and paste move or anything like it. Content was created independently (and better by me since I actually sourced content). Only the infobox was moved over, which was done properly with a reference to the source of the item, and only after I discovered the duplication (and as I mention on the talk page, had the FC editor properly done things, this entire waste of time would have been avoided). I know all about cut and paste moves, but I have to question your thought process on "approving" the move. One whole person "supported" it. Even the nominator basically pulled back. As I thought I explained on the talk page, and I know others inadvertently put their foot in their mouth by quoting the entire guideline, being the official name is not enough. Given we usually close such discussions based on guidelines/policies, I find it disconcerting that you closed with a decision of move, despite the fact that no one provided the evidence that the FC meets "(2) The name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media and it is recognizable". The only thing close to that would have been by me, showing the opposite. Again, I'm not saying that ultimately it should not be moved, but until someone demonstrates it meets the actual criteria, it should not have been moved. Nobody outside of the football/soccer fanboys cares, but those within it seem to have an unwritten rule that titles need to have FC or F.C. in them, regardless of if it is the official name, since usually FC is only an abbreviation and the official name spells it out. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Armenian_elections --Երևանցի talk 23:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC) DYK for Yoni Chetboun Nyttend (talk · contribs) 16:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Help in wikicommons: Otef Aza->Gaza envelope Hi, I have just translated the Hebrew עוטף עזה (Otef Aza) article to Gaza envelope in English wikipedia, and would like to transfer the exsisting category:Otef Aza in wikicommons to Category:Gaza envelope, but was unable to do so. Can you help me move this to the english name on wikicommons? Also, there is a need to create a "Category:Gaza envelope" on wikipedia itself that will include Sderot and all the rest of Kibbutzim and Moshavim in the area that I have listed in the article "Gaza envelope". I know you are fond of local authoreties in Israel, so you will probabily be best at picking sub-categories etc. for such a category, and this is why it will be best you create such a category on wikipedia itself. Thank you. --Midrashah (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Map Do you happen to have a map for Gaza envelope ? --Midrashah (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC) What's up with the Gaza envelope category ? --Midrashah (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 5 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clapton F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Insertion of Hebrew text in a file and subsequent problems Greetings. Since you are the editor who inserted Yehoshua Hankin's name in Hebrew in that file and you may know something about the side-effects of the insertion of Hebrew text in a file, why would you not go and help some poor guy who's trying to deal with that Hebrew text preventing him from fixing a date in the file. The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Hebrew, Arabic in intros. (the page exists, I don't understand the red link). You know the page I mean. Could you go there see if you can help? You'll see the discussion in the section "Hebrew, Arabic in intros". Cheers Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 00:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Message for you at my talk page Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Basemetal's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Times request Can you use the Times to find out some data on elections in British Guiana between 1901 and 1953 and for Egypt before 1883. Need that for further research on that topic.--Antemister (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) British Guiana - not much info - article from 1905 which complains that "attempts to blend responsible government and crown colony government" have been unsuccessful. This hints at elections (responsible government). There is reference to elections in a 1927 article, but again no detail. A 1952 article discusses the introduction of universal suffrage, and refers to "the last election". Nothing else I'm afraid. I'll have a look at Egypt tomorrow. Number 57 21:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC) List of members of the nineteenth Knesset There are no sources on the page. Where did you get that data from?Lihaas (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Different party list hereLihaas (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Umm, it was deceptive cause it cited my mistakeS, apparently there was aone extraremoval with the bold tags. Further, BOLDTITLE provides for no such exception. Kindly seek consensus. It is not standard practicw. Further, there is no standard "conduct" or moving election day content to electoral system. ALso youcited mistakes when making whole schale changed.(Lihaas (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)). Re: Municipal elections I don't know of the official page (there should be one somewhere), but you can see the winners and the percentage of the vote here: http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/2686/1376514 Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC) That is correct. The next one will be in October 2013. I can't wait :) my city has no elected mayor right now. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 15 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Israeli municipal elections, 2008, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tira (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Apologies Just logged in and came straight here to apologise for reverting the bolding. I was angry and donet want to get angry no more. I would revert if you havent already. As for the plural "fiasco" i have clearly accepted that ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Pre-1883 election in Egypt Can you have a look into the Times concerning that topic? Need that information before doing further research...--Antemister (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC) The only thing I could find was an article from December 1877 about the new Ottoman constitution which refers to each village and province having its own elected council. Number 57 22:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Wikimedia UK March newsletter Good morning! I'm based at the Wikimedia UK offices in London, and part of my job is organising the new monthly members' newsletter. One of the regular sections focuses on Microgrants - you can see the Jan and Feb editions for examples :) I would really like it if we could have a piece about your elections in Europe microgrant in the March newsletter, which would go out at the end of this month. Do you think you could find time to either write a few paragraphs, or chat to me about the work and then have a play with something I drafted? Let me know what you reckon! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Can you please discuss Dear Number 57, I think the way to do this is that if you wish to have a merger, you need to talk about it. That's only courteous. I don't think the effort you've put into this page will go to waste at all. I'm putting it back now, please observe WP:3RR and don't be cross. Cheers, Wikidea 18:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Nohlen and Stover? Not their first error Your source is simply wrong. There's not a sole historical source speaking about a constitutional assembly in Sammarinese history (and considering that, even today, San Marino has not a written constitution, it is logic). In a page about an election we should read about how many seats had to be filled, what was the parliament to be elected, what was the poltical result. None of these data are given by N&S, that evidently were wrong about a country of 10,000 inhab. at time. However, N&S are also known for their errors about elections in Italy, a country of 50m inhab., but this another story... Barlafus (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC) The sole clear thing is that the book is wrong. On that day, there was a Metting of 854 householders: a meeting of solely 854 men is already an assembly, there's nothing to elect. And, as I said you, when you'll find an alleged Sammarinese constitution, you'll be able to maintain a page speaking about an alleged constitutional assembly, with an unknown number of seats to be filled into an unknown parliament with unknown representatives belonging to unknown parties. I'm waiting for some of these data. --Barlafus (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately for you and your wrong book, the current Council is the 28th, the 1st one dating back to June 1906. It seems another error of N&S. By the way, the Meeting (Arengo) was an assembly, so it did not need to elect another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barlafus (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Considering that there's no trace of your alleged Constitution, the sole surprise we could find would be a Constituent Assembly. Don't you agree? However, I'm not preventing you to write your page for all eternity: simply come back when you'll find news about your alleged Constitutional Assembly and your alleged Constitution.--Barlafus (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Italian election Looking to the official data of the Italian Ministry of Interior, we can see again many errors of our friends N&S. The It.electoral law for the House during the second half of the 20th century was a classic form of party-list PR, and N&S data which are different from the Ministry ones must be deleted. The electoral law for the Senate, instead, was very strange: electors voted on ballots which were very similar to the ballots used in countries adopting the FPTP like US and UK, however, the electoral system was always the party-list PR. For this reason, there are problems to show the party votes for the Senate, while it is more easy to show the seats won by every party, looking to the political groups during each legislature of the Senate.--Barlafus (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC) See Talk:Swiss popolar iniciative "against corporate Rip-offs" of 2013 I see in this Wikipedia (sorry if there are some mistakes in my English, it is not my native language) that there is a completely wrong use of the term "referendum", "popular iniciative" and "votation" etc. Please see about this the English version of the Swiss Federal Constitution (Swiss Federal Constitution, Art 138). All this several articles should be revised (see also German Wikipedia). Not all but serveral accepted popular iniciatives merit translation into English. Surely the Swiss popolar iniciative "against corporate Rip-offs" merits, as it will have impact on the economy of the whole world (as now the EU follows this example with an similar las proposual!). Iniciatives which has only purly regional relevance, of course do not need a separate article! The article Swiss referendum, 2013 (and the other similars) has a completely wrong title. It could be Swiss popular iniciatives and referendums, 2013 (and there has to be a plural form, as there are much more than only one - there will be 12 federal votations and several local and cantonal votations until the end of the year!). As English is not my native language, there is very difficult for me to correct all this mistakes. In any case the popular iniciative against corporate Rip-offs is very special and has an apart historic signification. Therefore it even merits its onw article, if no other popular iniciative has one, what is not true, as almost the miniaret iniciative has also a proper article! I did not controll, if there is any other. A related category is missing.DidiWeidmann (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Ecuadorian seat totals Hi, I'm the one who put up those seat totals, and I nabbed them from the spanish wiki. On CNE's results page you'll notice a link, slightly up and to the right of the results table called "Descargar Reporte - Candidatos Elegidos" -- this is where you'll find the official seat totals online once CNE gets around to uploading them (WARNING: it's a pdf file.) --4idaho (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC) WP:SOURCES We need discussions when an article is controversial. Here, Sammarinese official SOURCES clearly says that June 1906 election was the first election in that country (Here an official source by the Sammarinese government reporting registered voters for all elections: June 106 is the first one ). No discussion should be needed to delete an article speaking about the German invasion of the United States during WW2.... By the way, I saw your edits in the article Italian general election, 1948, and you deleted two fundamental data: swings total seats in the Senate including Senators by right. I hope youll re-add that data soon and, about swings and official results by the Ministry, in all articles you deleted them. Thanks.--Barlafus (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Gr-leg I left you a reply to pick over on my talk page when your ready. And sorry again, I didn't mean to accuse you of anything. --4idaho (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I've left you another response, as well as a proposed table. --4idaho (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I've left you a third reply. Good job with the white space, but what do you think of the proposed compromise table? --4idaho (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I'm happy we've seemed to reach an agreement. Are you ready to insert the new table? --4idaho (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Help with translation from Greek to English Hello. Πρόσεξα ότι γνωρίζεις ελληνικά. Θα ήθελα τη βοήθεια σου. Έχω μεταφράσει δύο λήμματα από την ελληνική Βικιπαίδεια στην αγγλική. Δυστυχώς, υπάρχουν κάποια λάθη, κυρίως συνταχτικά. Δεν έχω μεγάλη ευφράδεια στην αγγλική. Θα ήθελα να τα διαβάσεις και να κάνεις τις απαραίτητες διορθώσεις, αν μπορείς. Αν δεν ενδιαφέρεσαι, απολογούμαι για την ενόχληση. Τα λήμματα είναι Nea Salamis Famagusta FC και Nea Salamis Famagusta. Xaris333 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Gree==Disambiguation link notification for March 12 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian constitutional referendums, 1898–1900, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Greenland Thanks for correcting my mistake. I think I may have been under the mistaken impression that there were 2 alcohol related referenda. Francium12 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Israeli cabinet I'll make sure to go back and do that! Thismightbezach (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC) I'm confused -_- Thismightbezach (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC) {{Sammarinese elections}} Please read my comments here and consider yourself warned. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Question about Israeli ministry article changes Hi Number 57, The other day you updated the articles for the Israeli ministries to include new information. However, in the process it appears that you reverted the recent formatting changes by a new editor which were kind of nice (IMO). Was this intentional and if so, what was the reasoning behind the change? Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 15:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I completely agree about the color scheme which is arbitrary and it's good that it was removed. Aside from that however, I don't see the problem with numbering the ministers (e.g. useful for saying who was the 12th defense minister, etc.), or with the additional code which I didn't think was too complicated. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Ya'akov Geri As you were the person, who wrote the first version of this article, can you please have a look on the according talk page and state the sources for the information I was not able to confirm? Thanks. --SchwarzerKater(BLN) (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Israel election datedness tag Actually the entire article body (campaign, parties, etc.) is out of date too :( –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Removed pre-Malaysia elections Not clear why pre-Malaysia elections are included here. Please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiteck (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Because Malaya became Malaysia. If there were elections in North Borneo and Sarawak, they should also be included. Number 57 12:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC) It seems that there were elections in North Borneo and Sarawak. This is one of those minor areas I did not care about yet. Btw, a lot of stuff on elections lies around my desk...--Antemister (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. I did not see it earlier - hence the edit war. Malaysia was formed by a merger of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak. Including the pre-Malaysian elections of Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak would not really sort this issue out and would make the category messy (due to the inclusion of state-level elections). Do we really want to go this route? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiteck (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Malaysian state elections belong here: which rightly only includes elections post 16 Sept 1963.Wikiteck (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Eh, that template is extremely incomplete (in the german WP, it might be a candidate for a speedy deletion...) If it is possible to find out the dates for the pre-union elections in Sarawak and Saba, there should be extra templates like Template:Sarawak elections or Template:Sabah elections. As Sarawak and Sabah are now federal states of Malysia, one should not include pre-union elections there if you leave out post-union ones. Wikiteck, are you familiar with that topic?--Antemister (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Malaya wasn't a state, it was an independent country, so it should be on the template by itself. I've had a brief look at the Times, but couldn't find any direct elections for Sabah or Sarawak prior to federation (there were indirect elections in Sarawak at least). Number 57 22:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC) I see you latest edits on this. Good job. Thanks for sorting it out. Wikiteck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC) The constitution fo there two countries can be found in the State Papers, will have access to them.--Antemister (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC) On 1964 being a "Malaysian General Election", it did not involve Singapore, Sabah or Sarawak so it was not really a pan-Malaysian general election. You mention "too much splitting" and yet you previously cited the Tanzania example (which has six splits). Please explain. 210.187.218.109 (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC) The split is for pre-union elections. The 1964 election was post-union. The fact that it wasn't held everywhere is irrelevant to the template, but should be explained in the article. Number 57 21:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC) List of politicians who have met with Pope Francis Do you think moving the page to "List of political meetings of Pope Francis" would solve the issue? Janus Savimbi (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC) No, sorry,.I still think it's pointless. Number 57 18:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Are you gonna delete it, then? Janus Savimbi (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 31 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yugoslavian parliamentary election, 1969, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 20:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Argentine elections 2011 You are extremely confused and you are making a big mess in those articles. Your edits do not match the template at all. Please check how they dealt with a same situation in France article. Try to give more attention next time.--Mercosur arg (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 9 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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. Ahn Deok-su (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added links pointing to Seo and Ganghwa Babergh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Pinewood It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Warning Well, I already have agreed, but i am angry for your unfair warning. If you again threaten me, first you will be blocked by a Bureaucrat. Cheers, Qara Khan 07:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Sim Shalom Synagogue Hi there Number 57: You have nominated the original poorly composed Sim Shalom Synagogue article for deletion. I am trying to improve it! Please let the AfD run its course without resort to butchering the article. You are an interested party and should step back and let others try to improve the article and let's see how that goes and what other editors think. Feel free to add comments at the AfD to defend and explain your reasoning. But it is impossible to improve the article if you will chop anything that helps it out of it. If you must, first use the article's talk page, but at this point it would be best for you to explain your position/s at the AfD. Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you a lot. Thank you for helping improving South Korea politics templates. Thanks for your correction and just everything. I learned a lot. :D --Kafka1115 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Re: Blind reverts Please read my edit summary before you label this a "blind revert". I never removed the registered voters and turnout information. I actually amalgamated that info into the table instead of completely reverting your edit. I've made a compromise version now. Your width parameters are left untouched, but I've now added in the Spanish translations of the parties. Is that alright? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Also, please stop reverting the prose in the lead. It is exactly the same style utilized not only in the Japanese general election, 2012, but also in the Venezuelan presidential election, 2013. I'm not sure of the quality of those two articles, but I'm basing the language off those two. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Bloom6132 (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers! Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! I'm sorry I got fired up in my previous statements (both in edit summaries and on this talk page). After having a short break and simmering down, I realized my comments were completely unbecoming and over the top. Please accept this peace dove, a goodwill gesture on my part. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC) With regards to the translations, I was simply basing that off past precedent and even I'm not really sure what they add (other than give the "authentic" name of the party as it is known in the country). And you're right; there hasn't been consensus or consistency with whether to include translations or not. While Germany, Poland, Italy and France include them, Hong Kong, South Korea and the Republic of China do not. Perhaps you might want to consider bringing up the issue on the project's talk page and establish consensus there, then modify the draft election MOS accordingly. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Chris Bascombe I've semi'ed for a week while the AfD is ongoing. GiantSnowman 11:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC) please help someone indefinitely protected the soviet union page because user:nug requested that and said my edits was vandalism despite user:nug edit warring, this is unfair can someone unprotect the page? 95.195.208.32 (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Shomer Masoret my own work which i'm not satisfied with. It's an important Israeli topic (39% of Israeli define themselves "Shomer Masoret"/Masorti", though it's not a movement, but rather a "Self Description" phenomenon). Can you help on this topic or can you recommend any user who is knowledgeable on Mizrahi/relgious topics in Israel? --Midrashah (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 8 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nick Pope (footballer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ely (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Pakistani general election 2013 I saw that you did some edits on the page and I, as a Pakistani, thank you for that. Too many political party workers from our country have started editing their respective wikipedia pages and tend to tilt it in their favour. I hope to, following the final result, work on making that page neutral, more informative, and by taking away the non-essential bits. Though I did some work on the Pakistan National Assembly page as well and a week or so after I was done a political party worker pretty much went berserk on it :( Un.autre.monde (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC) new to wikipedia i make mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uabbas92 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC) UCL Thanks for the heads up, a copy-paste error must have slipped in as I did the NCEL/UCL updates on the same day. Should be all corrected now. El Pharao (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC) :) From here - http://www.economy.bg/bulgaria/view/7527/Kolko-bylgari-sa-glasuvali-za-razlichnite-partii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.218.66 (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Azam Very interesting! GiantSnowman 18:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, I followed from a distance - the draft is in his sandbox, perhaps we should deal with that? Also we shouldn't use Transfermarkt for any article, it's clearly not reliable in the slightest and this just adds to it. GiantSnowman 18:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Move back into mainspace, delete, and re-SALT? GiantSnowman 19:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC) But that means the 'history' will be located in a userspace, I think it's better to have it in mainspace? GiantSnowman 19:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I've posted back at Poweplay's talk page. GiantSnowman 19:56, 14 May Silvateam Dear Number 57, Please could you help me to write a good Wikipedia page about Silvateam? Silvateam is a worldwide leader in production of tannins that can be used in several applications, such as tanning leather, animal nutrition, oenology, etc. Today consumers are asking more and more about natural and healthy products. For example if you suffer of allergic contact dermatitis to potassium bichromate (containg chromium VI) it is better to avoid the use of chromium tanned leather but it is better to use vegetable tanned leather containing natural tannins. I think that is important to promote throught Wikipedia this information because I think consumers need to know about that. Thank you in advance for your kind co-operation. Best regards Massimo Gotti (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Prem You're right. Have revised the edit to reflect official name. Crookesmoor (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Bulgarian election Hi, Number 57! I answered you here. BigSteve (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Hello Number 57, I have created a report for the multiple reverts that you did on my edits. ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Like I state in the report, I highly respect your contributions to Wikimedia (and it seems that they are numerous and well done), however it seems to me that you have taken my edits personally and are deleting them regardless if my attempts to take your point (see my last edit). I do believe that my edits do contribute to shaping the whole picture in the Bulgarian elections and I do stand behind them. Please do not hesitate to contact me, and perhaps suggest a better way for me to contribute (I am still novice here :) ) but please do not just delete anything I write - it is not constructive at all. Best Regards, Batvanio File:Awfulformatting.PNG missing description details Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: File:Awfulformatting.PNG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers. If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Template Talk:Jewish and Israeli holidays. Message added 17:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Youth template Dude, you had many potential nomination, let's TfD all. Template:Switzerland Squad 2010 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship Template:Argentina U-17 squad 2001 FIFA U-17 World Championship Matthew_hk tc 13:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC) I think you're confusing me with the editor that nominated them! Number 57 13:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Oh yes. Matthew_hk tc 09:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Cayman election I nominated the article that you and I have contributed to for an In The News article to be featured on the front page. If you would like to support this nomination, you can do so here. - Nbpolitico (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Cambodian elections template Shouldn't you add the 2012 Cambodian Senate elections in the template too. - KnightxxArrow (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC) No - the templates do not include indirect (non-public) elections. The Senate elections fall into this category. Cheers, Number 57 10:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 28 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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. Colombian parliamentary election, 1931 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1933 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1935 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1937 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1939 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1941 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1943 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1945 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1947 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1949 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1951 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1953 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1958 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1960 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian parliamentary election, 1962 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives Colombian presidential election, 1982 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Democratic Front It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Airdrie / Airdrie United / Airdrieonians I may have cocked up the reverting of various page moves, the page histories for both clubs appear to be lost at Airdrie United F.C., can you please take a look and lend a hand retrieving as appropriate? Thanks, GiantSnowman 14:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC) That's great, thanks very much. GiantSnowman 14:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 2013 General Election's actually nawaz sharif cant have a government if they dont secure 172 seats so if PML-N has only won 157 seats and if 19 independents hasn't join him to form a coalition then it will be a hung parliament so thats why i wrote 157 + 19 independents = 176 it means PML-N has Secure majority by forming a coalition with these independents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahmeerhumayun (talk • contribs) 12:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 4 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colombian parliamentary election, 2002, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Unity Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Template:Italian elections The reason for the changes to the links is that each of those election pages are intentional links to the disambiguation page. Therefore, per WP:INTDABLINK, the link should be piped through the (disambiguation) redirect. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 08:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I think the issue is that those pages are not strictly DAB pages, and the template was deliberately linking to them. I've removed the dab templates from them. Number 57 10:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Ok. That works for me. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 17:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:2010 League of Ireland First Division table Template:2010 League of Ireland First Division table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kingjeff (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 12 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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. Bolivian general election, 1884 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Conservative Party Bolivian general election, 1888 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Conservative Party It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC) "Singaporean pre-union elections are not relevant here as Singapore is not part of Malaysia" -- actually they are relevant because Singapore was one of the four entities that formed Malaysia in 1963 (along with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak); the pre-union elections in Singapore determined which Singaporean representatives would have seats in the Malaysian parliament Belukar (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Referendum Some more sources to show you that it is not just one journalist's opinion: http://www.voxxi.com/predictable-outcome-falkland-islands/ http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/2013/03/11/372695/Falklands-referendum.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/09/meaningless-falklands-referendum-uk-sovereignty http://theconversation.com/falklands-referendum-will-change-little-12653 http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-03-11/falklands-referendum-changes-nothing-for-argentina/ http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/03/falkland-islands-referendum We can work on an alternate version, but the opinion is valid and not WP:UNDUE. What's more, on post-examination it looks accurate (not much has changed). --Langus (t) 20:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC) June 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2002 in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: merger of existing [[List of NHS Health Authorities (1996-2002)|NHS regional health authorities]]) to form 28 new [[NHS strategic health authority|strategic health authorities]], and introduction Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 24 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swiss referendums, 1999, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asylum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Can you confirm your edits please? Just noticed that some of your edits are not confirmed. Thanks. --Toothache from Asidiciale (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Some of your edits are not confirmed, please contact the ANI or helpdesk for assistance or you may be blocked.. --Toothache from Asidiciale (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothache from Asidiciale (talk • contribs) 16:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Airdrieonians Thanks your a star, had visions of it taking all week by hand. Use Macs so dont think i can use AWB.Blethering Scot 20:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Orphan - Yemeni constitutional referendum, 2013 It is an orphan because it does not have another aticle linking to it. Pleas read Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria. "An article is orphaned if no other articles link to it. It is recommended to only place the {{orphan}} tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles. Although a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag, three or more is ideal and will help ensure the article is reachable by readers.[1] The following pages do not count toward the one incoming link: Disambiguation pages Redirects (but the incoming links to the redirects do count) Soft redirects Discussion pages of articles Wikipedia pages outside of article space (like a template)" -(t) Josve05a (c) 22:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC) In that cas the AWB-tool has a bug. I have reported it. For a conformation. -(t) Josve05a (c) 11:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Silvateam Hello Number 57, I have added this information and other references because I'm expert in the tannin field and I would like to share my knowledge with other guys through Wikipedia. I found into silvateam.com website a lot of interesting information. I decided also to add Silvateam wiki page since could be useful for general knowledge. There are many pages with company profile on Wikipedia and my aim is in the same way. Please could you help me to rewrite this page in the correct way? Thanks for your help. Best regards 91.81.17.213 (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC) hi hi number 57 i want to ask why the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Buj%C4%8Devski - "Antonio Bujcevski" is deleted by you ?! and how can be undeleted again ? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkoheroj (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC) no man you got it all wrong , he is a professional football player , macedonian first league is fully professional league , i am from macedonia , you can check on fifa and yefa ... so now how can i undelete the deleted text about Antonio Bujcevski ?! thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkoheroj (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Macedonian_Football_League - you can see here on the yefa.com / fifa.com .... the only semi pro leagues are from " wells , san marino , luxemburg , liechtenstein , andorra " and in those countries some football clubs are professional even the leagues are not fully pro .... i tell you 100% sure ... you can check ... and then tell me how to undelete the post you deleted . thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkoheroj (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC) http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/country/seasoncountry/index.html here you can see .... by the coeficient ... montenegro and albania are not fully pro leagues ?! they are pro leagues just like the Macedonian ... i am from Macedonia ... why shoud i lie ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkoheroj (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC) i am from macedonia ... and i am telling you the league is fully pro ... everywhere you look you will see ... contact someone random from macedonia and ask ... i just want to undelete the post about Antonio Bujcevski ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkoheroj (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC) and if you get a somekind of proof you will undelete the post for Antonio Bujcevski ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkoheroj (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Message added 12:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. I'd like your views on my comment. Thank you. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 12:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC) First discuss Eygpt referendums. I don't see why you don't change it for "beauty". Kavas (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Re: Hebrew Okay, that didn't work anyway (although I didn't self-revert because I hadn't noticed the error). Thanks for fixing it. The thing I'm really trying to fix is the font on the Hebrew script. I think someone changed the shared CSS to include a font specification, which is wrong, or at least it should be another font. So far I haven't been able to find the actual place where it was done though. It's extremely annoying :( do you think you can help? Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 10:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC) I came to the definite conclusion that the problem isn't in any of the templates, but in Wikipedia's own CSS or JavaScript. I posted a question at the village pump and hopefully it can be resolved. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 10:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox member of the Knesset Template:Infobox member of the Knesset has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 1956, 1982 referendums Do you think it's fully consistent with other election templates on Wikipedia? Kavas (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC) The Egyptian one? Number 57 15:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC) yes Kavas (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Yes. Several templates link to one article from different parts of the template - e.g. {{Uruguayan elections}} - all the presidential links link to the same article as either the parliamentary or Colegiado links. Number 57 15:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Can you suggest improvements to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_constitutional_referendum,_1982 ? What's wrong?Kavas (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC) I don't understand. Improvements to the talk page? I've given up - we had a discussion, we couldn't agree. A third opinion was sought and agreed that the status quo was appropriate. I have no desire to continue discussing the matter with you, as you are attempting to twist my words to suit your own beliefs. It was a referendum on a constitution that had many separate aspects, none of which are appropriate to single out. Number 57 19:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC) As you probably know, talk pages are used for improvements to Wikipedia articles. So feel free to add comments that can help us improve the article according to your personal beliefs on that referendum. Kavas (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I have expanded the article a little. The most obvious error was the date of the referendum was wrong. Number 57 16:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for correcting the date but I am trying to solve new errors you made in the text now. Kavas (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC) List of Knesset speakers: Proposed close Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Talk:List of Knesset speakers. Message added 19:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. StevenJ81 (talk) Clarification If I understood our agreement correctly, we now only need to ensure that only number box and party box are colored, at all four lists. Nothing else is to be changed at those four lists, right? (Answer either here or at Speakers talk page). --Sundostund (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Unnecessary football navboxes Can you help me discuss these discussions: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12, especially SAFF Championship, EAFF Championship, SEA Games? Banhtrung1 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC) You did "help" him, N57, with some of his nominations, even though you didn't participate in the discussion he specified on your talk-page - shouldn't you as an admin, warn this user for canvassing instead of doing what he wants you to do ? Regards, Mentoz86 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Because frankly I don't have much time at the moment. I assumed someone else would spot it and take action (and was proved right). Number 57 21:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC) List of Election results by year Interested in pusuing this for future years? Election results in 2009(Lihaas (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)). No - I would have that deleted as it adds nothing to the project - we only need a list of elections during the year, not a jumble of results tables. Number 57 22:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Sort of agree, but thought itd be a list class article like the "most recent" election results we worked onv/ (Lihaas (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)). Ottoman empire Ottoman empire and Turkey are two different countries. Why are you bulk reverting me? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC) No, Turkey is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire. See this paper from the European Journal of International Law amongst others. Number 57 18:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC) That is not entirely true (historic details such as other successors, lack of common capitals, structure, language etc.) and also irrelevant. See Template:Russian elections vs Template:Soviet elections. Notice the complete lack of elections prior to 1991 in the Russian template. You also removed the entire list of pages on Presidential elections under the rationale that they weren't public elections. This is not a sufficient rationale as we for example have Template:United States presidential elections. No U.S. president was ever elected by the people. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Fair enough re the first point - I will restore the Ottoman template to those articles and put a see also section on the bottom of the Turkish one. I have addressed the presidential issue on the template talk page. Number 57 19:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC) ITN credit ThaddeusB (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC) August 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zimbabwean general election, 2013 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: Newsday.co.zw |date=2013-07-09 |accessdate=2013-07-29}}</ref> Candidacy later withdrawn.<ref>[http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/zim2013candidates.htm Zimbabwe: 2013 Presidential election candidates Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC) re:Brazilian presidential election articles Hey, hello thanks for the advice. By the elections template you mean the Template:Brazilian elections ? Yeah, my mistake in using the template to count, thanks . And the date is probably 25 according to my sources. I'll fix that, I probably got the number 22 from the portuguese article. And thanks for the fixes. GNozaki (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Template talk:Turkish elections#Ottoman empire I think you brought up a very interesting point. I have created a long sit of successions for the Ottoman Empire. It had taken me some time, what do you think? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Re Indian general election, 1934 The article is there on Page 9 of the archived paper. But now that I see it, it is dated 6th December although it is bunched with 3rd December. I'll make the change. --Salilb (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 8 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yemeni parliamentary election, 1993, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page General People's Congress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Template Hello, You don't believe it. I just adapted a template and now I see you made a new one at the same moment.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I made the new one after I saw you added the governments to the elections templates - they need to be separate (see eg {{Israeli governments}} and {{Israeli elections}}). What it would be good to do know is find dates for governments before 2002. Number 57 15:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I don't agree they should be separated. Purpose is to give related links together (that is navigation), rather than a bunch of templates. It should be neither too long, nor too small. The name may be adapted.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC) But governments are not always related to elections - as you can see from the Palestinian templates, most of the governments were not formed as the results of elections. The same is the case in Israel. There are over 200 of these templates (one for every country, plus many more for subdivisions like Scotland) and none of them include governments, for which there are separate templates in all cases ({{British ministries}}, {{Scottish Government Cabinets}} etc. Number 57 15:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC) It is not the question how it is in other templates. It is about making the articles accessible. When it becomes too big it can be splitted. There is no reason to split. Only the name should be appropiate. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC) The articles are accessible through the Government template, just like they are for everywhere else. Number 57 16:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Flags Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--John (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Hello John. The issue of the flags on the election templates has been discussed previously (I will try and find the discussion - it was on one of the 2-300 templates). The basis of keeping them was because on some articles there is more than one templates (cross-border elections, or elections in countries that split afterwards) and this was deemed to be a navigational aid. Cheers, Number 57 20:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC) We'd need an actual clear consensus to diverge from MoS guidance, otherwise we would not use these decorations. --John (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Like I said, I'll try and find the discussion. Examples of where it's useful include European Parliament election, 2004 (United Kingdom), Belizean and Guatemalan International Court of Justice referral referendum, 2013, Indian general election, 1934 etc. Number 57 20:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC) PS, as a user of 8 years, I really don't appreciate being templated. I was hoping to have a productive discussion, rather than being patronised. Number 57 20:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Well, sorry to have damaged your amour-propre. I didn't appreciate being reverted twice when editing in accordance with MoS, especially with such a lame edit-summary; think yourself lucky I didn't block you! It's always better to give an actual reason if you must revert, than to say it's been like that for a while, which is never a good reason to revert. Never mind, we are talking now. If it's important to you to keep the little flags, see if you can find the discussion. --John (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC) "think yourself lucky I didn't block you" Frankly, if you'd have blocked me, you'd have been a candidate for being desysopped. You and I both know you can't use your admin tools in a content dispute. Number 57 20:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC) This isn't a content dispute though, it was an editor blind-reverting against consensus with a lame edit summary. If you were an IP I'd probably have given you a 24hh block for that; I recognised your name so I didn't as I thought you might have some reasonable justification thaqt you weren't sharing. Next time, don't take the risk; use a decent edit summary. Desysop? I doubt it, but we'll never know as we are talking hypotheticals. If you like, I'll let you know the next time I block someone for reverting against MoS or ENGVAR after it has been explained to them and you can take it to AN/I and see what the denizens think. Let me know if you want me to do that. --John (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I would say yes, but I'd rather you didn't post on my talk page again after this discussion has finished - unfortunately I don't think you are able to interact with me in good faith, so I'd rather not have any further contact with you. Number 57 21:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Ok. If you find the discussion you were looking for, you can pop it here. --John (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC) 3RR closure Please see the closure of your 3RR report. If it turns out that these election templates are subject to WP:ARBPIA then you should probably avoid reverting these kinds of edits, since under the ARBPIA 1RR restriction both of you would be over the limit. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Re: Haim Dayan Hi Number 57, The facts appear to be true, although the last source is a court decision, and I'm pretty sure there's a problem with citing those. Couldn't find the policy or guideline at the moment though. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 09:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Avanza País (Paraguay) Not directly, no - I was going off of the comment that they were formed for the 2013 election. No skin off my nose if you feel it should be removed. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC) August 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ted Phillips (footballer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: exactly-what-derby-day-meant/</ref> a title given after trials involving [[Peter Lorimer]] and [[[[Bobby Smith (footballer born 1933)|Bobby Smith]].<ref name=IS/> In 1962, a report in the ''[[East Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC) The Alignment Hi. I know you are committed to the quality of the Israeli political articles, and your tight, pointed wording is appreciated. However, in your recent changes to my edits, you did more than correct spelling and wordiness. Merciless editing is fine, but the article lost out in several areas (below). I've also noted that there are inconsistencies among the group of articles for Alignment, Labor, Mapai, Meretz, etc. But I don't want to edit if we might be stepping on each other's toes. How do you wish to proceed? Toda, uktiva vachatima tova, -Dovid Changes that to the article on which should develop consensus (as I believe they may be detrimental): A lot of the nuances of the political alliances of the time reflect common ideologies, but with fractious relationships that causes splits ans rejoins on a regular basis. I tried to impart that flavor, but you took it out. Confusion over the differences among allied parties, coalitions, and merged parties. I certainly didn't do a complete job, and may still have left ambiguities, but I'm pretty sure it made the join/leave plays clearer than the prior or current versions. Other useful background information, such as making clear how the second Alliance was not only a political successor to the first, but a marketing successor, due to its remaining currency. Issues of fact - when the Alignment finally "died" it was not the alliance that was gone -- all the same politicians still belonged to the same political organization before. It was the formal structure named the Alignment, as well as Independent Liberals as a separate entity that was gone. By styling it the way you did, I'm not sure the facts still match. Dovid (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Dovid. I'm not sure which of my changes you are specifically referring to above. Could you clarify? Number 57 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Here you go! Nuances -- whether mergers caused the termination of the partners independently. Also, we lose the fact that Mapam was an inconstant partner. Parties -- Taking pains to use the word party where it is actually a single organization, not a combined ticket, alliance or similar where it is just a combined ticket. Background info -- such as some of the "joins" being mergers of former "splits", or that Alignment II was so close to Alignment I that it was not to all an obvious gap -- or perhaps more than obvious :) Issues of fact -- I gave example in first post. Also: on clear majority: parliamentary group can be from a party to a coalition, so it now 1) misses the point, and 2) is false, as every government has had a majority parliamentary group. Mapam's final separation is gone (BTW, would it make sense to have a timeline showing leaves and joins? it would probably summarize the bare facts in a much more digestible way, and hopefully, we have a complete list, yikes) Dovid (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Dovid. Responding one by one: I disagree that the nuances are lost. A merger is different to an alliance. It's implied in the word merger that parties ceased to exist separately. And re Mapam, the article still says they left then returned. It's not in the introduction, but not everything needs to be (it's already too long tbh). I think the article still does this. Could you give specific examples? I don't understand what you mean here. Again, could you specify exactly what part of the text you are referring to: "Parliamentary group" only refers to parties or electoral alliances, not governing coalitions formed by Prime Ministers. The Knesset website is quite clear on this. Again, the final Mapam separation is still in the article. Not everything needs to be in the introduction. Number 57 20:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (File:Brantham Athletic FC.PNG) Thanks for uploading File:Brantham Athletic FC.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Lists of Israeli Ministers Hi. You reverted the new design for the lists of Israeli ministers. Personally, I think the more elaborate design is much clearer. I don't mind getting rid of the portraits, as perhaps this is overkill, but certainly the formatting for the Govt. numbers (listed with PM) is an improvement, and it's standard practice on such lists to colour-code the parties. Regards, LookLook36 (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC) I disagree, it's not an improvement, it contributes to making the list unreadable, and is just unnecessary. We have also had a long discussion about colour coding and the main issue is that the colours of many historical parties are original research, so are not permitted. Number 57 10:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Zanzibar election article hey. check out MOSCAPS for the Wikipedia style guide on capital letters.00:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Have done, and it confirms in the second sentence that proper nouns should be capitalised, as I noted in the edit summary. "Legislative Council" and "Executive Council". are both names of specific organisations, rather than generic terms, so should be capitalised (it's not specifically mentioned in the style guide, but see United States Senate - note that Senate is never used in lower case). The same is to be said of the Sultan and the other positions, which is specifically mentioned in the MOS under the subsection WP:JOBTITLES; "They [job titles] are capitalized only in the following cases:: When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II". The only possible exception to this would be "Constitutional Commissioner", but all the others are used in place of a name. Cheers, Number 57 08:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC) September 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Konstantin Päts may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: take part, however they were given little or no attention in the media. Päts's supporters in the [[National [[National Front for the Implementation of the Constitution]] won 64 of the 80 seats in Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Carlton Cole Hello mate, could you please revert any vandalism to Carlton Cole and semi-protect? He's having a medical with West Ham, but nothing official. Thanks, John JMHamo (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Semi protected for 24 hours. Number 57 16:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you JMHamo (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Independent center Does the article has any source? No. Then why did you delete the template? Egeymi (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Newcastlewest F.C. Hello, just to let you know I will bring Newcastlewest F.C. to AfD now. It fails notability for various reasons and is not a fully-pro team playing in a pro league. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Unpleasantness Well I thought it was a bit off for you to describe a fellow editor's contributions as "cringeworthy" – especially in an article of that quality. Later on someone else from WP:FOOTBALL started accusing others of being "disingenuous". If you want to be offended by unpleasantness perhaps you could start here? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC) It wasn't personal because Wikipedia's football project is not a person! Thanks for your comments though. Bye. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Re:Arsenal Template It is still a debate though. People have expressed their opinions but we still have yet to really go into the pros and cons and what-nots. Once all that is done and a decision is made then changes can be done and I won't stand in the way of them. Until then, it remains based on arsenal.com's page. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Omri Altman Hello Number 57, Omri Altman played in the Europa League group stage tonight, could you please restore his article as he passes WP:FOOTBALL now... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC) ITN for Azerbaijani presidential election, 2013 --SpencerT♦C 17:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Shas Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah Hello, Number 57 I have just created the article Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah on Shas council of Torah sages. At the same time, I read on Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah#In the United States that the moetzes of Agudath Israel of America used to be called by the same name in the past, but I counldn't find any mention of that on Agudath Israel of America article, which calls the council Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah or simply Moetzes. so were the council of Torah sages of Agudath Israel of America were called in the past Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah (like in Shas) or were they called or still called Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah? this is important because I put a note at the top of the article of Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah... ?? --Midrashah (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Hi Midrashah. Unfortunately I have no idea whatsoever. I don't really know anything about Jewish politics outside of Israel. Number 57 19:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Icelandic presidential election templates I want to respond to a reversion you did to an edit I made to the article Icelandic presidential election, 1988. Your edit summary to the reversion was as follows: "The template is appalling and completely unnecessary when there is only one transclusion." I do not see a reason to dignify your comment about the template's appearance with a response but I would like to enhance your understanding of templates. The template in question is transcluded from a customised template modelled after Template:Election table so the purpose of it is to establish a common appearance for all Icelandic presidential election templates. Even though Icelandic presidential election templates may only ever be transcluded once or twice they still benefit from having the same look and from being parameterised. For further information, see Help:Template. Thank you for your cooperation. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Luxembourgian I saw you reverted "Luxembourg general election..." to "Luxembourgian..." in Luxembourgian general election, 2013. Your work on elections is undoubtedly impressive but I would ask you to reconsider your edit. The term "Luxembourgian" appears to me to be a Wikipedia invention in contexts such as this. See for example this Reuters headline. As an Englishman who has lived in Luxembourg for over 40 years, I would strongly urge you to adopt the far more common usage of "Luxembourg" in line with my explanations on the article's talk page. But please keep up the excellent work on elections.--Ipigott (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I think it is a real pity we can't get over this hurdle. I'll have a go a changing them all tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks too for formatting a request for two of the articles in question. I had in fact wanted to cover all five: 2013, 2009, 2004, 1999 and 1989. Is it possible to put these into the same request? If not, someone will certainly come along and tell us we cannot just move two and therefore we need to keep all five existing titles. I ran into the same problem with all the categories containing "Luxembourgian". Unfortunately they are all still there and will probably stay there for ever!--Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC) My sincere apologies if I caused any offense in my comments regarding "modern English usage and grammatical terminology". Perhaps I should explain that I have also an extensive background in language and linguistics. I was simply trying to explain that a noun such as "Luxembourg" can be used in place of an adjective to serve as a qualifier. The problem for many people seems to be that unless the word looks like an adjective or is specifically listed in dictionaries as an adjective, it cannot be considered an adjective. Reams have been written on the subject but a few useful explanations on "attributive nouns" are given here. I hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out where I can find all the relevant articles. I see quite a few of them use "Luxembourgish" too! I don't think at this stage it is necessary to list them all in the request. If it goes through, it should be easy enough to move them.--Ipigott (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC) surely the adjective is "Luxembourgeois", which is clearly understandable Chrismorey (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Luxembourgian Hi. I've noticed you've been involved in discussions about the use of the term "Luxembourgish/Luxembourgian" etc. in the past and I would be grateful if you could make an input into the (hopefully last) discussion on the topic at the Luxembourg Wikiproject. Thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handsworth F.C. Aha, thanks for clearing that up - have re-visisted the AFD. GiantSnowman 18:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Football clubs Thanks for your comment. I agree that references to a team (which is a collection of individuals) can sometimes be plural, but don't agree about references to a club, which is a corporate entity - and most references are to the club, not to a specific team of that club. In speech, one would say of a team "they played well", although it's not really correct in formal English, which WP is supposed to use. I don't see any merit at all in saying about a club "they went bankrupt" rather than "it", though it's often better to use the noun ("the club went bankrupt") anyway. This is part of my concern with the very non-encyclopedic writing style prevalent in many (most?) English football articles - slangy, cliche-ridden and subjective. Football clubs of course arouse passions, but if one is that passionate about a club, maybe one shouldn't edit its article. E.g. as a Saints fan I would be cautious about introducing a non-NPOV into its article. Chrismorey (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Further: I consulted a usage site (stackexchange.com) and got the following: Both "club" and "organization" are examples of collective nouns. In standard American English we would always use singular verb agreement with both "club" and "organization." However, in British English the rules are somewhat different, and it is not uncommon to see plural verb agreement with collective nouns like this. I searched the BNC for club was formed (9 results) and club were formed (1 result). It seems that in this context, it's most likely for club to be treated as notionally singular in BrE; the lone counterexample in BNC clearly did treat it as plural, though: "On only three occasions since the club were formed in 1969 have they failed to reach the last four of the competition." This seems a fair statement, even down to recognising differences between British and US English. The singular appears preferable, though the plural is not unknown or unacceptable. I don't propose to re-edit articles en masse for this unless they need editing for one of the other reasons I've given, but do intend to use the singular in any new material I add. BTW I'm of British birth so this is not US linguistic imperialism! Chrismorey (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC) a second opinion, which seems to support the first: I searched BNC (newspapers) for "club were" (41 results) and "club was" (72 results) which seems to provide some support for the assertion that it is not uncommon. Looking at the "club were" newspaper results in context shows a number of appropriate examples, such as "The Wigan club were embarrased by Ofiah...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismorey (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for November 1 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Argentine legislative election, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 20:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Indian general election, 2014 Since you love to fight, why no opposition to addition at ppIndian general election, 2014? ;)(Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)). Election date templates Just a couple of pieces of advice re the election templates - firstly they are only for national level elections and referendums, so no sections should be created for subregions. That makes sense. Sorry for that. Secondly, elections and referendums should only be linked to by date, so you cannot split them by (1) and (2). Re your split of the referendums in Poland in 1996, I don't think two separate articles are needed - we have numerous articles that cover multiple referendums held on the same day. Could you give me an example of two distinct referendums held on the same day having the same article? Mind you, this is not one referendum with multiple questions, these are two distinct referendums, one called on by the President, the other called on by the Parliament. Do you have an example of such two distinct referendums having one article? Regards, JohnnyBallot (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Cool, thanks for the examples. I'll make sure I follow established customs. BTW, if you have a minute, please drop in here and voice your opinion, I wouldn't like to be to WP:BOLD again so you have to clean up the mess after me :-D --JohnnyBallot (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Tajikistani presidential election, 2013 Fair enough, I didn't change your section headings and no content was removed (a sign were working together?) But while campaign could be fine, since its just one event in the section of the campaign cant we be more focused to the fact of a boycott (if there were more issues, then that's fine). Conduct is fair again but as there is nothing about the issues of the candidates specifically and only foreign based monitors why cant we seek SOME agreement and keep that ttile?(Lihaas (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)). November 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1929 Palestine Cup may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: {{OneLegResult|'''Maccabi Zikhron Ya'akov F.C.|Maccabi Zikhron Ya'akov]]'''||2–1|[[Maccabi Tel Aviv F.C.|Maccabi Tel Aviv B]]}} Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --John (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC) This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC) I don't know if you missed my response at Template talk:Scottish elections, but I suggest you bring the matter up at WP:Elections and referendums as your edits are making inconsistencies in the series of templates. Templating the regulars isn't really appreciated either. Cheers, Number 57 21:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Erm, no, I'm not going to be blocked. It would be nice if you applied WP:BRD though. Number 57 21:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC) If you have some special reason to have these templates diverge from WP:MOSICON, now would be a good time to explain it. Blind-reverting across multiple templates without consensus or discussion is disruptive and will get you blocked. Your call. --John (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Are you aware what a blind revet is? I've already explained the reason and asked you to discuss in front of a wider audience. Why so reluctant? Number 57 21:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC) If you have some special reason to have these templates diverge from WP:MOSICON, now would be a good time to explain it. Blind-reverting across multiple templates without consensus or discussion is disruptive and will get you blocked. Your call. --John (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Very grown up. See you at WP:Elections and referendums. Number 57 21:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC) League tables First Thanks a lot for your words! about viewing, i use Mozilla Firefox and everything looks fine. however, i will view also in Chrome to check everything is shown properly. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franforce (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Luxembourg elections Hi there once again. Don't know if you saw the comments on my talk page but I am really no good at this procedural stuff. I have been trying as you suggested to change the article titles from Luxembourgian/Luxembourgish to Luxembourg but there are a number of problems. The most serious difficulty is to do with the template which I have moved but am now unable to edit. The other problem is that not all the articles can be moved as they have a redirect to the Luxembourg title. Can you help with any of this or can it only be handled by an administrator?--Ipigott (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks for fixing the template, etc. --Ipigott (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Chilean election Hello. I believe the separate tables are important for clarity. This is the way it's been done in previous Chilean election articles. We can have a summary table at the bottom. Pristino (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC) You seem to be reverting every little change I make to the format of the tables in the article. I would like to inform you that you do not own this article. This work is cooperative. Previously, you radically altered the format of the article when you merged both presidential and parliamentary election articles into one, and then merged both first and second round results tables (which is not the norm in Chilean elections articles). I agreed to these changes, reluctantly. Now I make MINOR tweaks to the merged table you created and you —again— revert back to your preferred version. If you continue with this disruptive and uncooperative behavior I will have no choice but to call for a third party. Regards. Pristino (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC) I replied to you, here. Pristino (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Replied in article Talk. Pristino (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Replied in Talk. Pristino (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Nepali Election Surprisingly for such a poor country, they have what looks to be an excellent Election Commission website that appears to be updated regularly. Unfortunately, it's in Nepali. The Hindi translation device seems to be of some help, but it's a big job. Anyway, the site is Election Commission of Nepal Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC) The Proportional Representation data is fairly easy to get at through the translator, but that's incomplete data, of course. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Chilean general election, 2013 Hi, I saw you merged Chilean parliamentary election, 2013 into Chilean presidential election, 2013 to form Chilean general election, 2013. I don't really see a need for this. They are held on the same day but they are still separate elections for separate offices. Moreover, all previous Chilean election articles and all other Wikipedia language versions have them separated. Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Next matchday scenarios Hi. Thank you for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. I have proposed a conclusion that addresses the concerns of many participants regarding reliable sources. Would appreciate a comment. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for November 29 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thuringian Agricultural League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Honduran general election, 2013 Your format has already been reverted by another user. Just let it go. Pristino (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Appalling behaviour"? With the exception of separating null votes from blank votes, these are minor cosmetic changes. You're being way overprotective with your "creation". Remember your changes to Chilean election articles, which shared a different format for YEARS? Well, I accepted those changes, even though I still prefer the old format. What about you? Do you ever compromise, or is your way the only way? Pristino (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC) This was the old format. You changed it to this. And I've since changed it to this. It is clearly different from what was the initial format, which had been there for years. Pristino (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Total valid votes" row is missing. Pristino (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) For clarity. And also % for blank/null votes. Pristino (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC) That is why the "Total valid votes" row should be there, to make clear the % for null and blank votes are not part of the valid votes. Pristino (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I've responded to the message you left at my Talk page on the Honduran election Talk. (Yes, I know you have a watchlist, but so do I.) Pristino (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks! I am new to all of this and I am forced to use this for a college course. I appreciate the feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rappert2148 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Nepalese election results Hi, I still have a few more minor parties to fill in. Because of the way the EC has published FPTP results, I have been summing up the minor party votes in Excel and uploading the numbers to Wiki. Given the huge number of small parties, this is taking way longer than I thought when I started. My goal is to get it done by this weekend. The nominated results are still a while away. The new cabinet needs to send in the nominations and it will probably take another 2-4 weeks for that to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NepMan (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC) You've got mail! Hello, Number 57. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is WMUK book & microgrant. Message added 15:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Israeli football second tier Thanks a lot for your words! :) still to come are some updates about seasons without win\lose record, and hopefully, more stuff as much as possible about third tier missing seasons. Cheers! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franforce (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Notification of automated file description generation Your upload of File:Abe Lenstra Stadion.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page. This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Question on Sources As a Political Scientist I would like to commend your contributions in the field of historical electoral Wiki pages. I would have a question, do you use a standardized reference/source, if so, which one? - --Igor82 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 9 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Radical Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National People's Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC) The Wikipedia Library Survey As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Atefrat's talk page. Message added 10:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. South Sudanese general election, 2015 I dont see mention of holding the parliamentary election int he sources you provided. Its mainly about the Machar-Kiir dispute and presidential ambitions (which i added to the page). Of course, if there is no parliamentary election, then we should call it a presidential election alone. But theres 18 months to deide on that(Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)). I know, I read that. But there is no mention of the parliamentary aspect. Having read through S. Sudan's new experiences on the diplomatic sphere it seems theyre not aware of common terminology (unless there is proof of a parliamentary election, specifically). At the UN their first year they really weren't following established protocol, diplomatically...so Id be weary going full hog on those claims.(Lihaas (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)). Liga Artzit articles The reason I kept tagging the 1990–91 Liga Artzit, 1988–89 Liga Artzit, and 1987–88 Liga Artzit articles is because of poor grammar in the lead section and because the lead section failed to explain what "Liza Artzit" is (therefore no context). Since you're an Admin and keep removing the tags I put up, I was hoping you could explain why the page shouldn't be tagged. Tal Brenev (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Tal Brenev Election box begin I have reverted your edit to Template:Election box begin to standardise the header using the wikitable class, as this appears to have broken the layout (in particular, party colours) of thousands of Australian election results tables (at least). Please discuss at Template talk:Election box if you wish to work towards such a change, but be aware there can be large ramifications from seemingly small changes to widely-used templates. Thanks! --Canley (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I just found the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Elections Manual of Style/Results tables which I presume where you have been discussing this? --Canley (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not really broken layout I suppose, but it was the party colours that disappeared. I see you discussed an issue with piped colour templates here, and I would guess the wikitable class causes Template:Australian politics/party colours to fail somehow? Would be appreciated if you have a look and let me know what you think of if there is a fix or workaround to the template. --Canley (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC) I first noticed it on one of the pages on my watch list, Niddrie state by-election, 2012, and then checked several pages with many more template tables such as Results of the Australian federal election, 2013 (New South Wales). I've saved two examples of the Niddrie table in my sandbox: the first one is the original use of the templates, the second is identical except I replaced it with the "Election box begin" template code using the wikitable class from the reverted edit. As you can see, the colours disappear and the text size is different. Actually, looking at the HTML and CSS in detail, I think I can see what the problem is: the result row templates (e.g. Template:Election box candidate with party link, Template:Election box candidate AU party, etc.) render the cell containing the colour as a th header cell, but the shared CSS containing the wikitable class contains the following line: table.wikitable > tr > th, table.wikitable > * > tr > th { background-color: #f2f2f2; text-align: center; } So maybe the CSS is overriding the bgcolor with #f2f2f2 for the th cells when they are within a tr row? What do you think? --Canley (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Cool, thanks for the help in working it out. --Canley (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Hey, I'm not sure if this has been discussed anywhere, but is it possible to get the smaller font back? Frickeg (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Hi, thanks for your reply. I'm mostly concerned about really long boxes like Bradfield by-election, 2009 and Senate results for the Australian federal election, 2010 where boxes that were already pretty huge are now even huger. It also means even more scrolling for long pages like Electoral results for the Division of Werriwa. I take your point about accessibility, but I would imagine it is fairly easily dealt with by zooming/preferences? Seems worth the discussion at any rate. Frickeg (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Huh, there you go. Optical illusion, I guess! I still aesthetically prefer the old version, but I admit that that is no reason compared to accessibility. Thanks for taking the time! Frickeg (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Question Hi, Yesterday you've deleted the ObserveIT page I worked on all day, without any prompts. I wish to give this term as neutral as possible, without ads etc. And now I have no sources left, a big work was just ruined. Can you please restore the page, and I will do my best to make it ok for wiki? Regards, Виталий Шальман (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC) WP:FOOTYN I notice that you keep referring to this in AfD debates. Please be aware that this is not a guideline, but an old essay that was not successful in being promoted to policy/guideline. The actual guideline is WP:NFOOTY, which states that a player must have played in a fully-professional league. Cheers, Number 57 23:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Also, I have noticed that you believe the Conference Premier is "mostly professional". That was perhaps the case in the past, but currently it is a roughly 50/50 split. Number 57 23:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC) If it is indeed not a guideline, but merely an old essay, then it would or should not be referenced on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football when WP:NFOOTY isn't! Hmm, though I see someone has added a header noting to use NSPORT ... now that's confusing. I simply jumped to the criteria, as I was previously familiar with the document. You'd think these lot so quick to delete any marginal player in site, would spend more time cleaning up the project itself. Nfitz (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 50/50 split currently? I can't keep track. Interestingly Wikipedia in Football Conference says it's mostly professional. Nfitz (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC) I have fixed the links on the WP:FOOTY main page to be clearer about what the guidelines are. Number 57 18:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Good idea. I wouldn't have bothered with the futility of going down that path for a 2-3 of the AfDs if that had been laid out clearly when I'd checked there (and I had missed the note on the other page about them being superceded). Nfitz (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC) WP:ENGVAR on Israel-related pages I wouldn't change whilst or amongst on a page relating to the United Kingdom, but Israelis who speak English tend to say while and among, not whilst and amongst, which I confirmed by checking usage on Haaretz.com. Also, I understand that in British English, while and among are about as prevalent as whilst and amongst, so why use words that distract and slow down most of the world's English readers unnecessarily, when the equivalent words are entirely Kosher in British English? —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC) We settled this issue over a year ago at User talk:Number 57/Archive 4#Whilst/while. This is not about versions of English; whilst is deprecated in style guides on both sides of the Atlantic. — Anomalocaris (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC) We did settle this a year ago because by not responding you conceded the point. Nevertheless, to avoid reversion contests, I have left this deprecated word whenever while/whilst seemed to be the most natural way to say something. See my edit to Urban kibbutz, where I left a whilst but removed another that served to join two unrelated sentences. In articles where I found more natural ways to connect two ideas than with while/whilst, I replaced or removed it. In Yisrael HaMithadeshet, Nudelman defected to Kadima in 2003; Stern stayed with the party until his death in 2007. What word best connects these items, one of which is a momentary event in 2003 and the other lasts several years? But is more natural here than while/whilst. As for Progressive National Alliance, and strikes me as more natural than while/whilst, but I could go either way. In any case, these two edits have nothing to do with WP:POINT. Read the first paragraph of that article. Read the examples. "POINT" is something completely different. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) I've been reading this exchange between you regarding "while" and "whilst" and WP:ENGVAR and reverting and reverting. Number 57: "whilst" can be annoying to an American reader. It is not a word in our vocabulary. While I do not change "whilst" to "while" when I see it, just know that for Americans, it is like reading 19th (or even 18th) century English. Please use it sparingly. Anomalocaris, I agree with all your points, but I just want to point out that "but" is not always an improvement over whilst/while. Sometimes whilst/while is better. But there are also times when whilst/while can be avoided by using a period to end the sentence, using a semi-colon, or rearranging the words of the sentence. I made a few edits to Yisrael HaMithadeshet. I don't think "whilst" or "while" is necessary there.CorinneSD (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Hi again, Number 57. Let me begin by acknowledging your very significant contributions to Wikipedia, of which I am gradually becoming aware. I see that you have created numerous articles that relate to the modern state of Israel, and you've worked hard to maintain them, and this is all valuable. I'm sure you've made a lot of contributions in other areas as well. When two people have a dispute, and one of them ("A") makes a concluding point, and the other ("N") doesn't respond for over a year, for the duration, N has effectively conceded the point. This doesn't mean that A has conclusively established policy with which all other parties must comply. It simply means that A is acting reasonably in assuming that N has dropped the objection. Well over a year ago, I pointed out that style guides on both sides of the Atlantic call for while and not whilst. You did not respond, and the reasonable conclusion is that you conceded the point for the duration, until you recently re-raised your objection. Again, I believe you have misconstrued WP:POINT and I reiterate that this policy has no bearing on any edits I have ever made on Wikipedia. I have read many articles about U.S. senators and representatives, and I don't recall any that use a construction like "while a senator/representative he/she served" regarding committee assignments. For example, Hubert Humphrey: "He was chairman of the Select Committee on Disarmament (84th and 85th Congresses)." No while needed. Similarly for Members of Knesset, generally Wikipedia says that they served as _____ Minister or served on the _____ Committee, without the use of "while/whilst an MK...." I believe that my edit of Michael Gorlovsky was unquestionably an improvement in every respect. Obviously he served on Knesset committees when he was an MK, not before or after, because Knesset committee members are necessarily MKs, so while/whilst does not belong here. I trust that this explanation will disabuse you of the notion that my recent edits are for no apparent reason. — Anomalocaris (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC) January 2014 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brazilian constitutional referendum, 1963 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: [[Carlos Lacerda]], both of whom were seeking to become President in the forthcoming 1965 elections) also contributed to the failure of parliamentarianism. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Plarium page Hi, yesterday you've deleted the Plarium page I worked on, without any prompts. Can you please restore the page, and I will do my best to make it ok for wiki? Or can you tell what was wrong? Musiyaka (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Ok, I get it. But when I was writing about Plarium (I`m a gamer), I was looking on articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Insight I`ll try to rewrite my text. May I ask, what sourses are " mainstream media"? I have references from reuters.com, techcrunch.com, businesswire.com, finance.yahoo.com and other. Can I recreate a Wiki page and add all of this?Musiyaka (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Hallo again. I saved my article into sandbox, please check it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musiyaka/sandbox Musiyaka (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC) RE: Blind reverts You can the link then. I clearly cited to you that there is nothing wrong with WP:REDLINKS...you know very well that election articles exist and by what format, you can clearly fix a typo instead of removing it altogether. Adding one letter, when you clearly know what is missing is not hard and a better alternative to threats!!@! Please don't post on my page if youre gonna abuse and threaten...theres not room for that(Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)). Consultation of 1974 I understand ... you don't understand what a referendum is. The processus of "consultation" is discribe by the article n#53 of french constitution of 1958. Referendum is discribe by the article #11 and 87. The Comorian independence election in 1974, is called in french (the Official language) "consultation". The article 53 manage the process. Consultation is local but Referendum process is national only, like in 1958 (in France and Comoros and Algeria, ...). A consultation is validate by a electoral commission not the Constitutional Council, etc. A referendum result is like a law, a consultation is only a consultative voice. That's explain why Mayotte is always french. See the details in : (in French)read André Oraison, Quelques réflexions sur la conception française du droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-même à la lumière du différent Franco-Comorien sur l'île de Mayotte. Oraison is a french professor of constitutional law. (in French)Mayotte: le contentieux entre la France et les Comores, Ahmed Mahamoud, 1992 read in google book, a comorian Vincnet (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC) So, if you prefer to keep the word referendum in the title, i m not against, but we should add in the corpus that it was not yet a referendum in 1974. That it's become a referendum after, for everyone (even for most of french who don't know their own law and history). It's so ambiguous. When the french gouvernment decide to keep Mayotte, the comorian gouvernment says it's a referendum. To be simple, if it was a referedum, that's mean that all comoros (then Mayotte too) is independant. Ahmed Mahamoud, and many others, discuss about this. That's explain what Mayotte is always french, France is a rule of law state. Vincnet (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Why ? i don't understand your revert. Vincnet (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC) If you want english text, you can read [9] : Marcel Henry, claimed the Mahorians' right to auto-determination by invoking article 53 of the 1958 French constitution. The African union use the term consultation in [www.peaceau.org/uploads/ahg-res-241-xxxi-e.pdf‎]. If you want to explain something, you must be specific about it. Vincnet (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC) "In case of referendum instead of consultation, all the Comoros should be independant 5 years after." - Do you mean that if it was a referendum instead of a consultation, the Islands would have been independent five years later? Probably, for alls the island. It's happen because Comoros are far away and french people don't care about this island and probably not accept this. It's a current interpretation "The french gouvernment decide to apply litterally the french constitution, so, Mayotte having to remain under French control." Again, what does this mean? What does the constitution say? French gouvernment can do what he want with a consultation but the article 53 specify "aucune indépendance ne peut être accordée sans la volonté de la population" (see Oraison). It's mean "no independence can not be granted without the will of the people". French constitutional concil validate this interpretation, later, after the consultation. But if the gouvernment did not want to keep Mayotte, that should not be a probleme. The pro-independence Comorian and french politicians were probably duped by a group of Gaullist politician. Vincnet (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC) The enforcement law text (décret) never use the word referendum but consultation. see [10] It's better, but just few remarks : It's Udzima, not Oudzima. "ou" sound "u" in french, cf the real name (in French)[11]. It's not a problem in this text but you shoud choice another word than residents. The Resident was a kind of gouvernor in XIXe. President Ahmed Abdallah announced that the Comorian Chamber of Deputies.... No, that's the 15 june accords who precise that is the "constituante assembly", not yet the chamber of deputy, have to vote the new constitution. and ... It's formally not a referendum but a consultation... Vincnet (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Plarium page Hallo again. I saved my article into sandbox, please check it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musiyaka/sandbox Musiyaka Musiyaka (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musiyaka/sandbox - Ok, thanks for your help. Lets try again. I removed all of the "bad words". Musiyaka (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Hi! I left a message for you, please check my sandbox.Musiyaka (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Issues with your archive This page lists Archive 5 as having no end date. Archive 1 is missing link to Archive 4 Archive 5 is missing link to Archive 2 Archive 5 is formatted to use a window width of approximately 5,000 pixels; my screen is 1,920 pixels and displays less than half the window width. Wikipedia pages in general do not have fixed widths. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Page 5 doesn't have an end date because it is to present. (2 and 3) That's how the archive navigator works. It doesn't display more than four links in the bar. I suggest you complain at {{aan}} if you don't like how it works. That's because an inexperienced editor wrote a comment with a space in front of it, so the window has been expanded to fit the width of that column. I've been editing since 2005; I don't need telling about page widths. Out of interest, why are you bothered? Number 57 23:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC) It's odd that Archives 2, 3, and 4 aren't missing links, but Archives 1 and 5 are. Anyway, if it were my talk page, I would remove the leading space so that the page could be read without horizontal scrolling. That is all.—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 10 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Costa Rican general election, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Integration Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Plarium Hello! I`m still waiting for your opinion about Plarium page. Please, check it. Musiyaka (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Hello! I dont understand. Suspicious about what? Games exist, they really so popular, you can google it or just look at fan pages on Facebook. In article I gave a link on app data, where you can see DAU and MAU of the games. In my sandbox you left only 1 sentence from whole article. Why? I gave all the links, I rewrite an article and leave only facts, please check my sandbox one more time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musiyaka/sandbox I really dont understand why this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Insight is acceptable and my - suspicious. Musiyaka (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC) TB Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at RA0808's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. RA0808 talkcontribs 03:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Editor keeps putting Qumran in Israel Hi Number 57. Ihutchesson keeps putting Category:Archaeological sites in Israel on Qumran. He thinks only including a West Bank-category would be POV. This is not how it works. West Bank is occupied and a part of the Palestinian territories. Adding POV would not making it NPOV. As you know, we can't say places in there or in the Golan Heights are in Israel. This is why we have categories such as Category:Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights, Category:Visitor attractions in Israeli-occupied territories and Category:Archaeological sites in Jerusalem. I've explained this to him and also pointed to this case and this, where it was clear that this was a POV issue and it was resolved, but he does not accept it and thinks it's my POV and that this could be arbitrated if I do not accept it. Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank is fine. That is the accurate location. We can't start over everytime someone thinks it's fine to say places there are in Israel. That's a waste of time. Please give your comments on this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC) OK, now that you've made the unnecessary decision to assert one over the other and can go on your merry way never to be seen in the article again, who is going to keep reverting to your preferred form of PC? I have specifically not entered into the politics on this complaint. The category "Archaeological sites in the West Bank" is not capable of distinguishing between, say, Jericho (administered by Palestine) and Qumran (administered by Israel), a distinction that Israeli visitors to the article are well aware of, as are many other visitors. This means that those who are offended by the preposition "in" with regard to the de facto control of Israel come to the page and assert their right to be imprecise. What I have to do now is ignore the inevitable slow futile edit war that your action has opened the article back up to. -- I.Hutchesson ► 19:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Nothing stops you from saying who controls it, as you have done now in the lead. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC) You, IRISZOOM, have shown you do not understand the problem, so you should get the idea that your comment is not necessarily relevant. -- I.Hutchesson ► 14:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC) I understand what you call "problem" and that is why I said to you that the info about control is in the text and nothing more is needed. Using incorrect categories is not the right way. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at RA0808's talk page. Message added 22:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Mizrachi (political party) Hello Number57 :) I'm working on germanspoken Wikipedia at articles about Israels historian parliaments, groups, persons and so on. To modify the de:HaMisrachi-article I read your article Mizrachi (political party). The link at Knesset site isn't so powerful like yours. Can you give me the lecture for this article? Excuse my bad english and with best regards. --Markus S. (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC) If you know the template:MKlink look at the germanspoken template. This have more functions ;) Perhaps you can change the template with further functions? --Markus S. (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Assume good faith: Please retract Hi, Please refrain from making statements that do not assume good faith. I ask that you visit my user talk page, and retract the comment that suggests spite was involved as a show of good faith on your part, and an understanding that accusing me of making that edit out of spite is not a comment on the edit I made but on me as an editor. --LauraHale (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC) I notice that rather than retract your comment, you doubled down on it. As a show of good faith, please retract the comment about spite. This casts aspersions on me as an editor, and is not a comment on the content. I followed your advice was to change the remove the links to the problematic redirect and I acted in good faith to your advice. Please, retract. --LauraHale (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Again, you cast aspersions on my editing. This time the aspersions were made on ANI. Please retract any comments regarding spite. They were not done in spite. This is a false accusation that violates WP:AGF. --LauraHale (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Stonham Aspal and other villages in Suffolk I am supervising the University of Portsmouth students who are working on the articles for Stonham Aspal, Stansfield and various other villages in Suffolk, and elsewhere. For each of those two, you have twice deleted material they have added, and I am unclear why: it was factually accurate, and backed up by correct references. Labelling a big deletion of factually accurate material simply as "fixes" seems uninformative, and this is the first time in the running of this course that I have not been able to explain to students why their work had been edited -- it is usually quite obvious. I note that you were responsible for the original creation of the articles, but they have clearly remained stubs, completely untouched by human hand for well over a year; we do check this before using articles in this course. The way this course operates has been discussed extensively with Wikipedians including Toni Sant, the Wikimedia UK education coordinator; and I presented our work at the EduWiki conference in Cardiff last October. Sawley, North Yorkshire, is a good example of "before" and "after" for one of the villages/parishes we worked on last year. We are both showing students how to get started as Wikipedians and slowly plugging gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of English parishes. Please explain why you seem to be systematically removing material as the students add it. Humphrey.Southall (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Hey 57, I have to say it does appear that some of the referenced material (albeit some of trivia) has been removed without any kind of explanation. Some of the Suffolk village articles could use a bit of polishing! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC) I've used talk-page templates to label the Stonham Aspal and Stansfield articles as targets of educational assignments. 57, I appreciate your work cleaning up articles but in these cases, and in the interest of not biting the newbies, I think it would be a good idea to respond to these good-faith edits with feedback to the user concerned or on the article Talk page rather than a revert with an uninformative edit summary. Educating the user about how to write good WP articles is a more long-term solution than undoing their work yourself. Best wishes, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Hi guys. I spotted this happening as numerous Suffolk village articles that I have on my watchlist started having edits made to them. The majority were positive changes, such as updating the population, but in some cases the information being added was rather pointless. Taking Stonham Aspal as an example, the user in question updated the population and also added the text "In 1870-1872, Stonham Aspal was described as: "A parish, with a village, in Bosmere district, Suffolk; 4½ miles NE of Needham-Market r. station." " Personally, I do not see the point in this information - it adds nothing to the article, particularly when the introduction already states that it is "a village and civil parish in the Mid Suffolk district of Suffolk in eastern England. Located around five miles east of Stowmarket..." So I deleted it, but left the new population figure (and also added to the infobox). Similar stuff was added to other village articles, and I also removed it with descriptive edit summaries, so I apologise for not doing so in this one case. I did guess this was some kind of project, and left some friendly comments and advice at User talk:BusbyG on 5 February. However, given the fact that I got no response from the comment, and due to the amount of edits that appeared to be one-offs, I didn't think it would be particularly useful to try and leave messages for any other editors, as it looked like the accounts were only being used once. Hope that clarifies things. Number 57 18:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Hello again, and thanks for replying. I have now set up a course page, here: Education_Program:University_of_Portsmouth/Applied_Human_Geography_(Spring_2014). Adding banners to all the article Talk pages and then adding each student and their article to the course page is quite time consuming with 52 students on the course, but I have now tagged all 19 Suffolk articles that students are working on. We will add the parishes in other counties once we have figured out how to add my assistant as an additional instructor (documentation of all this is not good). I would ask you to be a little tolerant, for now. They are just starting out with editing articles, and at this stage the focus is on how to edit the article, with some standard and easily accessible sources used partly as exercises: none of it is going to be wrong, but it will not always be that exciting, especially as these stub articles are often for very small villages. We have three staff monitoring them, and are regularly checking what they are doing (the course page we have just set up is entirely for the benefit of other Wikipedians such as yourself, and there is vastly more documentation for the course in the university's Moodle-based Virtual Learning Environment which unfortunately we cannot provide public access to because of university policy). Please give students a chance to develop their articles. They are under instruction to have complete articles ready for open review by the end of March, and then to finalise them by April 28th. There are bound to be a handful which at that point are best returned to how they were before, but most people who have looked at the overall results from the course have been fairly impressed. Because I have now looked through all the Suffolk articles, I can see that on some of them you have given useful feedback, including the BusbyG one, for which many thanks (and I am about to say something to them all about looking at Talk pages and responding). However, the two students I mentioned had quite a bit of material removed without any feedback at all, and are a bit distressed (I had one of them in my office this afternoon). I had to tell all the students working on Suffolk to suspend their work, but I hope I can tell them to start again (last week was our reading week, and the one I saw said he had spent it researching material which he wants to add -- judge him when he is done). Thanks. Humphrey.Southall (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation, 57. Apologies that I didn't look deeply into your edit history so I didn't get the full picture. Please take heed of Humphrey's advice above: these are not one-off editors but are hopefully going to interact and develop articles over a (short) period of time. How enthusiastically they engage depends partly on whether doing so is positive or a negative and confusing experience for them. The students are not being unleashed raw on Wikipedia: they have been prepared, but they are good-faith newcomers and not all their changes will be excellent first time. Humphrey and his colleagues are strongly encouraging the students to interact with other WP editors, but still there are some that don't: it's a culture shock. Thanks for your patience. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC) I lectured to the students yesterday, mainly about sources of additional content. Two of the students came up to me afterwards and said they had found your comments to them very helpful -- so again thanks. However, I realise that having twenty-odd students suddenly starting to edit previously very inactive village articles, with very varying levels of both competence and enthusiasm, is a problem. Having seen the debates you are involved with about the Middle East, you may well want to not worry about Suffolk parishes for a couple of months. As I said above, we will be keeping an eye on these articles. Humphrey.Southall (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC) No problem. If I could ask one thing though, it would be that the population graphs are better formatted - the series key isn't needed, and perhaps the legands should just be "Popultion" (Y-axis) and "Year" (X-axis). The issue is that the graphs can't be edited (although they can be replaced by an updated version, but someone without the data couldn't do it), so really need to be right first time. Cheers, Number 57 17:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Actually, the source of the data should be included as part of the upload process, particularly if it's an online source, so we could re-create the graphs if absolutely necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Bulgarian elections Thank you for all of your contributions to elections in Bulgaria! I noticed most of the articles you have created use the source Elections in Europe: A data handbook by Nohlen & Stöver. Since I cannot find a copy myself — you seem to have many more resources available than me — I was wondering if there was anything in the book about the Bulgarian parliamentary elections of January 1881, June 1881, 1882 and 1886. These are the only missing articles in the "Parliamentary elections" section of the Template:Bulgarian elections. If you can't find anything, no problem, you're a star contributor already! Kndimov (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for looking! :) Kndimov (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you very much for your minor code adjustments on my article project so far Number 57 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALivingstone94 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)