User talk:Number 57/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

20th Knesset Election

Our friend's edits over at hewiki were eventually reverted by a user over there whose Hebrew is better than mine. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: Good news. I'm sure he'll continue though... Number 57 14:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If he's younger than me, and waits me out, then 50 years from now ... StevenJ81 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

• News and notes: Clarifications on status and compensation of outgoing executive directors Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov

• Special report: Wikiversity Journal—A new user group

• Featured content: From the crème de la crème

• In the media: Biography disputes; Craig Newmark donation; PR editing

• Op-ed: Commons Picture of the Year; Wikidata licensing

• Traffic report: Another one with sports; Knockout, brief candle

• Blog: Why I proofread poetry at Wikisource

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Northern Irish Queen's Counsel

Hi Number 57

May I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 14#Category:Northern_Irish_Queen.27s_Counsel?

The discussion is solely the result of your objection to my proposed speedy renaming of Category:Northern Irish Queen's Counsel, so it would be helpful if you were to let the discussion know whether you wish to sustain your objection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Even though the numbers don't add up, it may be that way because there were many problems with elections in Romania before, and many votes simply disappeared. It may also be because blank votes used to be counted separately from invalid votes. In the end, I think the Romanian Electoral Authority is a much more credible source than some source that is not linked to anything, considering they organised the elections. That's all I'm gonna say about it, and if you don't like it, then contact the Romanian Electoral Authority. I'm not reverting your edit because I don't want to get into a childish edit war. Cipika (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cipika: Actually the book is considered a better source because it is a secondary source, whilst the Electoral Authority is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. This is probably why the book is correct as the figures have been double-checked. Cheers, Number 57 20:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: The definition of a primary source, from the source you provided, is: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. I don't think we can put election results in this definition. If there is a secondary source on election results, it may reflect official results or it might not, in which latter case it means they are not the actual election results. Cipika (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cipika: The issue is that you are citing the correct results to an incorrect source – the results in the table are not from the source you provided. If you change the source and the new source has different figures, then you have to change the results table as well to match what your new source says. As we should be displaying the correct figures (and these are the actual results – for all we know the electoral authorities may have the correct results in their system but have made a typo when uploading them online), we use the secondary source. Cheers, Number 57 20:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

English football leagues and new names

Hi. Regarding this edit you told me some of the articles had moved. Perhaps they had, I did not check all, but the fact is that it is still Football League Cup and not EFL Cup for the main article as it was deemed as a controversial move. When the main is not moved I dont think the season articles should either. Also standard piping is to pipe the years so 2016–17 English Football League would become "English Football League" and not "EFL". Qed237 (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the article for "English Football League" is still at The Football League. These articles should be moved through RM before change of names for season articles. Qed237 (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: The rename is taking place at some point between the seasons, so whilst the main competition articles are possibly still at the correct name, the season articles for next season should always have been at EFL as that's what they will be called (the league article has been at this title since April, and Kivo already provided you with a link to the official website regarding the cup name in his edit summary so I'm not sure why you think this is controversial). Please move the cup season article back as soon as possible. Thanks, Number 57 13:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well if they new season has its draw today, it is about time to change the main competition articles. Qed237 (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Please move the season article back. Number 57 14:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a final question, if cups and everything should be at EFL why is that not the case for 2016–17 English Football League? Qed237 (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I don't know; the league does seem to be being referred to as simply "EFL" on the BBC and by itself; I guess we will see as the season progresses. For now, looking at North American Leagues that use this sort of name, the league articles are at the full names whilst season articles are at the acronym (e.g. National Football League but 2016 NFL season). As the cup is being referred to everywhere as the EFL Cup (see also BBC) I think it's the correct title, so it's probably a good idea to move the league season article to that format too. Number 57 14:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Seeing as for some reason you are now ignoring this conversation, I have moved the article back. There is no point wasting a week with an RM when all the evidence clearly shows the cup has been renamed. Cheers, Number 57 18:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Haiti

Hello. 1/3 of senators will be elected in November 2016 / January 2017. Would you have sources that show that in October 2015, 1/3 of senators were elected without it to be canceled.--Panam2014 (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Although the results were later annulled, the election did take place, so should still be listed. For instance, Malian parliamentary election, April 1997 is included in {{Malian elections}} even though the results were annulled, because the event (the elections) still occurred. The only ones we wouldn't list are ones that didn't happen at all. Cheers, Number 57 18:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I just saw. Senatorial elections in 2015 did not was canceled. It covered two thirds of the seats. By cons , even before the cancellation of elections in June 2016, it was expected that 1/3 of the seats of the Senate are elected in October 2016 and January 2017. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

• News and notes: Board unanimously appoints Katherine Maher as new WMF executive director; Wikimedia lawsuits in France and Germany

• Op-ed: Two policies in conflict?

• In the media: Terrorism database cites Wikipedia as a source

• Featured content: Triple fun of featured content

• Traffic report: Goalposts; Oy vexit

• Blog: Jimmy Wales names Emily Temple-Wood and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight as Wikipedians of the Year

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Club clean-ups

Hi, I noticed you recently made an edit on Armthorpe Welfare F.C. which you described as being the start of a cleanup, presumably of other club articles too. While I appreciate it's always good to freshen articles up, and you have made improvements to the page, I feel there are a couple of changes you have made which I feel should be reverted.

• 1) I think it's better to have font size at less than 100% in the season by season record segments I created for South Yorks sides, as, at 100%, the rows tend to bunch up and become unsightly.
• 2) In the honours section, you have removed references to years when the club was promoted, if they didn't win the championship. I think the years a club won promotion should stay in the honours section even if they didn't win the title. Same goes for runners-up in cup competitions.
• 3) Most importantly, I do feel clubs should have a 'notable players' players section, which you have removed. I agree they can often grow to vast sizes the further up the pyramid you go, but I think we can reach some sort of compromise - if a club has less than 50 notable players they can be shown on the club's main article, over 50 and they can have a redirect to a category of that club's ex players - thoughts?

Again, thanks for the other changes, they do improve the article.

Kivo (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kivo: In response:

1. Font sizes less than 100% can cause difficulties for readers with poor eyesight, so 100% is usually recommended unless there is a very good reason not to. When I view the table every row is on a single line, so it doesn't seem to be causing any problems.
2. Getting promoted is not an honour, nor is finishing second. These events are referenced in the history section and the list of seasons, so that should be sufficient.
3. I linked to the club's players and managers categories in the See also section, which is preferable both in terms of saving space and in terms of updating, as players can be added to the category but not to the list on the club's page (for instance, Gavin Worboys was in the category, but not on the list).

Cheers, Number 57 16:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Some help

Hi Number 57. I wanted to come to you, as an admin who I've seen active in football articles, for some input on a discussion on the project page about the result of this match with respect to how UEFA classification and Germany's first competitive win over Italy. User:Canon 108 believed that it shouldn't be noted as a defeat and rather used the word "eliminated" which could cause confusion as you pointed out. After several other users gave their inputs who also thought that it should be noted as a defeat, with no one attesting to Canon's argument. Canon has still persisted in adding his version back to the Italian and German national team pages against consensus. I've tried to communicate this to him on his talk page, but refuses to listen to consensus or compromise. He may also be over 3RR and is also removing the proper ndash convention dashes for some reason. I was wondering what sort of action I could take? Canon insists I talk to an admin and says they will tell me the "same thing he is telling me". He doesn't seem to trust users, only an admin's word. Or maybe Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests? Any suggestions to amend this issue? Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: It seems consensus is leaning towards your preferred wording, but I'd wait until there has been a bit more input. If one or two more editors agree with your position, then I think it'll be clear enough to close it that way. Number 57 20:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for your response. One more thing: There has been 4 users who have given their input against Canon's wording, in the case that no one else responds what should we do, as the thread is 3 days old now? Maybe give it another 2-3 days and if no one else responds, close it; would that work? Thanks again. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Yes, that seems fair. Number 57 20:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57:. I'd like to bring up that when Vaselineeeeeeee opened this to the discussion page the consensus was that it wasn't an outright victory for Germany but that the outcome of the match should be rightly credited to the deciding penalty shoot-out. Users Gopherbashi, Tanonero, and Brudder Andrusha were in favour of the compromise of crediting the win as a 6-5 shootout win. User Hashim-afc stated that it wasn't a flat out win since it would be recorded as a draw, as did myself, but I updated the page to incorperate the consensus into the paragraph stating...

"Italy then faced off against reigning World champion rivals Germany in the quarter finals as Mesut Özil opened the scoring in the 65th minute for Germany, before Leonardo Bonucci drew even after converting a penalty in the 78th minute. The score remained 1–1 after extra time and Germany defeated Italy 6–5 in a penalty shootout. It was the first time Germany eliminated Italy in a major tournament."

It stayed like this for a few days until Hashim-afc took issue with the fact that I said Germany eliminated Italy in an elimination match (other users acknowledged it as an elimination match over the previous issue he had). Vaselineeeeeeee said the tournament in 1996 was where Germany first eliminated Italy, but didn't care about the wording. I argued that even though the draw with Germany eliminated Italy, it wasn't the only factor as Italy's place in the tournament was out of their hands after losing to the Czech Republic in the second group stage match. I pointed out that going into their match with Germany they either needed to win and hope for a Czech draw or loss, or Russia to beat Czech Republic as a draw with Germany to take place. I'd like to know your take on this. I know it wasn't a direct win, but a team was still eliminated 6-5 on penalties. I went with the consensus earlier, but I don't agree with the suggestion to go with another word other than eliminated when you're talking about an elimination match. Vaselineeeeeeee is micro-manage here on an irrelevant issue. Germany advanced to the semi-finals while Italy were eliminated on penalties...what are your thoughts? Vaselineeeeeeee says he doesn't care about the wording in the discussion page, Hashim-afc wants to change it to overcame, and I'd like to call it like it is...a team is eliminated in an elimination match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Canon 108: I never said I liked using eliminate. If I said I didn't care about using eliminate, it must have been before I was reminded about Euro 96, as it was User:Tanonero that brought up this good point, not me (I agree however). After taking User:Hashim-afc's suggestion "It was the first time Germany overcame Italy in a major tournament, although requiring a penalty shootout to do so" instead of using "eliminate" as it could cause potential confusion when Germany played a role in eliminating Italy in Euro 96 by drawing the final group match. I understand Canon's point that all the group matches were a result of Italy's elimination, however, the last group match put the nail in the coffin. One could still say Germany eliminated Italy from the group with that draw. Just because the Euro 2016 was an elimination match doesn't mean we have to use the word eliminated. Not all our readers are an expert on the matter and could cause confusion depending on who is reading it. Canon seems to think that everyone will attribute the word eliminate to the elimination match, but surely others may attribute it to a general aspect like in Euro 96. There is a better word than eliminate to use to avoid an potential confusion. It may seem petty for this one word, but I think it makes a big difference. Canon also says he is in line with consensus even though no one has condoned his wording, and many tried to come up with different suggestions. ALSO may I add the UEFA acknowledges it as Italy's first competitive loss to Germany. The way Canon has it, says "first time they were eliminated" (along those lines) is factually incorrect as that is not the record that was broken. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any confusion. Maybe go back and edit the section relating to Euro 1996. Because even if Germany had lost to Italy, Italy would still be at the mercy of the Russia/Czech Republic match. You could go back and say something like "Italy were eliminated (or overcome) in the group stage of Euro 96 after drawing and losing two of their matches." The article relating to Italy's run in Euro 16 was fine the way it was...there was no potential for confusion. You could argue overcome works better for a group stage exit as there were several factors to look at, the draw with Germany was one of several things that contributed to their exit. It 2016 it was simply an elimination match, that was decided on penalties. This really shouldn't be that difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because you don't see any confusion doesn't mean there won't be for some of our readers. ALSO, the way you have it is FACTUALLY INCORRECT as the record isn't that Italy was eliminated for the first time in a major tournament by the Germans, it was the first defeat! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my haste, but any words? There seems to be a consensus to use a term other than "eliminated". I'm still open to keeping the thread open for a few more days obviously, but WP:CLOSURE states after a thread is a week old (which it is) and a majority consensus is reached, we can close the thread. A user and myself have expressed to use a different word, perhaps "overcame", while one user is indifferent. Some users in the discussion previously have yet to add further. Again, a couple more days of the thread open should be good, and if things stay the way they are, calling a close would be beneficial "to allow the community to move on". Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee and Canon 108: Guys, this really is very lame. I agree with the sentiments that "eliminated" is open to question because of the Euro 96 situation (although I have to say, it's a very pedentic take on it). As a result, I'd just suggest using the word "beat", as ultimately they did win the tie. Number 57 19:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to use beat. It may seem lame or petty, but it really isn't. The record broken and cited is the first defeat (or beat or overcome or lost), not the first elimination. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

That works for me, I figured eliminated might work better given the round, and the match being recorded as a draw. But if that works for the others then that's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Canon 108: Great! Thanks for the compromise. I'll state it on your behalf on the project page (you can confirm it if you like) and allow any other users to give their last opinions, then we can implement it from there. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Canon 108: Please learn how to sign your posts. You need to end them with ~~~~ Thanks, Number 57 21:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Carruthers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ilkeston Town F.C.. 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) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Is it possible to use your template:Israel populations in a stand-alone wikimedia site? If yes, how? Thanks, Havardi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havardi (talk • contribs) 08:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Swiss referendums, 1992

May I ask just why you took out the bold formatting I added to this article? Textorus (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Textorus. I removed it because it was unnecessary and inconsistent with the presentation of the results in the other Swiss referendum articles. Cheers, Number 57 18:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Josefina Josepha 00:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Josefina Josepha 00:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC) I have requested that you cease and desist from such disruptive action and behavior of deleting and vandalizing my page ( I use vandalism because the page that you are supporting is a back drop of my page without the pertinent information. you have deleted the entire code of my page intentionally to cause a disruption, again I request that you cease and desist from such vandalism and abusive action to the page I created Curacao 2016 General Elections. Your intent if you are an administrator is very abusive and a misuse of your administrator rights and I request that you cease and desist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefinaJosepha (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Party of South-West Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mariental. 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) 10:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

• News and notes: Board faces diversity and skill-base issues in new FDC appointments

• Discussion report: Busy month for discussions

• In the media: Women in science editathon gets national press; Wikipedia "shockingly biased"

• Featured content: A wide variety from the best

• Traffic report: Sports and esports

• Arbitration report: Script writers appointed for clerks

• Recent research: Using deep learning to predict article quality

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Next Austrian legislative election -Electoral system

Do you know the austrian electoral system ? Please read "Nationalratswahlordnung". You write:

The 183 members of the National Council are elected by closed list proportional representation in nine multi-member constituencies based on the states. Seats are allocated using the D'Hondt and Hare method with an electoral threshold of 4%.

De facto the number of seats only depend on Austrian popular vote.--213.240.125.11 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What I wrote is correct, but you seem to have misinterpreted it. The d'Hondt method is a way of allocating seats based on the popular vote share. Number 57 08:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Player Category List

I'll try - it looks as though copying the contents out to my text editor (textpad) has removed some of the none-ANSI extended characters. It will take some time as I can only do one edit at a time before the huge list locks my browser up. Sorry. Gricehead (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Gricehead (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Now Done for all the redlinks in that diff. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary

In reply to your edit summarry:[1] "Why not just fix it rather than revert? External links should not be used in the prose (see WP:ELPOINTS), and it isn't standard to have the spaces (I would guess more than half the articles don't)."

1. I wouldn't know how to fix it.
2. WP:ELPOINTS only says "should not normally be used in the body of an article". You must be as aware of it as I am, that in cases where there is a link to an article in another language but not in English, sometimes the external link is used in the article.
3. As you can see if you edit this talkpage, it is the Wikipedia default to have the spaces. At least you shouldn't remove them. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Perhaps if you hadn't been so keen to hit the revert button, you'd have either (a) noticed that I added the template to the article in two places – one of which worked and one of which didn't, after which it should have been fairly simple to work out what was wrong, or (b) seen that I was using a template, and visited the template page to find out how it worked and try and work out what went wrong.

Interwikis and external links are different things. If you really think it should be interwiki'd, then the correct way to do it would be like this: Avraham Ya'akov Brawer. ELs are not used to do this with.

As for the spaces thing, I have to say you've completely lost me. I assumed you were referring to the unnecessary spacing on some lines in the infobox, but seeing as you have mentioned this talkpage, I have no idea what you're referring to.

Hitting the revert button like this will only antagonise other editors and if this is typical of your behaviour, then I am beginning to see why you pop up at WP:AE so often. Number 57 18:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You make an edit which doesn't work, and when I revert it, you tell me that I should have fixed your edit? I complete disregard of the fact that 1. it was not my edit and 2. I had and have no idea what was wrong with it and how it was fixed. Instead of making insinuations regarding WP:AE, you'd better get a better idea of who should mop up whose shit. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Seaton Delaval

Hello, and thanks for pointing that out. As FCHD didn't link the two, I presumed them to be different entities. The Northern Alliance website calls them Seaton Delaval AFC, and the FA are inconsistent. If it were me, I'd go with A.F.C., but my personal taste unfortunately doesn't form part of our naming conventions. I'll save Joe Meek (footballer) anyway, and when someone decides what the club should have been called, it's easy enough to change him. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, with regard to your "AFC Telford United" redirects, I think you should take a look at WP:NOTBROKEN. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: I'm aware of the guideline and wouldn't normally do it, but it's being done primarily for the player categorisation drive that we've been discussing recently at WP:FOOTY. See here. Basically if a club name is transcribed incorrectly in the infobox (which includes being a redirect), the bot picks them up as being incorrectly categorised. Cheers, Number 57 19:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I get you! Mattythewhite (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: There are three York City players on the English list and two on the Scottish list if you're interested in helping out! If you do, can you add all the missing categories for those players and then delete them from the lists? Cheers, Number 57 19:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File delete

Please delete this file per OTRS ticket:2016072610001783. — Music1201 ^talk 18:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Music1201: I can't see the ticket, so I'm afraid I can't delete it. But while I've got your attention, can I advise that you stop closing AfDs like this? It was clearly a delete result, so I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that there was no consensus. Number 57 18:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

1 delete !vote + the nomination is not enough to determine a consensus. It was relisted 3 times without discussion. I even put "final relist" in the 3rd relist. — Music1201 ^talk 18:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you'd bothered to look at the file, you'd notice that is was marked for deletion more than 1 week ago, and says it could be deleted after 7 days (it's been 9). The file should be deleted regardless of the OTRS ticket. — Music1201 ^talk 18:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Music1201: I did look at the file, and if you'd bothered to read the tag properly, you'd see it quite clearly states "the image will be deleted one week after 25 July 2016." Unless you're messaging me from five days in the future, then it's not eligible for deletion yet.

If you're going to be arsey with other editors, at least make sure you're in the right first. Number 57 18:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Fixing template

It's something I think we discussed years ago (my apologies if we didn't and I was thinking of other people). In any case, the infobox is used for all sorts of Israeli localities, not necessarily kibbutzim. The idea was to rename the template to Infobox Israel village, but because simply moving a template can create all sorts of chaos, it was decided to change the template name in the articles first, and move it at the end. It has already been changed in most articles. Let me know what you prefer to do with this, personally I'd like to finish changing it in the articles and then move the template itself. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't use AWB, so go ahead :) —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. About CBS: I think June–July of next year is the standard for the release of this data, don't know why they are delaying now, but I don't think they will delay much longer. I'll be sure to keep an eye out! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolding

With regard to Southern Rhodesian federation referendum, 1953 the Manual of Style (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section) states

"If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it"

"In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear"

in addition

"Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead"

would mean that if the bolding was retained the link to Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland would have had to be removed, and in such a short article there wouldn't have been a natural place to add such a link. In my opinion it was more useful to retain the link and debold.--KTo288 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't get it

What did this edit do? I followed the link in the edit summary, but the diff doesn't seem to be about infoboxes. Or Cats. Just curious. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Spotted it - there was a fixed redirect in there. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dweller: Yes, apologies for the delay in replying. My plan originally was to only fix the redirects in the infobox, as they're the only ones that affect the bot run for the missing category list, but then when it became apparent that there were nearly 4,000 players with redirects instead of direct links in the articles, I just ended up doing all of them as it would have doubled the amount of time taken if I had skipped the ones not in infoboxes... There are four Norwich players on the list if you want to sort them out :) (please remove them when you do!). Cheers, Number 57 11:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what to do. Can't see any redirects from John Bowman (footballer) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dweller: He's been picked up on the list because he's not in Category:Norwich City F.C. players. The list is largely completely missing categories, but some (the ones I was dealing with using AWB) only appeared to be missing the category when doing a comparison because the club's name was written differently in the infobox and the category name (e.g. Leeds United A.F.C. vs Category:Leeds United F.C. players). Hope that maeks sense? Number 57 12:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

OK done one --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Lim never actually appeared in a game for NCFC. Does he get the Cat? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dweller: I think if he was contracted to the club then it's reasonable to put him in the category. Certainly if Ipswich signed someone over the summer, I'd expect to see them in the category even if they hadn't played a game yet. Number 57 17:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, helpful thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"Significant events" column

Are these really needed in season-by-season records tables? It is quite clear a team has been promoted as the cells are greened/relegated - red. Champions are also seen by looking at the position. Also, the link to the leagues should go in the position column rather than the season column - the season column doesn't refer solely to the league the club is in. Kivo (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kivo: Yes, as it can also be used to denote events like losing in play-offss, divisional transfers, league reorganisation etc. See Grays Athletic F.C. or Aylesbury United F.C. as examples.

I don't really understand your second point, but the season column is always linked to the season article for that league. The position column is not linked. Number 57 20:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Who ultimately decides whether there should be such a column? Because for every Aylesbury and Grays article, where there is a 'significant events' column, there are far more without one, so if it comes down to which layout is more popular, then the column should be deleted.

They clutter up the table and are needless as the information is already covered.

My second point is - the link to a league season should be in the position column as that is particular to that club's league performance. Linking to it in the Season column doesn't really make sense as the season column refers to the season as a whole - league AND cup competitions. Kivo (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kivo: I don't think they clutter up the table, and I'm not sure whether you didn't read what I wrote above, but as pointed out, they include information that is not covered, such as losing in the play-offs, reasons for moving leagues etc.

As for the linking, I disagree – the main bit of a club's season is their league campaign. And having the position linked looks atrocious. Number 57 21:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Atrocious?! It's more logical for a start - linking a club's position in a league season to that league's season page makes more sense than linking to it in the Season column, which exists solely to indicate which years the season took place in! It looks far less atrocious than a blue background indicating that a club won a league title (especially when it is already clear that the club won the league title by taking a look at the Position column). How a club left a league/got on in end of season play-offs should already be covered in the history section. Kivo (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kivo: The table is supposed to be a standalone summary of what happened that season, so many aspects (not just the playoffs etc) are duplicated. If you go down the route you suggest, why not omit seasons where the end position/FA Cup run etc is mentioned in the text too?

I see what you are saying, but who decides what constitutes 'significant'? Is a record points total significant for example? A move to a new ground? Then there's the shading question - how many colour shading do we have for each event? Should we have purple shading for a lost play-off final? Grey shading for a lost play-off semi-final? In my opinion it should be promotion and relegation only, with those clearly indicated by the green and red shading.

I agree the season by season record table should be a stand-alone summary - adding a blue shading for championship wins isn't really necessary. If a team wins a championship AND is promoted, surely there should be some sort of cyan shading, as they'd need blue and green shading combined? If the significant events column must stay, at least can we get rid of the blue shading, which really is unnecessary - keep the shading to green and red for promotion and relegation. Kivo (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kivo: Based on what I've seen in all the articles I've seen the lists on, a significant event is one that affects which league the club plays in (e.g. promotion, transfer) or a league win. I've also only ever seen three types of row shading – blue for champions but not promoted, green for promoted and red for relegated.

I should stress that these tables aren't my creation – I only base the standardisation of the ones I edit based on what I see elsewhere. However, I do agree with the logic of how they are structured at present, including the blue shading (I'm not sure why it's such a problem?) as winning a league is just as significant as promotion, and in some cases clubs are unable to take promotion for whatever reason. Number 57 21:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You say "I do agree with the logic of how they are structured at present" - by who though? As I said earlier, there are more tables without the Signiificant events column than there are with it - so surely the ones without it are the standard? Kivo (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kivo: I don't believe that's the case – I've made major edits to several dozen articles in the past couple of months, and of those that had season lists, the vast majority were in this format – the only ones that weren't were the ones you had edited. Having checked a few articles, the lists were added by completely different editors over several years dating back as far as 2006, so it's been the standard for a decade. Number 57 21:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with your logic on the linking; if I had to pick any other column to link to the league season article than the years, it would be the one with the league name. Number 57 21:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

But obviously you couldn't do that as the article to the league itself is linked there - the Position column is really an extension of the League column, but more season specific, as are the FA competition columns. Linking a league season page to the Season column is as illogical as linking a cup season page to the Season column - and you wouldn't link an FA Cup season page to the Season column. Kivo (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course you could – the argument could easily be made that you don't need the same league linked dozens of times in successive rows. And again, I'll go back to the point that the main point of a club's season is their league campaign. Number 57 21:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colliers Wood United F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wimbledon. 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) 10:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hadash.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hadash.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

ארגון

המרכז החקלאי הוא ארגון שנוצר בתקופת היישוב ואשר היווה מסגרת Nachum (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)משותפת של גופי ההתיישבות העובדת ושל עובדי החינוך החקלאי.

Hundreds if not thousands

Just saw your We do not have "hundreds, if not thousands" of 5th tier or lower articles. I'd think there are well more than 100. You find 95 right there. How many more are untagged. Does that include 6th tier? What about Southern, Northern, and Isthmanian. And I'm aware of season articles that survive down to the 10th tier at least. I firmly believe there are hundreds. Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nfitz: No, there are barely any others, as virtually all have been deleted. If you are talking about 10th tier,I presume you are actually thinking of league season articles rather than club season (e.g. 2015–16 Eastern Counties Football League). Number 57 23:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And if I see you lie again in an AfD like you've done in the Hereford one, then I'm afraid this will go to ANI as I am sick to death of your behaviour. I'm happy to have a debate about the articles, but when you make claims like you did there, then the situation is untenable. Number 57 23:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

What lie? The comment was in good fatih, and I have not repeated it since I saw your comment. Something can be 100% wrong without being a lie. Meanswhile you have violated a far worse Wiki guideline by violating WP:AGF; please apologize for this. Meanwhile, I have found a few others than the 95 - and am still searching. Is 101, hundreds, or do I need to hit 200? Nfitz (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nfitz: In the Hereford AfD you claim that "There is longstanding consensus at AfD that professional clubs that play in nation-wide professional league get season articles per WP:NSEASONS", which, as you know, is untrue. I presume you actually mean WP:AGF, but as you're also aware, any GF you had was lost several years ago when you started behaving problematically. Number 57 23:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I assume you meant 100s if not 1000s. I'm sorry, I phrased that badly - I copied the previous entry and didn't edit it well. Give me a few minutes, and I'll see if I can fix that before the kids have dinner. BTW, looking at Category:English football clubs 2013–14 season I see 60 articles, but only 36 are shown as the top 4 tiers. Are 24 non-league? I can see some that are 5th tier, but are not listed in the Category:2013–14 Football Conference by team. Honest question. I think 95 is the low end here. Not sure it will top 200, but I wouldn't be surprised if it tops 150. But yes, not 1000s. Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Re. Surrey County Intermediate League (Western)

Regarding your query on the Surrey County Intermediate League (Western), I got the list of winners from the League Secretary. I believe they are taken from the trophy the League still presents to the winners each season. I've double checked the spreadsheet I was sent in 2010 and the info matches up. They have Ash United's title listed as 1948-49 and the Badshot Lea info also matches up. I realise this isn't verifiable to usual Wikipedia standards but it's that or leave the info out completely. I do private research on football in Surrey and am hoping to fill the gaps in one day! Cheers. Veggiepunk (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

• Editorial: Wikipedia policy suppresses sharing of information

• News and notes: Foundation presents results of harassment research, plans for automated identification; Wikiconference submissions open

• In the media: Paid editing service announced; Commercial exploitation of free images; Wikipedia as a crystal ball; Librarians to counter systemic bias

• Obituary: Kevin Gorman, who took on Wikipedia's gender gap and undisclosed paid advocacy, dies at 24

• Traffic report: Summer of Pokémon, Trump, and Hillary

• Featured content: Women and Hawaii

• Recent research: Easier navigation via better wikilinks

• Blog: All-new notifications page helps Wikimedians focus on what matters most

• Technology report: User script report (January to July 2016, part 1)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Undo / thanks

You're right. Undo and thanks are a bit close, aren't they! Drawoh46 (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Indian football updater

No, thank you for creating this in the first place with England. Makes life so much easier honestly. You should see what the ISL teams had before this template and how hard they can be to manage. Thanks for adding the other leagues as well. I was going to do them one by one (league wise) as I get more and more of the complicated Indian football structure pieced together but what you did works as well. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Israel population template doesn't work with Geva Carmel

In your list, it says that you need to put "Geva Karmel" for Geva Carmel but it doesn't work.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: It was because for some reason there was a double space between the names in the template. If you're ever having a problem like that, just check out exactly how the name is written in the template itself: {{Israel populations}}. There were a few things that got changed slightly when I copied this into a list for my sandbox. Number 57 11:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Had Nes also doesn't work.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: It was lower-cased in the template (you should check in the template itself and compare what you have if it doesn't work). Cheers, Number 57 21:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to check the template it self :/ --Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: Go to the template ({{Israel populations}}), click edit, and then search for what you're looking for. You'll then see exactly how it's coded. But please don't change the coding in the template, otherwise future updates won't work properly. Cheers, Number 57 21:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait.. Is it that easy making a template?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: Er, yes? Number 57 21:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barrow Town F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Riverside Park. 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) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

English football updater

Hi. Just noticed you adding the above template to a bunch of club articles I watch and I was wondering where the concept of this template came from? It's not marked as belonging to any project. Ta. CalzGuy (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi - found it mentioned on the WT:Footy and have added a question there. CalzGuy (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Venezuelan_recall_referendum,_2016

Response here, thanks. If you think more varied input would help, I would be fine with the issue being brought up at WP:RFC. Yvarta (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks great! Yvarta (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Launton Sports F.C.

Hello, I need a second opinion please, could you please take a look at Launton Sports F.C. Is this club notable and if you think not, could you PROD? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

York City F.C. 2016-17 Season

Hello Number 57. I am very new to wikipedia and just received your message regarding the York City F.C. 2016-17 season. You have said that no non-league season article has ever been kept as a result of a deletion discussion as they fail the WP:NSEASONS guideline yet past seasons that York City F.C. have spent in non league football have not been deleted. I can assure you that I am citing all the sources on the 2016-17 season and that York City F.C. are a professional club in a league where most of the teams are fully professional. I look forward to your reply (Sjburton (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC))

With your admin hat on

saw you were about, so could you possibly reverse this move [2] and explain to the user concerned that they can't move an article out of mainspace into its creator's userspace just because they don't like it? thanks, Struway2 (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Struway2: Done. Number 57 10:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Coleshill Town

Trivial question: should Coleshill Town have a different abbreviation for use with English football updater? Or are you happy with the one they've got? Drawoh46 (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought Blackpool's one was rather unfortunate but Coleshill got an even shorter straw! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Help request

Thank you for editing Slovak parliamentary election, 1938. Could you help me also with the article Slovak People's Party? Unfortunately, my English is not very good and I will appreciate some copyediting by a native speaker. --Ditinili (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ditinili: I've made a start, will try and do the rest later this week. Cheers, Number 57 19:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

AFC Darwen

Hello,

I have been assigned by AFC Darwen to help improve and add to their wikipedia page, especially their most recent history.

I am also learning on how to edit Wiki properly. Please can you let me edit the page efficiently?

I have added key information but it has been edited by yourself and I have to start over again, which is frustrating while i am trying to do the club a service.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambles Smurph (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elmore F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiverton. 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) 09:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Undid revision 735090617 by Number 57 (talk)

Look, I defended myself by submitting a appeal to the Unblock Ticket Review System and I am going to defend myself again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsc1277 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you started by discussing the content of the article on the article's talk page, where I have posted a number of sources. - htonl (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

• News and notes: Focus on India—WikiConference produces new apps; state government adopts free licenses

• Special report: Engaging diverse communities to profile women of Antarctica

• In the media: The ugly, the bad, the playful, and the promising

• Featured content: Simply the best ... from the last two weeks

• Traffic report: Olympic views

• Technology report: User script report (January–July 2016, part 2)

• Arbitration report: The Michael Hardy case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello, I'm Johnsc1277. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to South African republic referendum, 1960 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Stop reverting my edits! Johnsc1277 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Can you block this user now? They've just reverted again at South African republic referendum, 1960 and have the gall to issue Htonl and me warnings. Cheers, Number 57 17:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing UKIP and Green Party of England and Wales Leadership election 2016

I read your entry on false consensus with interest ((There are several areas of the project which are almost no-go areas for outside/neutral editors, and many false consensuses have been built up by small groups of editors (usually around five people, which is sufficient to block progress on any attempt at outside involvement (the fatal flaw of the WP:RFC process being that it is not limited to outside editors)). . There is a discussion just starting on consensus on the green Party of England and Wales leadership election page. I think that the problem you highlight is evident on the UKIP page regarding endorsements of candidates, Could we dicuss why I made that edit as I wish to pursue the issue of a non neutral editor acting as gate keeper and de facto Ephor for two key rival policial parties entires. That is the subject of a seperate COI issue which does have a bearing on the UKIP page as well i'm afraid. 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs)

@RogerGLewis: There is no COI on the UKIP page – as you've already been told by other editors, being a member of a party is not a conflict of interest when it comes to editing other parties' articles. As it so happens, I am a Green Party member and I wholly agree with Bondegezou's efforts to try and sort out your edits to the Green Party leadership election page. Rather than continue to make various accusations against other editors, I suggest you need to focus on learning how to use Wikipedia properly if you are going to become a long-term contributor – having seen what's going on at both the Green Party leadership election talk page and ANI, I don't think you will not last long on Wikipedia if you carry on like this. Primarily you need to learn how to:

1. Link to articles rather than reference them
2. Sign your comments properly (using four tildas – ~~~~)
3. Mention other editors in comments so that their username appears
4. Structure the indent of responses properly using colons.

In addition, you need to stick to no more than 100-200 words when writing comments, otherwise people will not bother to read them (WP:TLDR). The walls of text you have produced at the various discussions you have contributed to are an immediate sign to other editors that this is a potential problem editor. Number 57 10:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I take your helpful comments on board regarding consision , with respect to consensus and editing policy I have read rather more of that than Formatting, these past weeks. I have been learning more and Indents hopefully have now entered my world. I have embraced the editing discussion and started new sections to address the issues I wish to raise, most people I think give up with the arcania of wikipedia very early on due to lack of time, that certainly was the case with me back in 2009. I am now retired from my Business interests in the UK and have the time needed to dedicate to matters that interest me. I will spend some time practising my formatting in accordance with your suggestions and precis the entrys to under 200 words , I did not know that was the convention and I see now that you tell me that I can improve the presentation of my points by observing them.I will use the talk page to edit myself back within convention and policy. I had a look at how one adds pictures earlier, the entry has spaces for all the candidates but not pictures for all of them, I understand the copy right issues but the formatting looked less than intuitive to me at this stage, are there any helpful tutorials on adding photos? RogerGLewis (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@RogerGLewis: No problem; if you have any queries about formatting, I'm happy to help. There is an image uploading tutorial here, which hopefully should be of use. The most important thing to bear in mind is copyright – and with regards to photos, I would advise only uploading ones you have have taken yourself, as otherwise it starts to get complicated. Cheers, Number 57 11:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Air

I am trying to reach out here and clear the air between the two of us, after all we are both here to improve wikipedia. Right?

I feel that you take every chance you get to attack me when reverting without even looking at the fact. The burden to provide evidence lies on the editor that adds the content per WP:UNSOURCED and you know it. I take the lazy road sometimes, I have admitted to that in the past and I still do. But that does not mean that I am always wrong.

Your behaviour towards me in cases like this has really started questioning you as an neutral unbiased administrator, and I have thought about reporting you. But that is really only a last resort and not something that I would like to do. I just feel that sometimes you dont act like an administrator. If you look at the current thread at WT:FOOTY, User:Jaellee who is not an admin hit the nail on the head and was able to explain the issue, instead of putting fuel on the fire. It just made me more angry and upset to se your aggression towards me, and honestly I think about leaving. The time and hard work I spend here, and then to get this response from an administrator. Well lets just say I lost hope tonight.

If you have something against me, lets take it to my face and discuss here, instead of working against me in cases like this. Qed237 (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I appreciate the message, and I have nothing against you – the only time we have come into conflict is as a result of you reverting perfectly good information. All that I ask is that you actually check what you're reverting is true or not before you do – this is a fairly basic standard of editing as far as I'm concerned. If you don't, you are both damaging Wikipedia by removing correct information and putting off potential new editors who see that their constructive contribution has been immediately reverted – newbie editors do not generally understand the concept of sourcing, whilst casual editors (the type that will correct information on a page they happen to be reading) are highly unlikely to return to the page they've just corrected and even less likely to bother trying again if they see their contribution has been mindlessly reverted. This is the sort of thing that drives people away from Wikipedia.

Anyway, as I said, all that I ask is that you check what you're reverting before you do – if that's too much to ask, then unfortunately I will continue to call you out when you repeat it. As you said, we are both here to improve Wikipedia, and that should include ensuring that (a) we are as up-to-date as possible and (b) that we attract and retain as many editors as possible. Cheers, Number 57 10:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your point and recently I brought up "the newbie card" myself when an editor used really bad language and attacked new editors. However, since the editor was a good contributor otherwise, the editors who complained where told to look the other way. So apparently wikipedia does not take it too seriously with new editors (which I think is bad, we need "fresh blood"). The IP in this case was not a new editor, but actually pretty experienced, and if they had an account they would probably have been blocked for disruption. They got warnings on their talkpage which they removed and messages in edit summaries, which they choose to ignore, only to start attacking my edits at other articles. If the editor had been unfamiliar with wikipedia and an obvious rookie, I would have played it differently, but this editor knew what they were doing. We can not add incorrect information just to keep new editors. As I final note, if I think you are unfair (I saw other editors got my back here) I will continue to call you out. Qed237 (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: If the information was incorrect, I would have had no problem with you summarily deleting it, and I agree that this should not be done to keep new editors – but I'm not sure why you are making this point, as it's not what I am advocating. Number 57 11:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that I was completely right to remove unsourced content and the burden to source lies with the editor adding the content. Qed237 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: The fact is that you were lazy and unhelpful - that's what you need to take away from this. Next time you see someone adding information, have the decency to check whether it is true or not before reverting. Your sourcing argument doesn't hold water because half of the places you were reverting the IP in (i.e. the templates) are not sourced anyway. Number 57 13:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You were not really helpful yourself, completely letting the IP of the hook and just adding fuel on the fire. Not what to expect from an administrator. That is what you need to take away from this. Even if I was lazy does not mean I was wrong, as it is allowed to remove unsourced content. Qed237 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

al-Sayyid

I appreciate the interesting list of DYKs on your user page. You might want to disambiguate al-Sayyid to al-Sayyid, Israel. Ma^t_chups 20:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you check...

Hi, can you check please this article Central American federal election, 1835 to see what's the problem with grammar or spelling or whatever caused the tag. It was the last one I did that day and was already kind of sleepy. I know you already check it but I would like not to see the tag. Thanks. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Have done. Thanks for creating the articles – I had no idea there had been an elected President. Were they popular votes, or done via the respective (sub)national parliaments? Was there also any form of elected Assembly? Cheers, Number 57 12:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. According to my sources (and the Central American Constitution of the time) the election first happened with direct popular vote (except women coulnd't vote back then) and this selected the electors of some sort of Electoral College a lot like the US (the Central American Constitution was based on the American one), what I havn't found yet it's the exact number of votes and percentages of the popular vote. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way of globally blocking an account?

Hi,

I just noticed that this user modified the lede sections and infoboxes of Sagan Tosu and Thespakusatsu Gunma in no less than eight languages to contain bogus club names and false information. They could of course be reported separately for each language; nevertheless, do you know if there is some way of reporting their global account as well? – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Soccer-holic: Unfortunately I don't know – try asking at WP:AN. Sorry I can't be of more help. Number 57 11:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Cheers! – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For doing the excellent job that you've been doing. And for not being narrow.

Mall-Underconstruction 12:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Updater

Hi Number57, I am just going through the NPL teams for the updater and have seen that the Droylsden F.C. ID has been misspelled "Droylesd" instead of "Droylsde". Not sure where I would change this. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, Farsley Celtic are out of alphabetical order and should be after Droylsden. Cheers, Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Delusion23: Thanks for letting me know – now fixed! Cheers, Number 57 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Another edit needed, Retford F.C. and Canning Town F.C. are missing from the list for Central Midlands Football League. Cheers! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, it is actually Clay Cross Town F.C. which appears to be missing, in addition to Retford. Cheers! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I've also noticed a mistake in the Isthmian Leagues in Template:ENGLs. "IL1N" is listed twice when one should be "IL1S". Cheers, Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Small issue: teams in this season's Southern Counties East Football League Division One were in the Kent Invicta League last season. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

In the Template:English football updater, some of your "<!--" parts are missing the "!" (see Southern Combination sections). Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

In the Midland League should Bloxwich Town (Div Two) and Castle Vale Town (Div Three) have completely blank entries for the ...2 and ...3 parameters, as does City of Liverpool in NWC? I believe that neither of the teams competed last season. Drawoh46 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, leave param 3 as Did not enter and change param 2 to 2015–16, rather than a link to a division in which they were not playing. Drawoh46 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: I've corrected Castle Vale to just 2015–16 and "Did not play" rather than a link to the league, but Bloxwich and City of Liverpool are both new clubs, so I thought leaving it blank would be the best option? Also, I thought I had added Retford earlier today but it seems I didn't, so I've now added them and Clay Cross Town. Number 57 17:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I agree. Leaving blank for new clubs is best. I hadn't notices that Bloxwich is new. Thanks! Drawoh46 (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, just so you know, in Southern League Premier, Dunstable and Dorchester are out of alphabetical order. Cheers, Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Another minor issue with SCEL. Last season the league had only one division, so there was no concept of Premier Division. So parameters two and three for each club which was in SCEL last season should really result in 2015–16 Southern Counties East League nth, rather than 2015–16 Southern Counties East League Premier Division nth, in the same way as is shown for clubs in other single division leagues, for example East Midlands Counties League. Drawoh46 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: I believe the division was actually called the Premier Division last season (to differentiate it from a reserve division – the same as is still the case for the Essex Senior League) but it just wasn't referred to as such in common parlance because there was only one first-team division. I'm happy to change if it's really an issue though. Number 57 14:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: In that case I'm completely happy to leave it as it is. Thanks. Drawoh46 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone screwed up the pushpin map for Haifa

I don't know who to ask and what to do about it (still don't understand infoboxes and templates that much), as you can see, someone replaced the pushpin map for Haifa to a more central one and it causes many problems: Salem, Ma'ale Iron, Hadera, Pardes Hanna-Karkur.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: Hmmm, I saw that close-up map had appeared on a couple of articles, but didn't realise it was that widespread. It appears to have been caused by @Mikey641: creating Module:Location map/data/Israel haifa, which overrides {{Location map Israel haifa}} (Mikey was asked not to replace the map in the template, so I'm not sure whether this was gaming the system or an unexpected result of the module). I've temporarily deleted the module in order to fix the problem. Mikey, Location map Israel haifa is used on numerous articles, many of which are for towns and villages outside of the Haifa urban area and the module was basically making places disappear from the maps in their infoboxes. Could you explain what benefit the zoomed-in map served? Cheers, Number 57 21:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think a map of Haifa with neighborhoods is good, but it wasn't supposed to be placed instead of the District map.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

1. I was asked not to replace the map with this file, I assumed that you would want a location map.
2. I don't understand why would you use {{Location map Israel haifa}} when you can just use Module:Location map/data/Israel (It's the same file)
3. The benefit of the zoomed-in map is to show the location more accuratly, I'm not gonna beg u to use it, just do what you want to

--Mikey641 (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW Bolter21 wrote: "it wasn't supposed to be placed instead of the District map". This isn't Haifa district's map, it's Israel's map.

The Map I created was of the city of haifa

This is a map of the Haifa district

--Mikey641 (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mikey641: It was the district map, it was just removed from the template by the now topic-banned Sepsis II – this is what it was supposed to look like originally (for some reason it only shows up in an edit summary window, not when the previous version is selected). This is why it was used on several dozen articles, but after the change, all articles now appear to show the whole country map. Number 57 21:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Now I understand, I saw a lot of maps like this one in Category:Israel location map templates and didn't understand why. Thanks for the explanation--Mikey641 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant that it wasn't supposed to replace the "israel haifa" in the infobox template.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mikey641 and Bolter21: I've made an updated version of the original Haifa district map that I'll upload tomorrow. Just waiting to hear back from the editor of the original maps to see if he's ok with uploading over the top of the old ones (as they're still used in a few places), otherwise I'll just upload it as a completely new one. I'll also sort out all the other old district maps so we don't have to have the whole country map on each article. Number 57 22:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

AFC Croydon Athletic

Number 57

I did not try to sneak anything in... I was respectful of your advice and did as I indicated and waited until the squad was complete before including it again. I am rather offended by your approach to this issue. I do appreciate that you may wish to see these pages as being consistent and reflective but it is also important to look to encourage those who are willing to put effort in to improving a page in which they have an interest. At least four other teams in the league in which AFC Croydon Athletic competes has their squad reflected in this way; I do not see this as controversial.

I respect that you are full of good intentions and similarly respect that if such a section is included then it does need to be kept up to date. However, I would hope that you will respect the fact that some people are willing to put in the work and aspire to improve the page they are working on.

I shall, within 48 hours, put that section back in!

DustyRam — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustyRam (talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Map uploads

Hi Number 57,

I probably don't mind, but haven't see the new versions? Maybe missing something obvious. Please go ahead.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you already uploaded :) checked at least one that you did, it looks good, please go ahead with the rest. I really can't fathom why people had such a big problem with the original versions, but it really doesn't matter, as long as we get the regional maps back. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you :-) it's always nice to be appreciated. I don't mind a repetitive task, when time allows, and I'd never really done anything with categories apart from stick them on new articles or stick Birmingham City F.C. players on new signings. And I found a hoax yesterday: not an interesting one, just a copypaste of another page with the names changed, but it had survived for more than two years. But the novelty's definitely wearing off... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Struway2: No problem, I've been really impressed seeing how you've worked through it. You do find some interesting things doing it, although in some ways it's thankless because you come across articles that haven't been updated since 2008 or whatever and then you spend ages trying to work out where the guy is now (or if he's even still playing)... Number 57 15:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I was about to thank you, but...

... then I saw your comment. I was quite clear about not knowing how to do it: "Who knows a trick?" - did you really feel an urge to rub it in my face? Have a nice life, ArmindenArminden (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Arminden: If you don't know how to do something, surely the first place you would look would be the infobox template. In this case I was particularly annoyed about your failure to sort out the pin properly because you actually removed it when you reverted, which led me to the conclusion that that was actually a blind revert – how else would you have missed it? Number 57 18:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I left it to those who know more technical tricks. I didn't remove any pushpin, on my computer it's very much there, only the second part of the name slipped outside the frame and slightly over the coordinates. Anyhow, "sorry" would have done the trick, but you seem to have skipped this lesson in English. Don't bother, adieu. ArmindenArminden (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Arminden: You removed the pushpin position parameter, as you can see in the this diff of your revert. I think you need to familiarise yourself with how to revert an edit if this escaped your notice. Number 57 18:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, you don't have to write your username out when you sign a talkpage comment, as it's done when you use the four tildas. Number 57 18:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Why do I even bother... You seem to have the shortest fuse in town and zero patience, worse even than me. I reverted to what had been there previously, didn't go about resetting individual parameters. I know quite a bit about content and visuals, and this is certainly at least as important as technicalities, which I am happy to leave to those who have the time & skill to deal with them. The map as it was before I did my move, with a truly PERFECT pushpin as it was, was showing nothing but a white triangle of desert. That's what I cared about reverting. I asked for help about the "Nitzanei Sinai" caption - and you offered it, but instead of keeping it down to civilised cooperation, you had to attack and show off. You know yourself, so don't bother answering, 'cause this time it's gonna be a monologue. PS: thanks about the tildas, I never figured that one out. Don't think that makes me a better or less good editor, but it was annoying. Arminden (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Arminden: If you revert, you should look properly at what you are reverting, otherwise it's a blind revert, which is not looked on kindly. Did you not wonder what the |pushpin_label_position parameter that you were removing might mean? As you spotted almost immediately that the label was not in the right place, I would have expected you to put two and two together if you had actually looked at what you were doing. If you were a new editor I would have let it pass, but you've been editing for several years and I would expect a basic level of competence from you. Number 57 18:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Uzbekistani presidential election, 2016 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Uzbekistani presidential election, 2016 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uzbekistani presidential election, 2016 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Wanderer777 (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

ITN for Gabonese presidential election, 2016

On 4 September 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gabonese presidential election, 2016, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T♦C 05:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

year linking in Template:Infobox_election

Hi, I took that action because the years back and forward were plain-linked (unlike similar templates, which at least link to year-in-X articles). Is there some way that can be fixed? Tony (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tony1: Where do you see the plain linking? Links only appear if the election article being linked to exists; if there is no next or previous election article, then the year just appears as plain text. Your edit broke the links and meant that on articles like Guinean presidential election, 2015, an unlinked "Guinean presidential election, 2010" appeared in the top left instead of "2010" linked to that article. The current appearance of that article is how things are meant to be (i.e. the 2010 article linked as it exists, the 2020 article not linked as it doesn't exist). Number 57 09:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Number, the article is Michigan's 4th senate district special election, 2016. You'll see that the arrows point to links to plain 2014 and plain 2016 (not the usual more specific targets) at the top of the upper infobox. I'm not very good with templates, but perhaps you can explain more. Tony (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tony1: It was because whoever added the infobox filled out the parameters wrong. I've now fixed it. Cheers, Number 57 13:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Number! I'll check the diff to learn how not to bother you again ... Best. Tony (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Romanian ethnic minorities parties

I'm not really seeing your point here (and on fourteen other articles). Yes, Category:Political parties of minorities in Romania contains defunct political parties - just as Category:Social democratic parties in Romania, in which the very much alive Social Democratic Party (Romania) is included, also contains defunct parties; just as Category:Liberal parties in Romania includes the major contemporary National Liberal Party (Romania) but also parties that have been dead for decades; just as, looking abroad, Labour Party (Norway) is in Category:Socialist parties in Norway but not in Category:Political parties in Norway, or Austrian People's Party is in Category:Conservative parties in Austria but not Category:Political parties in Austria; Fidesz is in Category:Conservative parties in Hungary but not Category:Political parties in Hungary, etc., etc.

Really, this seems like a no-brainer case for subcategorization, and I see no indication anywhere that main "Political parties in…." categories are only for current parties while subcategories based on ideology/identity must not mix present with past parties. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: I think you've misunderstood; there's no problem with mixing past/present parties in the subcategories based on ideology and identity (hence why all those parties are still in the subcategory). However, there needs to be somewhere in the category tree to identify which parties are extant and which ones are defunct, and in my experience at least, this has been done by using the top level category for extant parties and having all the defunct ones in Defunct political parties in Fooland. As you've highlighted, there are unfortunately numerous examples of where this isn't being followed, which is in part due to one editor who spends a great deal of time subcategorising based on ideology... Number 57 00:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, nowhere does WP:TOPICCAT indicate that extant and defunct entities are not to be mixed. Is this written down somewhere? If not, it would seem to me you have created this standard on your own, and are imposing it based on a whim. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would say that in WP:TOPICCAT (it seems an unusually specific thing to mention there), and that's not what I'm saying either – there is no problem mixing them in some places, but there should be somewhere in the category tree where you can identify which parties are extant and which ones are defunct (unfortunately the usual "List of political parties in Fooland" is often out-of-date as editors forget to update them when party articles are updated). I started editing political party articles around a decade ago and picked up on this method of categorisation back then – unfortunately as it was so long ago it's unlikely I can find where it's written down.

Additionally, the same system of categorisation is used elsewhere on Wikipedia (I know that we do it for football club categories too). Number 57 11:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: we routinely combine former/defunct entities with active ones, and not just for political parties. The celebrated anti-communist Whittaker Chambers is in Category:American anti-communists but also in Category:American communists because he was a communist before turning. John Lindsay, who belonged to both of America's major parties, is in Category:New York Democrats but also in the category pertaining to his prior affiliation: Category:New York Republicans. Mark Reckless - Category:UK Independence Party MPs but also Category:Conservative Party (UK) MPs. Milan Kundera's in Category:French male novelists but also in Category:Czech male writers despite losing Czechoslovak citizenship decades ago.

As to parties, regardless of what they do with football, you'll note that basically none of the parties in the European Council are in the top-level category: not the Mouvement Réformateur, not GERB, not the Czech Social Democratic Party, not Venstre (Denmark), not the Estonian Reform Party, not the Socialist Party (France), not the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, not Syriza, not Fidesz, not the Democratic Party (Italy), not the Democratic Party (Luxembourg), not the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, not Law and Justice, not Direction – Social Democracy, not the Modern Centre Party, not the People's Party (Spain), not the Swedish Social Democratic Party and, last but not least, not the Conservative Party (UK).

Moreover, you will note that no major contemporary Romanian party is in the top-level category: not the Social Democratic Party (Romania), not the National Liberal Party (Romania), not the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (Romania), not the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania, not the People's Movement Party.

Now, in the face of this kind of overwhelming evidence as to routine practice, will you concede the point, or must I expend my somewhat depleted energies on pursuing tiresome avenues of mediation? - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this is "overwhelming evidence as to routine practice" given that only your penultimate sentence is relevant to this discussion (I have no idea why you mention people-related categories as we do not categorise people as defunct, whereas we do for organisations), and as I pointed out earlier, one editor has spent a great deal of time removing parties from top level categories – the only time I notice is when it happens to one on my watchlist. Having had a look at a few other countries, it seems to be a mixed bag, but taking perhaps the most high profile example on English Wikipedia, Category:Political parties in the United States appears to contain most, if not all the current national political parties including the Democratic and Republican parties.

I'd be more than happy for this to be discussed at the politics WikiProject to see what other editors think, but it would be nice if you could tone down the high-handed unpleasantness. Number 57 07:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

• News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters

• Special report: Olympics readership depended on language

• In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage

• WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia

• Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between

• Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit

• Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them

• Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism

• Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Gala Wilton F.C.

Back in March you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If this restoration is confirmed, then I guess the club will need to be added to the English football updater template. Drawoh46 (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI I've notified the major contributors that the article is now at AfD, since apparently that's a courtesy you don't deign to offer. Joe Roe (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wards/Electoral Divisions

Hi, first of all thanks for all the work you do on election related articles, and for the helpful changes you often make when I create an article. I notice you have replaced "electoral divisions" for "wards" on the 2017 county council election articles I have created so far, the correct term is in fact "electoral division" (see Wards and electoral divisions of the United Kingdom, or look at any of the previous county council election articles). The term "ward" is only used for districts and unitary authorities. I'm therefore going to change this back and refer to electoral divisions on the rest of the new articles. Mirrorme22 (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mirrorme22: No problem, I didn't realise that terminology was official (when I worked at a county council, I only ever heard them referred to as wards). Cheers, Number 57 09:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Tips

Many thanksRacingmanager (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 September

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

• On the Mi'ilya page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Resource request email not received

I received the wiki-notification "Number 57‬ sent you an email", but no actual email. Email between other requesters and myself almost always works. In the rare cases that it fails, resending or sending from a different account has always cleared up the problem. So I suggest trying again.

I don't know how much you already know about the source, but as the title suggests, it's in the form of a dictionary. The entry Herut Betar (Settlements) takes up half of page 105. It consists of three sentences and then a list of eight West Bank settlements with their populations. Five of the settlements are listed in Mishkei Herut Beitar. The three that are not are: Betar, Beit Abba, and Beit Arieh. I don't think you'll find it super useful, but anything helps on an article with only one source. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: I've tried again. Cheers, Number 57 14:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Number 57. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Iranian election articles

Hello Number 57,

1. I think this is not right to include Template:Politics of Iran in articles for elections dating before 1979, because the template is about Government of Islamic Republic of Iran in particular.
2. I saw you redirected Senate election articles to parliamentary election pages. Yes, the elections were held on the same day (like recent Assembly of Experts and parliamentary elections), but they deserve their own articles. Is there a problem with article lenghts? I can expand Senate election pages.

—Pahlevun (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: The politics template should contain links to articles that covers the entire history of Iranian politics, so it should be suitable for all articles.

With regards to the Senate elections, standard practice is to combine articles on elections held on the same day where possible. See, for example, Australian federal election, 2016, Belgian federal election, 2010, Argentine general election, 2015, Bosnian general election, 2014, Uruguayan general election, 2014, etc etc. Splitting the articles as proposed provides no benefit and just makes it more difficult for readers to access the information.

Salvabl

I've blocked for disruptive editing. GiantSnowman 20:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

• News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit

• In the media: Wikipedia in the news

• Featured content: Three weeks in the land of featured content

• Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens

• Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét

• Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coggeshall Town F.C..jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coggeshall Town F.C..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

WMUK Elections in Europe microgrant

Hi Number 57 I see that you are still working articles related to Elections in Europe but was wondering if the WMUK grant page for it needs closing. Cheers, Karla Marte(WMUK) 09:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk • contribs)

@Karla Marte(WMUK): What do you mean by closing? Cheers, Number 57 13:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Just adding a 'completed' tag on the WMUK project page for it. The tag would indicate that the resources have been used and goals have been accomplished, that is if you are no longer working on it and prefer to keep it open. Karla Marte(WMUK) 10:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk • contribs)

@Karla Marte(WMUK): That's fine. I still use the book occasionally (largely to check whether changes made to the article created using it are vandalism or not), but the bulk of the work is complete. Cheers, Number 57 21:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Karla Marte(WMUK) 13:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk • contribs)

An Addition To A Football Clubs Details

Squires Gate

Full name	Squires Gate Football Club
Nickname(s)	Gate
Founded	1948 (as Squires Gate British Legion)
Ground	School Road, Squires Gate, Blackpool
Capacity	1,000
Chairman	Stuart Hopwood
Manager	Daniel Penswick
League	North West Counties League Premier Division (Tier 9)
2022–23	North West Counties League Premier Division, 20th of 22
Home colours Away colours

I've been told by @Delusion23 that you are involved in the insertion of "Parts of infobox can now be updated centrally" on football clubs in the section where the clubs details are, would it be possible to put an addition to this section on all clubs in the football pyramid? The addition I would like to see added is the level in the football pyramid that that club is currently playing in, ie, Blackpool are in League 2 which is Tier 4, Squires Gate are the North West Counties League Premier Division which is Tier 9 but to a fan who is not familiar to the pyramid system they won't know, even more so when a club is further down the football pyramid.

This would be updated centrally and updated automatically.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithy53 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Smithy53: I'm not sure it's a good idea. The template is already big enough as it is, and another layer of information would make it even more unwieldy. Sorry, Number 57 20:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Delusion23 Even if it was something as simple as (Tier 9) or just (9) next to their division and not a new heading? This would make it easier for someone who is amending the draws for the FA Cup, Trophy or Vase.

@Smithy53: Yes, even a small addition of text for each club would have a significant impact on the size of the template. Given how long we've survived without this information (well over a decade), it brings into question whether it's really necessary. Number 57 14:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Delusion23: Surely you wouldn't have to manually put the extra text for each club on every page as you would add this text to the file/template that is updated centrally. I asked because when the draw had been made I noticed that the Extra Preliminary Round of the FA Cup hadn't been updated, I updated it (368 teams) and it would have taken a lot less time if the clubs division tier/level info had been available just by clicking on that clubs wiki link instead of further clicking as I noticed that I did get one or two wrong (corrected by other users).

@Smithy53: I'm not sure why the text is actually needed on every club page – it clearly states the division, with a link to go through to if a reader is interested in knowing what that level was. Visible information shouldn't be added to articles to benefit editors, and really I would expect someone editing in this topic area to be familiar with which leagues/divisions are at each level anyway. Number 57 15:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Delusion23: It does state the division but there won't be many football fans (editors or readers) out there who will know what the level/tier of every/most non-league division is and this small addition would save both editor and reader time in having to look for the information.

Looking for the level/tier Baldock Town play in isn't that clear, they play in the Spartan South Midland League which if you click on isn't that clear to what level/tier their division is.

The addition wouldn't just be a benefit to the editor but to the reader aswell.

Nasrallah

Hi, you moved Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to Hassan Nasrallah a while back, but the talk page is still at the Sayyed title. I tried moving it and couldnt, could you? nableezy - 00:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Done. Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately the reminder that the talk page hasn't moved is not quite obvious enough! Number 57 10:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Next Hungarian parliamentary election

Hi. I don't know how to create a page for the Opinion polling for the Next Hungarian parliamentary election, i see the Next Austrian and the Next German election opinion polling's page, that shows the parties how votes can be reached for the 5% for entering the hungarian parliament. So, im sorry about this, for not creating the page for this election. --ViceCity343 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@ViceCity343: No problem, all you have to do is to go to the target page that you want (Opinion polling for the next Hungarian parliamentary election and then start the article there by copying the content of the opinion polling section. I would strongly advise not using visual editor though (i.e. edit the source instead). Cheers, Number 57 21:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brimsdown F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enfield. 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) 10:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RE: Highly inappropriate prodding and speedy deletion requests

IF they have contested national elections. Some of them I can't tell, and who is to say they did if they failed to cite a source to back it up? Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will take better care for the ones where it is clear and cited. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

• News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna

• Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input

• In the media: A news columnist on the frustrations of tweaking his Wikipedia bio

• Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017

• Featured content: Variety is the spice of life

• Traffic report: Debates and escapes

• Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 11:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Lithuanian parliamentary election, 2016

Hi, here is the chapter from Lithuanian Seimas electoral law about thresholds for party lists, article 89, point 2 (https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.06267D86738E/lyGURhvddO): "Party list is entitled to take seats in Seimas (to take part in the allocation of seats) only when receives votes of at least five percent of participating voters [rinkimuose dalyvavusių rinkėjų]. [...] common candidates' list is entitled to take seats in Seimas (to take part in the allocation of seats) only when receives votes of at least seven percent of participating voters [rinkimuose dalyvavusių rinkėjų]."

Analogous rules apply to constituency candidates, who have to get have to get an absolute majority of the total votes cast. This is why run-off must be held in Vakarinė constituency (http://www.vrk.lt/2016-seimo/rezultatai?srcUrl=/rinkimai/102/1/1304/rezultatai/lt/rezultataiVienmRpg_rpgId-18774.html) despite Povilas Urbšys got 51.32% of valid votes, but 47.95% of all votes. Lukasb1992 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lukasb1992: I know that the VRK produce the percentages including invalid votes, but that is not usual practice for how election results are presented, and Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources. All the secondary sources used for Lithuanian election results – the Nohlen & Stöver book, the European Elections Database, the University of Essex and the University of Strathclyde all calculated the percentages according to valid votes only (and is how all the previous results in the other articles are calculated). As this is usual practice in the world of psephology, that's how Wikipedia should be presenting it. Number 57 12:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I've added notice to clarify this question, as well as in the Czech Senate election results table (turnout question). Lukasb1992 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

2015 UK election

Hi there!

How are you? Just wondering why you have changed the small alterations I made to the page. As far as I know the alterations contain no false information or are considered "vandalism". It took me a long time to get round the coding aspect to do this so could you tell me what I did wrong so I can change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.206.117 (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As I stated at User talk:TomPumpkin69, the infobox is a controversial issue and there have been many discussions about its format. The current version is the result of a long-drawn out process, and no changes can be made to it without you getting consensus from other editors. If you want to change it, start a discussion at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015. However, I can tell you that you will be wasting your time if you want to get UKIP into the infobox. Cheers. Number 57 15:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Reported

I've reported your disruptive behavior and quasi-violation of the WP:3RR rule on Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016. You can see the report, here. Pristino (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

CBS Populations

2015, Finally. FYI. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ynhockey: Excellent, I'll update the template shortly! Thanks for letting me know. Number 57 20:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ynhockey: Done. Also three new settlements – Abu Talul, Ganei Modi'in and Nes Ammim to add to. Number 57 20:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool! I still don't really understand the thing about Ganei Modi'in, it's not mentioned anywhere as separate. Guess now it's official. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ynhockey: According to the Mateh Binyamin website, it officially separated from Modi'in Illit on 1 January this year. Number 57 09:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ynhockey and Bolter21: I've now completed it, adding to just over 1,200 articles. It also mean all articles now have infoboxes and maps (some were still without either) and all are now referenced. Cheers, Number 57 18:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Great! I have updated List of Israeli cities in the meantime. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Independent

On Azerbaijani parliamentary election, 2015, I indicated only +1 for Independent because I included the 3 "Affiliation not indicated" of 2010 election with the independent, so that the sum of the column is effectively 0 as indicated at the bottom. --Zebulon84 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zebulon84: Thanks for the message explaining. The issue is "affiliation not indicated" is not the same as independent – they may well have been party candidates. Cheers, Number 57 19:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Finally, a new CTO; trustee joins Quora; copyright upgrade impending

• In the media: Washington Post continues in-depth Wikipedia coverage

• Wikicup: WikiCup winners

• Discussion report: What's on your tech wishlist for the coming year?

• Technology report: New guideline for technical collaboration; citation templates now flag open access content

• Featured content: Cream of the crop

• Traffic report: Un-presidential politics

• Arbitration report: Recapping October's activities

• Recent research: Why women edit less, and where they are overrepresented; article importance and quality; predicting elections from Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Liberian election pages

Hi - I see you have added important data on election pages. I am just trying to expand the contents -can you please hold on reverts for a while - I am facing lot of edit conflicts and losing out on referenced data. Thanks.Ssriram mt (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ssriram mt: I have restored the usual table format, but otherwise won't make any edits until you appear to be finished. Cheers, Number 57 18:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Qatari legislative election, 2013 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Qatari legislative election, 2013. Since you had some involvement with the Qatari legislative election, 2013 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Qatari general election, 2013 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Qatari general election, 2013. Since you had some involvement with the Qatari general election, 2013 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitly postponed Qatari general election, 2013 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Indefinitly postponed Qatari general election, 2013. Since you had some involvement with the Indefinitly postponed Qatari general election, 2013 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dimiter Marinov

The article Dimiter Marinov has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

lack of notability, lack of sources, semi-translated

While all constructive 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. Skycycle (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarian Presidential Election 2016

I will restore the article to the original template once more, and this will be the very final time. I created the template yesterday myself, official results will be announced soon, and you absolutely ignored both the work done before, and what I wrote after my edit. Next one will be reported. Skycycle (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Skycycle: It's standard practice to have election results as they come in on articles and to use the format currently in the article. What exactly would I be reported for? Number 57 14:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: For one, reverting multiple times, but also for removing templates on a separate article. I added the Results section under the preliminary one, please do not delete templates on the Dimitar Marinov page and discuss instead. Being a candidate for president is not notable enough in this case, there is (among others) a clairvoyant and a former criminal running for president, should we make Wiki pages w\o sources for all of them? Skycycle (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

In case you've never done so, this would be a good read. Skycycle (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

English football updater and WMRL

@Number 57: As discussed back in August, I have now renamed the West Midlands (Regional) League season articles, removing the words Premier Division, to bring all the Step 5 and 6 regional articles into line. The English football updater templates are working well using redirect, but you may wish to revise the appropriate template so that the links now point directly to the newly named article(s). Drawoh46 (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: Good work, I've updated the template! Cheers, Number 57 12:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Wow! That was quick! Many thanks. Drawoh46 (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that undoing of the edit on 2014 Crimean Referendum page was not performed by me

In the history for the 2014 Crimean referendum page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimean_status_referendum,_2014&action=history You wrote: "(rv obvious IP socking)"

And I have to inform you, that reversion, which you undid, was not by me. Further, if you look at the history for the IP who undid the revision, they have a huge wiki editing history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/198.232.211.130

In general, you, Volunteer Marek, and Famspeer are disobeying Wikipedia's ethics, codes of conduct, written rules, and all common sense in the matter of the editing which was originally performed by myself.

I encourage you to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle

Note that the BRD comprehensively disallows the conduct presented by Volunteer Market, Famspear, and yourself:

- BRD is never a reason for reverting. - BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. - BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. - BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

So, Volunteer Marek and Famspear have been in direct violation of all of these things, BRD-ing good-faith efforts, and re-reverting, and all for the sake of invoking BRD, while claiming discussions must be held... over... what? They haven't even identified what they don't like with the edited text. So, how can a discussion be held, when no issue has been raised with the actual edit? You people are acting on your own, completely apart from Wikipedia's mandates and principles, like chickens with their heads cut off, in hysterics.

The Wikipedia BRD further speaks against the conduct of Volunteer Market, Famspear, and also yourself, in these sections of the BRD:

Revert[edit source] Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead. The other disputant may respond with another bold edit, or with a refinement on your improvement. The "Bold–refine" process is the ideal collaborative editing cycle. Improving pages through collaborative editing is ideal. However, if you find yourself making reversions or near-reversions, then stop editing and move to the next stage, "Discuss".

If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted.

Discuss[edit source] If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD.

So, none of you are doing what is right, or honouring Wikipedia's guidelines. What is motivating yourselves is up for question, and should be questioned. However, the recent revert which you undid, before locking the page, was not done by myself. As I said, I will pursue my edits, not necessarily by reverting (though if I did, I would use my own visible account to do so), but also not by sucking up to hypocritical, and deceitful bullies, such as yourself, Volunteer Marek, and Famspear. Your passive-aggressive attitudes are not in the interests of Wikipedia, or good-faith editors, but are only serving your own paranoid senses of being one-upped... when it was only you who put yourselves in the positions of acting on poor-judgement impulse in the first place.

A Registered Poster (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stanway Rovers FC.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stanway Rovers FC.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Number 57.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Number 57. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence

• In the media: Roundup of news related to U.S. presidential election and more

• Blog: The top fifteen winning photos from Wiki Loves Earth

• Gallery: Around the world with Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

• Featured content: Featured mix

• Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog

• Op-ed: Fundraising data should be more transparent

• Traffic report: President-elect Trump

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks re: Icelandic election page

Thank you for moving the page and for the advice for the future. I was just a little one-track minded I guess. Nevermore27 (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Elections by year

Template:Elections by year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarian parliamentary elections - infoboxes

Are you sure these are better infoboxes? They aren't used for Canadian or US elections, why are they being used here? -- Kndimov (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Or the UK or Ukraine, or France or Russia. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I get that people were fighting over pictures and that some of them were getting very long, but Bulgarian parliamentary election, 1994 did not have that problem, for example. And Bulgarian parliamentary election, 1997 didn't really have that either. Furthermore, I thought there was a way to protect pages to stop IPs from fighting left right and center? -- Kndimov (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kndimov: Yes, they're vastly superior. The original infobox on the 2014 election article in particular was terrible because it was over two screens in height (i.e. you had to scroll down more than twice to see the contents); now you can see the full detail at a single glance. The point of this infobox is to allow the information to be summarised properly, whereas {{Infobox election}} is really designed for presidential elections or countries with 2/3 party systems as it's dominated by images of the candidates. Cheers, Number 57 18:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it works with the 2014 election page. But what was wrong with the 2001 election page then? It fit on two rows and had only 4 pictures. Or the 1991 page? It has 3 parties only. I guess you're probably gonna say "consistency". -- Kndimov (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kndimov: With regards to the 2001 article, the old infobox was still over a page in length, which meant you couldn't actually read the entire result in one go (you could only see the top two parties on the first page). The 1991 one didn't have that problem as all the results are in the top line, but this is where the consistency argument comes in. I think in general we should aim to get the entire infobox viewable in a single screen so it's actually an effective summary. In some cases I've seen infoboxes longer than the article itself. Number 57 19:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. For now... I'm sure I'll bother you again for something else soon enough lol -- Kndimov (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Italian constitutional referendum, 2016

Hello Number 57. Thank you for your contribution on the article.

I really like your idea of grouping columns on the basis of Yes/No, rather than on the basis of Votes/Percentage. This is an improvement in readability. However, I would argue that it makes more sense to keep the previous order of electorate, turnout, and then votes, simply because it is more logical (they are each a subgroup of the previous group). Moreover, I think electorate and turnout are especially important to list first in the case of the Regions or overseas constituencies because not all of them carry the same weight. For example, the "Europe" constituency is 100 times the size of the "Africa - Asia - Oceania - Antarctica" constituency. I would argue that is very important information. Loudo89 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Loudo89: The order of votes then electorate is standard for how results are listed across Wikipedia, and consistent with the main results table, which lists the for/against votes first. Cheers, Number 57 13:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which other articles you are referring to, but you need to be careful whether they are representing a nation-wide and/or proportional vote, or a constituency-based vote. For example, for a UK or US election, listing first the votes then the electorate is clearly appropriate, because candidates are elected in respect of each constituency, meaning that who got the most votes is more important than how populous the constituency is (which has no bearing in the election).

If we are listing the results of a referendum, on the other hand, the national result is the only one that determines the outcome. Listing the votes split in regions is only a statistical tool. Meaning that how big each region is is more important than how it voted, because the region, per se, has no actual bearing, is just a statistical tool. I could choose a different criteria to split the national territory and get different results (for example, using the European macroregions instead of Italian regions).

This also addresses your point about the main result using a different criteria. In the main result, the most important data is the Yes and No votes, because that is what determines the outcome of the referendum: electorate and turnout irrelevant to the result. In the case of Regions, again, that is not the case.

In drafting the original table, I took inspiration from the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 article, that as you can see uses the same method. It lists Remain/Leave votes first in the general result, and electorate/turnout first in the regional ones. Loudo89 (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Hi, I reverted your last edit because in changing the table you mixed up Yes and No votes (yes votes were colored in red and no votes were colored in green) and I don't have time to correct that mistake right now. Also please, let's try to reach a consensus on the best way to display the data before further modifications of the tables. If you are still of the same view, we can bring the matter in the talk page of the article. Cheers. Loudo89 (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Loudo89: Apologies I've now fixed the colours. Happy to take it to talk for more opinions as I really don't think having the electorate in the first column is a good idea. Number 57 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Ok, let's continue there. By the way, if you are interested in Italian politics I would appreciate your input here [[3]], since we're having another difference of opinions. Loudo89 (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Belarus

Please note the question I have asked at Talk:Belarusian parliamentary election, 2016. I will remove this table unless it's properly sourced. There's far too much of this kind of sloppy (or dishonest) sourcing of election articles. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I now see that the same is true for the Russian election. Talk:Russian_legislative_election,_2016 Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The same is true for the [[4]] Moroccan election. Voting figures are given, but they do not come from the source cited. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Intelligent Mr Toad 2: They appear to have been added by an IP in this edit. I had only been able to add the seat distribution beforehand. Number 57 12:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 December

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

• On the Cirencester Town F.C. page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"Labour Party" vs "Malta Labour Party"

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit to the 1950 Maltese election page. According to the PL's article "Boffa formed the Malta Workers Party (MWP) while Mintoff re-organized the Labour Party as the Malta Labour Party" (I know it's uncited for the moment but it's the best I have), and the article itself treats the MLP days as being the party simply operating under a different name (i.e. in Labour Party (Malta)#General Elections). Additionally, there isn't any clear indication when the party either reformed or rebranded back to simply "Labour Party". 64.231.43.188 (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The Nohlen & Stöver source used in the results has them both as new parties. I would check Political Parties in Europe, as that would probably be conclusive, but unfortunately I only have the P–Y volume. Cheers, Number 57 22:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Swiss politics

Hello Number 57, I have been updating Swiss political party articles lately, and I've noticed that although we have a Geneva Citizens' Movement (Mouvement citoyens genevois; MCG) article, there are several mentions of a "Mouvement Citoyens Romands" (MCR) on the Canton of Geneva article. They appear to be the same party, and the German MCG article appears to say something like that (even though it cites dead URLs), but considering the CSP v. CSP OW that we recently discussed, I'm not sure. Do you know anything about this?

Also, the National Council results on Swiss federal election, 2015 still do not show the number of votes for any party smaller than the BDP. Is there any source that shows the total results for each party? I couldn't find any. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: The MCGE and MCR do seem to be the same party – see this article on the MCG website.

Unfortunately I don't know anywhere to get more detailed results for Switzerland. However that does remind me that the full results by canton for numerous elections dating between 1848 and 1919 are available in the British library. I have copies of the pages for the 1848 elections, and at some point I will start adding them. Number 57 22:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That's OK. It's odd that full results are not readily available. However, thanks for the article for MCR! --1990'sguy (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, do you know if Republican Movement merged into the Swiss Democrats, or if it simply dissolved? There was an uncited sentence in James Schwarzenbach claiming the former, but that was all I've seen explicitly stating this. I just want to be sure. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: I wrote the article on the Republican Movement, so that is the limit of my knowledge I'm afraid! Number 57 19:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That's OK. I'll try to look further, and if I don't find anything, I'll remove the unsourced statement. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I found this source that states that most members of the party joined the Federal Democratic Union, and I added it to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to pepper you with all these questions, but can you verify if "Rep." in the "Federal election results" section in Vaud, Canton of Geneva, and possibly other articles is the Republican Movement? I added the link to those articles, but I'm not sure if it really is the case. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What's also interesting is that the Swiss government reports that the Republican Movement received 0.2% of the vote in 1967, even though it was not founded until 1971.

@1990'sguy: Very odd. We have them listed in the Swiss federal election, 1967 article too. However, the German article has them listed as Vigilance, a Geneva-based populist party. Actually the German articles are quite detailed and have the full vote figures for the 2015 elections too, plus details by canton for several years (1995–2015), which might help answer your other query. Number 57 22:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

As for the "Vigilance" party: problem solved. According to this source (p. 61), it was officially associated with the Republican Movement in 1972, even though it had already existed for a while. The German articles are actually quite useful. I should have checked them earlier. Assuming the editors there added up the published results in the individual cantons, I will add the full results, if you haven't already started doing that. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

So it appears that the Republican Movement and "Rep." on the Wiki articles are indeed the same party. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

As for the National Council results, there is a discrepancy between the German article and the government sources that we already have. Unfortunately, the German article does not seem reliable enough for me to copy and paste. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

• Year in review: Looking back on 2016

• News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results

• Special report: German ArbCom implodes

• In focus: Active user page filter prevents vandalism and harassment

• Op-ed: Operation successful, patient dead: Outreach workshops in Namibia

• In the media: In brief: Coverage of gender gap initiatives, banner fundraising, and more

• Featured content: The Christmas edition

• Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results

• Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues

• Blog: Wiki Loves Monuments contest winners announced

• Recent research: One study and several abstracts

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Crimean Referendum

I should have thought of using the wayback machine, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfsworms (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Next Latvian parliamentary election

Hello, I do understand your concerns, but the only verifiable fact is that the election has to be held in October 2018 at the latest. Everything else is actually speculations. I do not consider it wrong to categorise the article as "2018 in Latvia", because that is all we can verify at the moment. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 14:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Philaweb: But it's not an event that is confirmed for 2018 as it may well happen next year. It should only be categorised as a 2018 event when it's been moved to Latvian parliamentary election, 2018 after the date is confirmed. Until then it's pure speculation and CRYSTAL. Cheers, Number 57

@Number 57: If October 2018 is pure speculation it should be removed from the article, and the article should be rephrased. If, on the other hand, the only verfiable date is October 2018, I do not see anything wrong in categorising the article under "2018 in Latvia". I would like to know, if there is a consensus on the procedure you are suggesting? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 14:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Philaweb: It doesn't say it will be held in October 2018, it says it has to be held by then – i.e. any time between now and then. Also, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page. Cheers, Number 57 15:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the ping, it's a new thing to me. Well, I do understand what you are saying, but I do not agree. "It may well happen 2017" is not verifiable, since, as you say, the date is not confirmed. It is verifiable though, that the next Latvian parliamentary election wil be held in October 2018, at the latest, since that is what legislation prescribe. I do agree with you, that when an election date is confirmed, the article content should be moved to Latvian parliamentary election, 2017 or Latvian parliamentary election, 2018. If consensus exist on your take on this (confirmation of an election date), I would like to get instructions on where to look. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 15:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Philaweb: I'm afraid I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. This is a quite simple issue – we don't know which year the election will be in, so we can't put it in a category for a certain year. I'm not sure what there is to disagree with here unless you have proof that the election will take place in 2018. I invite a few other editors who regularly edit election articles (@Impru20, Bondegezou, and Batmacumba: to comment here if you want further input (the issue at hand is whether Next Latvian parliamentary election should be categorised in Category:2018 in Latvia). Number 57 15:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Centrālā vēlēšanu komisija (Central Election Committee), the next Latvian election is going to be, quote: "Reizi četros gados, oktobra pirmajā sestdienā, Latvijā norisinās kārtējās parlamenta jeb Saeimas vēlēšanas.", which says: "Every four years on the first Saturday of October, a general election to the Saeima is held in Latvia", and that is October 6, 2018. Is this admissible as proof, or is a press release required with the actual date? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 16:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

So, we're all in agreement then? Article stays as "Next...". At the point at which we know what year it will be, it moves to "Latvian parliamentary election, 2017" or "... 2018" as appropriate. Only then can it be included in the appropriate Category of "201X in Latvia". Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Entirely in agreement with both Number57 and Bondegezou. You can't have the "2018 in Latvia" category put here because you don't know for certain that it will be held in 2018 (it could be held next year if a snap election is called). But that we don't know the certain date doesn't prevent us to note that it can't be held later than in 2018. You know that it must be held by 2018 at latest, but before that it could be held anytime. Impru20 (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Very well, I retire the argument, since a consensus seems to emerge. I do not agree though with the consensus, but will adhere to it. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Stanway Rovers

I updated the club history, honours and badge yet change them back? Why I am the club programme designer and editor and the history and badge etc are what i have been told to use.≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveparker007 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Steveparker007: There were a couple of reasons for removing your text, and your comments provide further reasoning. Firstly copying and pasting from another website into Wikipedia isn't allowed as it's a copyright violation – this is why the history of the bits you added has also been removed from the public record. Secondly, the text failed multiple Wikipedia guidelines and customs both around the formatting and the content – for instance incorrect date formatting, colloquial language and fairly blatant WP:RECENTISM (i.e. giving more weight to events because they are more recent but not necessarily historically significant). In addition, your comment above have two issues; firstly you are involved with the club and therefore have a WP:Conflict of interest – editing is strongly discouraged where this is the case; secondly, you mention that you have been "told to use" this text – editing Wikipedia on behalf of others is also discouraged unless you make it clear (for example on your userpage and in the edit summary of anything you are adding) that you are doing so.

I have added some additional text to the article, but I cannot see anything else in the text that you were adding that is suitable for the article. However, if you think there is anything missing (and bearing in mind WP:RECENTISM), I'm happy to have a discussion about its inclusion. Cheers, Number 57 23:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Barkan

I disagree that WP:WESTBANK is not relevant, specifically The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice. We dont have any other article on a settlement disambiguated by regional council, and as you yourself said to me about a different issue [t]his needs discussion before wholescale changes are issued. The move made was challenged, and it shouldnt simply be moved again over that objection. I ask that you please move that page back. nableezy - 17:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy: If we don't have any other articles on settlements disambiguated by regional council, could you please explain to me what these articles are about: Carmel, Har Hebron, Adora, Har Hebron, Ma'on, Har Hebron, Susya, Har Hebron, Telem, Har Hebron, Elazar, Gush Etzion, Kedar, Gush Etzion, Tekoa, Gush Etzion, Hamra, Bik'at HaYarden, Rotem, Bik'at HaYarden, Ahiya, Mateh Binyamin, Almon, Mateh Binyamin, Alon, Mateh Binyamin, Amona, Mateh Binyamin, Eli, Mateh Binyamin, Matityahu, Mateh Binyamin, Migron, Mateh Binyamin, Neria, Mateh Binyamin, Nili, Mateh Binyamin, Oz Zion, Mateh Binyamin, Shilo, Mateh Binyamin?

As I hope you can now see (and you would have done had you actually read my edit summary properly), the article title is in-line with our naming procedures. WP:WESTBANK is not relevant because we are talking specifically about a regional council that does not have an alternative non-Israeli name, not the whole Judea & Samaria nonsense. As for challenging the move, you should have moved it back to where I moved it from if you didn't like it, rather than moving it to a third title. Number 57 19:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You are right, I did not see the end of the summary. However, we have some inconsistencies here, as what came to my mind were the articles Ariel (city), Immanuel (town), Gilgal (kibbutz), Gitit (moshav), where we do not include a regional council name. I however dispute that WP:WESTBANK is not relevant, as point 5 says we only use Judea and Samaria Area in the context of the administration, not as a land area. The same logic applies here, if not explicitly so. And fine, I'll move it to where it was originally (not , Israel, but originally). I was trying to come up with something that would be acceptable to those wanting to disambiguate the title and those disagreeing with the chosen disambiguation. Guess I failed. nableezy - 19:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well actually I cant even do that, as that page is now a dab page. So, asking you as an admin now, what should I do then? nableezy - 19:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy: We do not have regional council disambiguation for Ariel and Immanuel because they are not part of regional councils. Gilgal is disambiguated as such because the other article Gilgal is also a place in the same area and so it wouldn't be very useful. Gitit is the only one that is really an inconsistency (and I guess the title was used because the alternative article is not a place), but as this is one against over 20 done in the other way, I don't think it's much an argument. You should start an WP:RM on the talk page if you want to move it. Number 57 19:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

So if I understand this correctly, we had a page Barkan, that was moved without discussion to Barkan, Israel, and has then been moved without discussion to Barkan, Shomron. And that the onus is now on me to get consensus for a move from that through the formal move procedure, which was never once followed to begin with? nableezy - 19:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Unfortunately yes. Ideally it would have been put back to the original title, but that can't happen as you can't move it over a DAB article. Number 57 19:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I see youve now tidied up what you thought as a minor inconsistency. The problem here however remains that we are, in Wikipedia's narrative voice (the title no less), saying a place is in "Shromron" without any qualification. The other regional council names dont present the same issue, so that "standard" doesnt really fully factor in the issues here. That is certainly covered by WP:WESTBANK. In keeping with point 5 there Im going to move it to Barkan, Shomron Regional Council, so that it is clear that we are referencing an Israeli administration and not a common English place name. That work for you? nableezy - 21:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I don't see any difference between this and the other settlement disambiguation – and with regards to point 5, this is not the same issue as Judea & Samaria. I think adding "Regional Council" to the end of the article title is unnecessary and petty. Number 57 21:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It absolutely is the same issue. That settled the point that Wikipedia will not say a place is in Samaria, or in Judea, or in Judea and Samaria. English or Hebrew. That is why we do not even say places are "in the Judea and Samaria Area" either, it restricts the usage of those terms to the specific administration. You have essentially moved an article to a new name that is, despite your claim, covered by the guideline and are claiming that this is now the status quo that I need an RM to rename from. That is what is petty. nableezy - 23:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy: It isn't, and I think you need to get a sense of perspective. If you want to continue the conversation, let's do it at Talk:Barkan, Shomron#name, although ideally you would just start a WP:RM rather than move it again to a title that you know would not be uncontroversial. And yes, I know you find the current title controversial, but under due process, you should move it back to where I moved it rather than keep moving it to third titles. Just start an RM. Number 57 12:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Due process doesnt allow you to make a new status quo that requires consensus to change from when you never had consensus for your change. Ill address the content of the argument at that talk page. nableezy - 19:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Im going to take this to ANI, this is BS. You dont get to enforce your preferred name without consensus. nableezy - 19:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Number57_and_a_page_move nableezy - 19:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wroxham FC.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wroxham FC.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Taiwanese article

You need not have reverted my entire edits if the only issue you had was with the links to the article titles. They are easy to correct, and it is proper to use the full government titles as well as the shortened versions. It is a compromise, however, should you wish to argue and escalate it further, feel free to do so if you are unable to compromise. --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You clearly do not wish to compromise, the election covers the relationship between the two governments and the states, which is why the full names are used. But if you want to have your way, so be it. --Tærkast (Discuss) 15:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Revert coming up. Number 57 09:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Vasileios Kavvadas

Hello. You moved the article one year ago. Please move the talk page too, thanks. Christian75 (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Christian75: Apologies for the delay, I have sorted it now. Cheers, Number 57 09:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Pekka Tiainen's party affiliation

I have commented to the Finnish presidential election, 1994 talk page about Pekka Tiainen's party affiliation. Lets continue there. With Facts. --Mannerheimo (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Palestinian->Arab

It is highly improper for you to make bulk changes while an RfC is in progress. In my opinion it is a serious violation of protocol. Kindly stop it. Zero^talk 21:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Huldra (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Barton Rovers

Ok I will dig out all appropriate information that I can obtain. Regards Lord G9 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My Userpage Help Please

Hi, I saw your userpage, and thought I could make mine fancy like it. Unfortunately, I can't figure out one problem. When I add something new to it, it come up with these ugly things | and |-

I don't know how to fix it. If you could edit my userpage, or help me out, it'd be great, Thanks!

-16 —Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A.F.C. Blackpool

Hi there, just wondering if you could possibly advise me about editing on the above page. I used to edit on wikipedia regularly years ago. However, I have mostly been inactive for a few years now. Just wondering about what is ok to add from this season? For instance in the ground section, there has been some break-ins and vandalism which was reported in the media so it isn't related to the current season as such. Would that be ok to go in the "ground" section? With regard to the current season and the edit about the game earlier in the season and your comment of "rm recentism" is it that anything from the current season should only be added once the season has finished?

Thanks in advance! --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tangerines: The recentism issue is giving undue emphasis to things that have happened recently in the club's history. So additions bases on current media reports on things that don't really have any long-term importance in the club's history should be avoided. Generally try to think whether if this sort of thing had happened 50 years ago, whether we would bother including it in the history. In the case of this damage and a friendly match sponsored by the Blackpool Supporters' Trust, I really don't think we would. Cheers, Number 57 14:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I would strongly advise against creating a current squad section for a club at this level. In virtually all cases the editor who created it forgets about it a few weeks later and it is never updated again. In the last few months I've found squadlists dating back to 2012 on similar clubs.. Number 57 14:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi thank you for explaining, and yes that makes perfect sense. With the squad, I am returning to editing wikipedia, and will be keeping an eye on the page to ensure it is always up to date. Not that it matters but it was a League match not a friendly that BST sponsored, still I can see why it shouldn't be included! thanks again, --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tangerines: No problem. Welcome back too! Number 57 03:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page for Adama Barrow

Do you think there could be a potential page for Inauguration of Adama Barrow. I know it happened in Senegal and all and its not conventional. Sputink (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sputink: Possibly, although I'm not sure there's enough material for a standalone article – perhaps a section in the election and constitutional crisis articles will suffice? Cheers, Number 57 09:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I see it now, at the time I wrote the post, I was optimistic that more news and information would hail from the inauguration as the situation unfolded. Sputink (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Automobile listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Automobile. Since you had some involvement with the Automobile redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Metropolitan London League

Hi, I added Welwyn Garden City after consulting my local newspaper articles. They state WGC joined the Greater London League Division 2 in 1970 and unclude a league table towards the end of the season. A further article states them joining the newly-formed MLL the next season in Division 1. For 1972-73 they are given as members of "Reserve Division 1" , P21 W7, D10, L4, F35, A30, Pts18. The result of their final game isn't published. I understand the discrepancy and can supply copies of the articles. If WGC weren't members can you suggest which league they may have played in?MickyB50 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@MickyB50: No, that's fine, I believe you. I will readd it to the MLL article. A shame the tables on the NLM website aren't complete. Cheers, Number 57 11:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Many thanks for updating the GLL and MLL pages. I have a league table from March 1973 which shows four divisions for the MLL - Senior Division 1, Senior Division 2, Reserve Division 1 and Reserve Division 2. As the WGC first team was in Reserve Division 1, it's not all reserves teams in that division. This doesn't tally with the Wikipedia entry which only refers to two divisions. With regard to the GLL, WGC were members of Division II and played 28 games. This doesn't tally with the structure described on the Wikipedia page which shows two divisions each of 10 clubs in 1970/71. Hopefully you will know who will have the wherewithall to conduct the necessary research or at least amend the Wikipedia entries. I'm not keen to do that as whoever made the initial entries must have based them on information they had obtained. Maybe they can be prompted to revisit their research. No criticism intended, many people have put an amazing amount of work into the subject, the aim is for accuracy and if I can help with that I'd be delighted. Kind regards. MickyB50 (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@MickyB50: I wrote both sets of articles;

• The MLL only includes first team divisions, which is the case for most league's I'm aware of (see e.g. Eastern Counties Football League).
• The GLL tables are the two Premier Division tables, which are listed on the Non-League Matters site. The tables for Division One and Division Two for 1970–71 are missing because they're not available on that website and I have no other source that gives details on them. If you find the final tables for the divisions, please let me know.

Cheers, Number 57 13:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Greater London and Metropolitan London Leagues

Hi again. I checked my research and found match reports for WGC playing Alma United, Brenstonians, Bexley Reserves, Willesden Reserves, Heathside Sports and Barkingside in their opening games of the 1970/71 season in the Greater London League Division 2. Also reports of them playing India & M Docks in January 1972, Rolemil in March 1973, both in the "Metropolitan London League Reserve Division 1". I was about to contact nonoleaguematters but see that they no longer maintain the archive, they just keep it open to the public. I seem to have found some omissions to the Wikipedia pages for both leagues but I'm not able to make any changes. All this is a by-product of some research into the history of my local club, Welwyn Garden City and all I want to do is pass on what I have found so that others may benefit. Are you able to suggest someone I can contact - all my information has been verified by reference to local newspaper articles - so that the records of the two leagues can be examined and hopefully amended? Kind regards 21:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)MickyB50 (talk)

@MickyB50: It seems the list for the Greater London League is complete as all the teams you list are already in the league's list. However, it looks like India & M Docks and Rolemil should be added to the Metropolitan. Is this correct?

Regarding Non-League Matters, you can post a message in this part of the forum and hopefully someone will be able to help you. Cheers, Number 57 09:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Many thanks for that. I emailed Richard Rundle at FCHD telling him I'd told you. I also think there is a query over the formats of the two leagues as the tables I've come across show different structures to those on FCHD and nonleaguematters. However, I'm not really in a position to discuss the matters in any great depth as I'm very new to the subject. My hope is that Richard will take up the reins and look into it further as he will have access to far better archives than me. Ive offered to send him copies of the newspaper articles I refer to. I think there is scope for further research but I think I'm better off leaving it to those more knowledgeable and experienced. It's been good corresponding with you. Kind regards. MickyB50 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@MickyB50: No problem. Let me know what gets uncovered and I'll help updating the articles here. Cheers, Number 57 03:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a great piece of work. I don't have a final table for the GLL 1970/71. The final position for WGC was obtained from a league table after 26 games plus the reports of the final two matches. That's an important point you make about first team leagues. Whilst it was the WGC first team that played in all the three seasons we discussed, they had been denied Senior status for season 1970/71 and perhaps the following two seasons, so whilst I agree about not including those league tables, you may wish to make reference to the overall structures. If I do come across final tables for any of those seasons I'll gladly pass them on. Keep up the great work - I've enjoyed our discussions. Kind regards. MickyB50 (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Who are you

What's your problem with dean shiels page? Osgood1985 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!

Hello, Number 57! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time.

Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Barton Rovers

	Barton Rovers
	Hi, Please send an email address to gguile9@outlook.com. I will then send appropriate info regarding Stats. Sorry I've done it this way, couldn't work out any other way to get my email to you, Regards. Lord G9 (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Referendum

The deletion from the Independence Referendum page makes sense given precedent, but I created the page for the plebiscite itself because both the Governor and the House leadership pledged support for the Senate bill. Once the Senate finalized the date, the rest is just a formality. I have edited the page to note the Governor's support for the bill, and will keep all references as "proposed" until the signature actually happens. But if it takes 8 days for that process to move to completion, I don't think that should be sufficient reason to delete the page in the interim. Can I remove the deletion tag? The proposal falling through at this point would be a notable political development worth having a page for anyway if the bill were to somehow not pass into law. Astrofreak92 (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Astrofreak92: How long is final confirmation from the House and Governor likely to take? If it's longer than a week then I suggest the text is merged into Political status of Puerto Rico until confirmation is received and then the article can immediately be restored. I appreciate you creating the article, it was just a little premature! Number 57 11:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how long it's going to take, the Puerto Rico House calendar isn't particularly enlightening. From passage to signature would be merely hours though. Astrofreak92 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Astrofreak92: How about we merge it for now and keep it as a redirect rather than deleting, and then restore as soon as it's signed? Number 57 20:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that's best. Astrofreak92 (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Disputed metals listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Disputed metals. Since you had some involvement with the Disputed metals redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Slashme (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Barton Rovers

Hi,

Just a quick message regarding the Barton Rovers page.

I have the relevant information that you require.

My email address is gguile9@outlook.com

If you would be kind enough to email me, than I can forward the information on to you.

Best Regards,

Lord G9

Lord G9 (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lord G9: I've emailed you. Number 57 12:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lord G9: Thanks for the info, which seems to check out. Just one query though – why do you think a more modern source has Camp as the record scorer. Is it possible that the club programme was later found to be incorrect and Guile (which I presume is yourself based on the email address) had scored fewer goals than the programme states? Cheers, Number 57 12:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies

I didn't mean to come off like I was fudging sources--saw the source in the Polish article, and thought it would be enough to reference that blurb I put in earlier. Mea culpa ... HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 04:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Grrr, that was unintentional, misread that graph about the 1989 election. I never meant to falsify the source ... HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 23:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Manx election

Please refrain from meddling in the politics of non-native lands. 92.39.207.109 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, just because you don't like others changes, it doesn't make them a "mess". 92.39.207.109 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, please read WP:OWN. Secondly, it is a mess because you've left the table incorrectly formatted. Number 57 20:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see that policy yourself. I see no formatting problems. If there is a problem, fix it. Do not simply revert all changes. 92.39.207.109 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

On the Yoshivia article

Hello, Number 57. I was recently looking over the "Yoshivia" article, which (if I am understanding the history correctly) you wrote. It claims that the name of the moshav is based on a Yuval ben Yoshivya, mentioned in Chronicles A 4:35. Looking at the verse -- at least in my Tanakh -- I find a Yoel and a Yehu b. Yoshivya. So am I missing something here? I thought I'd check with you before I edited the page, just in case you meant Yuval. Cheers, Alephb (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: My mistake, it was Yoel not Yuval. I've fixed it. Thanks for letting me know! Number 57 08:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ely City F.C

Hi Thank-you for updating our page regarding our FA Vase record. I am very very new to updating Wiki pages but is it possiable for you to update our Away colours to a dark blue rather than white. Otherwise if you could let me know how I would change it I will have a go myself Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realfootiedad (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Realfootiedad: If you could tell me exactly which shade of dark blue (from another article or the hexadecimal code), I'll try and sort it out. Number 57 22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday celebration

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Um... you just yelled at a bot.

On the Israeli legislative election, 2015, page, the bot added the when tag to a sentence that was already there. Kimpire (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

's ok. When you have to worry is when the bot starts yelling back! StevenJ81 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kimpire and StevenJ81: Actually Lihaas added a sentence that included a tag (see the bottom line of the diff). This is not the first time he's done something like this. Number 57 21:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah! I misunderstood then, sorry. I saw your edit come in direct response to an edit made by a bot and didn't think to look back further. Kimpire (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

SMILE!

Hello Number 57, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Bideford & Barnstaple Town

I've protected both for a week and also blocked the IP for a month. GiantSnowman 17:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The Wimbledon "Phoenix"

What a sad and empty life you must lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.154.73 (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi in this edition what was vandalism you mentionedModern Sciences (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: This isn't vandalism, it's a factual statement. Number 57 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

In summary, you mentioned clearly vandalism what does it meanModern Sciences (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: YOU said it was vandalism. I said it was clearly not vandalism. Number 57 21:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

what is factual statement? Modern Sciences (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: If you need to ask that, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Number 57 21:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't the responsibility to said who could edit or who don't edit?? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. You reverse my edition without any reasons Modern Sciences (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: Actually as an administrator, I do have the power to decide whether you can edit or not. Also, I gave a very clear reason for reverting you. Number 5[[Special:Contributions/Number 57

|7]] 21:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually as an administrator, I do have the power to decide whether you can edit or not

and I have power to report your act in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard -- Modern Sciences (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: Actually it's WP:ANI that you should report me to. Be my guest! Number 57 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

you be my guest this time!!! User can report any kind of wrong act by any user in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. I'm sorry for your this kind judgment??? -- Modern Sciences (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

?????

Hi You reverse my edition where is Stepankert, located where? and that users reversed your edithion [5] a big question?? Modern Sciences (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

one side judgement?Modern Sciences (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What does this edition mean???? Modern Sciences (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

the Information is about Abkhazi a republic between Russia and George?? what does it related to NKR

and what does this mean -- Modern Sciences (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV dispute

what can you called Above editions ??? Modern Sciences (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

One side notification

Your Notifications is always for one side?? you can see in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents good judgement??Modern Sciences (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Finnish elections

Hello, Template:Finnish elections had an error on concidering the parliamentary elections in Finland. The first elected parliamentary elections was held in 1907. Before they where Diets (From 1809 to 1905). In the Wikipedia there is an separate article about the Diet of Finland. I changed the categories in the elections template. --Mannerheimo (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mannerheimo: No problem. The template is for elections only, so in this case nothing pre-1907 should be on it. I've made the change as appropriate. We can create a separate template for the Diets (like {{United States Congresses}}) if you think it would be useful. Cheers, Number 57 16:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That good. I will make the separate template for the Diets in future. --Mannerheimo (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits made to Brimsdown FC

Hello Number 57

I tried to add an extended summary to the history of Brimsdown FC and because it wasn't successful and I'm new to Wikipedia I opened a new account and tried again. I realised you deleted it on both occasions? I understand it was removed because I used "we" and "I" so I tried again not using "we" and "I" but you removed it again. Could you please explain why you removed it? And why it is not appropriate? BrimsdownFC1 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Voting system move

Thanks for participating in this discussion. I disagree with what you said, but more good-faith participants means a better debate, and you are clearly in more than good faith here.

Could you swing back around to respond to my responses? I'd like to get this wrapped up, and that probably means that as the most voluble participant I should not also be the one with the last word; argumentum ad nauseam is not the right way to win. Homunq (࿓) 16:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Hurlponderi's talk page.
Message added 07:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hurlponderi (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Barnstaple Town and Bideford

You're a bellend mate, get over yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.224.43 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the type of treemap

Hello Number 57. There is a discussion going on about using which type of treemap for 2016 United States presidential election in each state articles. Please join the discussion, so the dispute can be resolved. Thank you. Ali 03:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Proxy war" and suggested ANI

I saw your comment here and am not convinced that ANI would solve the problem. The whole situation with China / Taiwan (/ PRC / ROC / do you include Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet in each article etc) article naming and scoping is inherently messy. There is a strong faction who believes that "China" = "PRC" and "Taiwan" = "ROC" in all contexts, but they generally aren't the people who curate niche articles about Chinese and Taiwanese politics, who in turn prefer finer conceptual distinction. ANI could pour water on the fire behaviorally, but will only put on the pressure cooker and not address the underlying content dispute. Deryck C. 12:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: I'm not heading there straightaway, but there does seem to be an issue with a handful of editors refusing to accept that China and Taiwan are at those titles and using any opportunity to block bringing other articles in line with the established naming format for various sets of articles. Number 57 13:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Count me into that lot if you must and it's not just a handful of editors who hold such opinion. I disagreed with the original move and have spoken out about several absurdities en.wp's article scoping has caused disconnection with other Wikimedia projects (e.g. 1, 2. While I accept that as a majority decision in line with Wikipedia policies, I don't see it as a binding precedent upon all other articles that refer to these states and geographical regions. Deryck C. 13:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A lot of back-and-forth

I think that our rapid-fire responses are making the talk page a little unfriendly for third parties. Would you think it was OK if I collapsed some of our back-and-forth and left just our key points uncollapsed? I wouldn't change anything, just put collapse templates around it. If you want me to just do it for my own comments, that's fine. You can respond here if you want. If you don't want to respond, feel free to delete this section from your talk page, and I won't touch anything you wrote. Homunq (࿓) 16:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Homunq: I don't think it's necessary. They aren't terribly long responses so aren't too much of a wall of text for people to wade through. I also think it's important for any other contributors to read the whole discussion before inputting otherwise it could end up being even more circular than it is at the moment. Number 57 16:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Cheers, Homunq (࿓) 16:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Jack Beby

Hello. Given that I know approaching nothing about the structure or division of responsibilities in amateur clubs in the 1950s, I can't be sure. Can't really tell from the sources whether his post was first-team coach, i.e. working with what he was given, or whether he had enough input to make him more of a head coach/manager. I'd guess he probably would have done, but it is only a guess. I'll reproduce the sources, see what you think. The (contemporary, national newspaper) Ilford reference says:

Beby is Ilford's first professional coach in 70 years. I'd say his present charges, on their 1–1 showing against F.A. Cup rivals Brentwood and Warley, give him plenty to work on. So, while Ilford secretary Jimmy Yeo wonders why the club's fine amenities fall to lure stars, Beby prepares not without optimism to lick his team into the form of their 1929 and 1930 predecessors, who won the Amateur Cup plus a score of other trophies.

The Faversham reference, which is a 50-years-ago piece in the local paper with quotes from the original, says:

A start-of-season pep talk by the secretary of Faversham Town Football Club prepared players and supporters for an exciting few games, 55 years ago. Sid Hadlow told the Faversham Times: "As one of the two amateur clubs in the Kent League, we know we are in for a hard time, but if coaching and training mean anything - and I think they do - and there is an all-out effort by everybody who has the club at heard, I feel we can put up a better show." ... The newspaper's sports reporters analysed the prospects for the 1954/55 season, noting that the former Gillingham and Leicester City goalie Jack Beby had been appointed as trainer and coach. He had been working for three years in Greece and although his time at Salters Lane was relatively short, it was noted there were already signs of better football. ... The Faversham Times noted that there were 30 players on Town's books. It added there was a "pressing need for full backs" and that the managers were hopeful of signing two in time for the first match kick-off.

Hope this helps... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canvey Island F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeff King. 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) 10:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Nigerian presidential election

This article is about the presidential election. Article on senate and house elections are separate. Did you even read the article? It says "general elections" because it refers to the 36 state assemblies and gubernatorial elections. There will be a separate article for the other elections. Did you change "United State presidential election" to "United States general election" even though other elections took part the same day? I think not. Stop moving the article because you think you know what title is best for the article. User:Willybeez User talk:Willybeez 00:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC+1) Willybeez (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Nigerian general election, 2015, someone created a redirect link. Check previous Nigerian elections. They've been called "presidential" all the way to 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willybeez (talk • contribs) 00:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The United States presidential election, 2016, the United States Senate elections, 2016 and the United States House of Representatives elections, 2016 were held on the same day. They are separate articles. The template specifically asks what type of election the article is about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willybeez (talk • contribs) 00:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

So you're telling me I'm going to fit the results of the house of reps and senate in an article that says type of election = presidential. General elections means 36 state Assemblies, 36 gubernatorial elections, senate elections, house elections, and the presidential elections. That is what "general" means. Well, I'm not changing it to "general" elections. Funny how all the examples you gave were all African countries with very low Wikipedia editors. The article on 2015 elections has no detail on the entire election. It just talks about the presidential election. I'm not going to just give one line explanation on the remaining elections. For example, "Democrats won 50 seats, Republican won 20 seats". No. I'm going to give a detailed exolana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willybeez (talk • contribs) 00:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at the United States Senate elections, 2016. I want to make a detailed article similar for the Nigerian senate elections. And I don't buy that "it's too large to fit in one article." What was done to other election articles could be done to the US as well. You could just say "Republicans won 50. Democrats won 20". But no, there's a detailed article on it. That's what I wanna do. Get it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willybeez (talk • contribs) 01:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Egyptian presidential election, 2022

Egyptian presidential election, 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Heads up, the author of this has removed the PROD. I think it should be AfD'd now. I cannot easily do that myself, as an IP (can't make the AfD page). 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

AFC Totton Page

Hi there, I'm Adi Rose, Match reporter, programme editor, chairman of the supporters group and Social Media guy at AFC Totton. I have access to all club records and Michael Gosney broke the record back in January 2016. I will also be updating the page with our current squad as myself and our Press Officer have agreed it would be good for the club itself to update the page, although many thanks for attempting to do the right thing! It is much appreciated. If you have any queries about this, please contact our chairman Wayne Mew via enquiries@afctotton.com

Adi — Preceding unsigned comment added by StagsVoice2017 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

We are the source, we are the club lol StagsVoice2017 (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay leave it with me, the I will apply the source, please don't re-edit StagsVoice2017 (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but that's complete rubbish, it's clear you are just trolling this page and abusing your powers as an admin. You will be reported and the club may contact its solicitors over your abuse of power. How on earth you can GUESS whether a page will be updated or not is a disgrace and not up to you at all. You've been informed that the club has taken steps to ensure this page is and remains fully updated and you are just a nuisance to that. Re-instate the current squad as was updated today as you have no right to remove it as per Wiki guidelines - what you THINK isn't a guideline - the source was provided and you've removed perfectly good, sourced info for no real reason at all. It's people like you who should be blocked!!! StagsVoice2017 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)