User talk:Impru20: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:05, 20 July 2019

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13

3

This user page has been vandalized 3 times.

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your great, utterly diligent, detailed and impressive work at Spanish general election, 2011 and other Spanish elections' articles. Your accomplishment is very much appreciated. RJFF (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, Impru20, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Spanish general elections, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

	Time to share a beer!
	I thought those of us who worked to backdate Green shares at Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election and clear up the mess of the UKIP 2011 shares there should share a beer to celebrate finishing that task. DrArsenal (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your tireless contributions in Spanish election articles, especially in Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015. You are incredible. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

autopatrolled user right granted

Hi Impru20, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Krakatoa Katie 05:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I've been following the opinion polls for the Spanish General Election. Thanks for all your work on keeping the page up to date :) Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Muchas gracias por sus ediciones en los artículos de los elecciones generales españolas. ¡Es muy apreciado! :) TwoWholeWorms (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent work creating detailed, informative and thorough articles on Spanish elections. Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Not the first and I imagine not the last Barnstar for your extensive and extremely high-quality coverage of Spanish politics! You should be proud of both 2015-16 Spanish government formation and 2016 PSOE crisis, among the best English-language news sources on the web! Muchas gracias! Jdcooper (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

una tassa de cafè

Gràcies. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you very much for single-handedly dealing with all those edit requests relating to recognition of Catalonia! ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 11:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

For all your calm and measured efforts at Catalan Republic (2017) and at 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis.

And for clearly explaining at the relevant talk pages. !

--- Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just saw your overhaul of Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election – great work as usual, and thanks for all the work you've put into articles on Spanish elections, polling, and politics both past and present. Mélencron (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Citation Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded, and thoroughly deserved, for the exceptional work you performed in improving Catalan regional election, 2017 through the use of citations and civility. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CDC

Hi CDC has been replaced by PDeCAT but there are no source that CDC has been dissolved. The party have not any activity but still exit. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we are in the same case than Our Ukraine (political party) or Democratic Party (Japan). But sources does not talk about dissolution. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please replace "Dissolved" by "defunct" in the infobox. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could add special items like for others infobox "1blankname/1namedata" or adding a parenthesis and a note. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got sources about deputies who has been registrated as members of PDeCAT, CDC and independents ? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think we should consider that there are 13 PDeCAT, and we should reintegrate Elsa only if there are source who said that she is now again member of the party. We could add that in the articles. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party (Japan)

Hi Why did you wrote that the party has been merged ? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PDeCAT

Hi Are you agree if I add the number of JuntxCat deputies who are members from PDeCAT ? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of Catalonia

Slow down, Hoss--I was busy reverting but you jumped in: you certainly don't need to be reverting any more. Remember, it takes two to edit-war, and edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Next time, leave it be and file at WP:ANEW, OK? Drmies (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they did it again but I gotta get out of here--can you file at WP:ANEW if some nice admin hasn't blocked them yet? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition graph

Hi Impru! In the article Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2018, a user upload a graph about the opinion polls for coalitions; I must admit that his graph isn't as so "good" as yours, so if you want create a graph for coalitions, it will be great! Thank you so much :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 – if it isn't too much trouble and you've got some extra time on your hands it'd be nice if you could make one, though I realize that you've probably also got other priorities on Wikipedia at the moment. Mélencron (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition graph is NOT up to date - please update or remove

You keep adding an old graph in the page Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2018, claiming that it plots data "poll results from 25 February 2013 to the present day". This is incorrect, since the data displayed is only until mid-December. So please update the graph with the latest results, or until then Wikipedia should not report wrong claims. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.0.109.81 (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First Secretaries of the Parliament of Catalonia

The "First Secretary of the Parliament of Catalonia" is not the "First Secretary of the Partit dels Socialistes de Catalunya". Correct your foolish mistake.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spanish local elections, 2007, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Torrent and Las Rozas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italian general election of 2001

Hi, ehm... were is the discussion in which it was decided to eliminate the third position in the page Italian general election, 2001?--Wololoo (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting for Spanish polls

You have been doing a lot of great work for the articles related to party politics in Spain and its regions. There is just one thing missing, though, on the article on opinion polling in Spain, namely that it is not possible to sort the table by pollster. As you know pollsters may widely differ, because of the polling method, the wording, and so on.

I have spent a few hours to make it work. The results are very good, in my opinion: take a look at my sandbox page. Once you sort by pollster, you can best observe the trends of Ciudadanos and PP.

You may frown at the creation of a 'Source' column out of the 'Polling firm/Commissionner' column. However, I had no choice. The sorting doesn't work properly when there is a reference number inside the cell, for instance 'Celeste-Tel/eldiario.es [123]'. I also had to remove the "p" reference group, so as to gain space. It could be possible, for aesthetical reasons, to move the Source column further to the right, with the Visual Editor, in order to get a table somewhat like on the Swedish Wikipedia.

Another change is that I added a 'data-sort-value' attribute on each of the date cells, to make the sorting work seamlessly.

If it is perfect, feel free to copypaste. Otherwise, I am eager to receive your feedback.

Kahlores (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Ok, I've taken a look at your suggestion and chose to do some tweaking myself to make it work properly. While I've known about the sortability function for a while, I was not a big fan of it because it affected the table's mechanics (i.e. increasing each sortable column's width beyond its established one; the issue you mention about references and so on). However, it seems a lot of people find it useful and it looks like the trend nowadays is to make these tables sortable by pollster and date, so it's ok.

Nonetheless, I had to make some tweaking to your proposal: firstly, you indeed guessed out correctly that I'd frown at the idea of creating a separate "Sources" column (not only because it'd be a break in consistency with all other opinion polling tables in other articles for Spanish general/regional/local elections, but also because you won't always be able to properly fit this into the table; specifically if polls report a large number of parties and the table is too wide). However, by using the 'data-sort-value' attribute also on the "polling firm" cells, I've essentially added the sortability function into these two columns while preserving the table's overall shape (I've also managed to get it so that you can return it to normal after sorting it by pollster).

The change can now be seen right here; hope it works as intended.

Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to have a sortable table and now we have it. The 'Source' column was only a workaround.

The only thing I would suggest would be to remove the space-taking "group="p"" attribute (which could be done in less than a minute with an editor), whose utility seems very obscure to me.

Many thanks.

Kahlores (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

There is a (fairly pointless) discussion on the article's talk page about the template (where you can see who the owner of all the IPs is). Could you keep an eye on all the other UK referendum articles as he's reverting across all of them. I was thinking about asking them all to be semi-protected, but last time I did that, he logged into his account and edited that way instead. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italian opinion polls

Hi Impru20, when you have some free time, could you complete the graph about the 2018 election’s polls and start the one about the next election? Thank you so much :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burka Ban Map

Hi Impru20 firstly thank you for doing the graph on the Italian opinion polls. I am just wondering do you know how to do map's on wikipeaida? Leftwinguy92 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Parliament

Hi, I would like to apologize about the edit I made about the Main Opposition and Other Opposition, I read and found out that there is no such thing as Main or Other Opposition. I hope that our disagreement didn’t cause anything to happen. --Pizzalover12 (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2018 Pizzalover12 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though I need to notify you of this

[1]

I bona nit i bona hora. CodeInconnu (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to notify you of this

A username, his/her obssession with a political party, his/her indefinite block, a suggestion to run a cross pattern of contributions with another user here and take the later along some diffs here. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Oppositon of Spain

Just to clarify: I didn't remove the office of Leader of the Opposition, that I too think is important, I merely placed the office of Secretary General of the PSOE above of it, since it is an office in which Pedro Sánchez is still an incumbent, and, if I may add, one is exclusively dependant on the other. M. Armando (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vector map

Hi there,

I've created a vector version of the map that is being used for Spanish elections.

Please let me know if you have any feedback on it.

Many thanks

--RaviC (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've created a version with a colour scheme. --RaviC (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajoy's end of term

I'm not re-interpreting the legal sources, but following valid legal criteria - the same that have been followed with former Spanish Prime Ministers - to determine when Rajoy's term ended. Please read this message. Thanks a lot for your attention and sorry for the inconvenience.

Rajoy's term ended on June 2, not on June 1. It specifically ended when Sánchez became Prime Minister. There cannot be a power vacuum between both days. The Royal Decrees published in the Official Diary of the State were signed on June 1, but were published the following day, and therefore did not come into force until that same day. The day the decree was signed has no legal validity. Please check how the Decree which made Rajoy Prime Minister in 2011 was also signed one day before it came into force - it was signed on December 20, the day he was elected by the Congress of Deputies, but Rajoy only became Prime Minister one day later, when the Decree was published and he was sworn in. This same article states that his first term began on December 21, so there is an obvious contradiction between both dates, because two different criteria are being followed. I can guarantee you that the correct criterium is the 21 December - 2 June one, which is the one that has been followed to fix the date Rajoy's term began and also to establish the dates when former Spanish Prime Ministers began and finished their terms. Thanks a lot for your attention. Check: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/12/21/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-19861.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Una cosilla sobre traducciones

Buenas, Impru. Viendo el artículo del gobierno de Pedro Sánchez me ha llamado la atención la traducción de lo que creo que es "formación profesional" como "vocational training". No puedo más que preguntarme de dónde sale está traducción tan, no sé, extraña. Un saludo y gracias por tus aportaciones. Asturkian (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Pastor

Hi Why did you color Pastor in grey in the PP leadership election ? --Panam2014 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor is considered as an independent politician. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Cifuentes not Pastor. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PSOE logo

I appreciate you've taken the decision to temporarily undo my edits. However, the logo is not copyrighted as it is a derivative file from the logo of the Albanian Socialist Party, which is extremely similar to that of PSOE, but falls under a different legal framework - that of Albanian law. I hope you can take that into consideration. Regards, --Fer1997 (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't get to understand is that a derivation from a perfectly fine logo is, all of a sudden, a copyright violation. Even more so if, when both logos are compared, there are certain differences in height and some of the shapes. I hope this matter is fixed in the deletion page. --Fer1997 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Party (Spain) leadership election, 2018, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral statistics

Hi, I have seen that you have created graphs of Electoral statistics and I would like to know with what program you do them, so that I can also contribute to make diagrams of that quality. Thanks! --Stalin990 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral map

Hi Impru20, how are you? I'm writing you because I would like to know how do you create your amazing maps regarding Spanish politics. In fact I would like to create similar maps for the Italian elections, but I sincerely don't know which program I could use. Thank you :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SVG

What do you mean exactly by "The .svg cannot be made workable to be consistent with previous articles"? As I showed you with this file, it most certainly can. --RaviC (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basque national party

You have reverted changes in Basque national party page

The official name of the party in English is "Basque National Party"

https://www.facebook.com/basquenationalparty/?ref=br_rs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.79.62 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you in the article's talk page. Impru20^talk 14:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

equo

Actually i am not editing, i am reverting the edit that this person did. He is removing some information that was there, i am reverting the edit. So if that info want to be delated, is that person who should open a disscuission.

The info in equo party have been there for a while with no changes or complains. Because it was intended to be reverted with no explanation, i added some sources, but if it is a disccuion about it, then it should stay for now how it was before the different point of views started, so that info cannot be removed.

so the problem is the sources? the disscuss about them. one by one.

Puigdemont's Crida

I must say you are right regarding Crida's project, regarding WP's Crystall ball policy. Just read the policy's text once again and you are right. Apologies for the unreversion. :-)Kippelboy (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 509 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

-- Dolotta (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jaime Blanco García

The article Jaime Blanco García has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Natureium (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicelebs.com as a source

Hi Impru20 . I noticed that you recently used ethnicelebs.com as a source for information in a biography article, Ada Colau. Please note that there is general consensus that ethnicelebs.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Javier Otano

The article Javier Otano has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Natureium (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joaquín Leguina

The article Joaquín Leguina has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demonym translations for Spanish local elections

Hi! I have a comment regarding the translations of the demonyms included in the names of political organizations in local elections. As I see it, there are five ways of doing it, and I think we should stick to one of them and be consistent:
1. Preserve the original word (Convergència Poblera --> Pobler/Poblera Convergence)
2. Adapt the original word to English (Pobleran Convergence)
3. Use an English denomyn from the toponym (Poblese Convergence)
4. Use the form "of+toponym" (Convergence of Sa Pobla)
5. Use only the toponym (Sa Pobla Convergence)
With the exception of some places as big cities, the majority of places doesn't have an English denomyn, so options 2 or 3 would mean making a word up. Option 1 would take the word from the place's Wikipedia page, and it could be used adapting it to the genre of the name or preserving the masculine singular form, which would be as the English language would use it. Options 4 and 5 would be less controversial.--Togiad (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

¿Puedes evaluar los artículos de Torre-Pacheco y de La Unión y asignarles un nuevo rango?

Los artículos de Torre-Pacheco y de La Unión, Murcia tienen el rango de Stub. Este corresponde cuando el artículo solo da una introducción y una descripción muy básica del tema.

Estos dos municipios a principios de año sí cumplían con los requisitos para ser «Stub», pero desde hace unos meses añadí mucho contenido a estos: su historia, su demografía, su geografía, «Main sights» y personajes principales. Además hay otros usuarios que me han corregido mis faltas gramaticales y ortográficas.

Creo que por lo menos estos dos artículos se merecen una el rango «Starter» y me gustaría que se evaluasen. Ya lo puse en la sección de evaluación en su momento, pero no ha dado resultado. Bueno, sí el de Torre-Pacheco lo revisaron e indicaron que había faltas ortográficas y gramaticales y pusieron el cartel de que requería copyediting, pero tras esto y con las faltas corregidas no ha habido mayor intervención en cuanto a su evaluación.

--Yolanda95 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Yolanda95[reply]

Results breakdown of the Spanish local elections, 1979 (Balearic Islands)

Okay, I didn't mean to create a messy table, and I see why you undid the edit. However, I have been reviewing the results and found some errors in the ministry page. In any case, I think there should be a consistency when putting parties and candidacies in these kinds of tables. Maybe if the table is too long, then the threshold can be raised. If not, it is difficult to suppose which candidacies are important and why they are more important than others, it would be too subjective. Nevertheless, my intention is not to complicate or confuse things, so I'm open to suggestions.--Togiad (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Results breakdown of the Spanish local elections, 1983 (Balearic Islands)

Let's see. Results in Sa Pobla in 1983 for PSM and CP (INDEP in the Ministry page) are swapped. CP obtained an absolute majority. Some sources are: [2], [3], [4], Page 96. If you don't believe me or the sources and you will just leave the table as you want, then just please do not compare PSM results to CP, that would not be correct at all. Thank you.
PD1: If you want more proofs of actual names of independent candidacies, I'm looking for them and putting here the most relevant if I can find them. It's a bit frustrating that you erase them but maintain some others for no reason.
PD2: Apart from this, you reverted me more than once and then ended up with a table very similar to the one I constructed... So I think you should not be so fast reverting others' edits. Thank you.--Togiad (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there you have it [5], from page 6. I made a wrong assumption and I apologise for that. The swap in the Ministry page is triple. The actual results were: CP 3,260v/9c; AP 2,781v/7c; PSM 350v/1c; PSOE 302v/0c. This way, the councillors shown in the Historia Electoral page for PSOE and PSM coincide. I think it makes sense.--Togiad (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encuesta CIS según El Confidencial

Buenas tardes, Impru. Te escribo porque leyendo periódicos me he encontrado este particular artículo de El Confidencial en el que se trabaja el estudio de campo del CIS y utiliza la que según ellos fue la metodología anterior al nuevo CIS tan manido últimamente. ¿Puede servirte para ponerlo como una encuesta más o no tiene valor más allá de la curiosidad? Un saludo y gracias por tus aportaciones. Asturkian (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the Swedish general election, 2022

Thanks for trying to defuse the situtation, but there was really no need to change the reference format – the tagging was purely disruptive/point making and unfortunately I think your edit might only serve to embolden them to start being disruptive elsewhere... Number 5 7 11:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Locales Asturias 1983

Buenas. Sí, es cierto que faltan muchos concejos en las elecciones locales de 1983. Sin embargo, los resultados se pueden obtener en la hemeroteca de El Comercio. Más en concreto del día 10 de mayo de 1983, entre las páginas 11 y 14, vienen los escaños en todos los concejos asturianos y el recuento de votos en Gijón, por si te sirve de algo para salir del paso. Igual no es suficiente pero me apenaría que por un fallo del Ministerio no pudiera tener/poder ayudar en estos artículos. Un saludo. Asturkian (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of Catalonia

Hi. I reverted your edit in Parliament of Catalonia because the members aren't legally suspended: https://www.parlament.cat/document/bopc/275863.pdf#page=70. The section B was passed but the A wasn't. Adriaesc (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their votes may not be valid to vote but they are legally deputies, so they number of deputies has not changed. Adriaesc (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of shortest-lived states

As we've previously discussed the existing issues with this page, you may be interested in the ongoing deletion discussion there

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_shortest-lived_sovereign_states

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Impru20. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament elections - Infobox heading

Hi, the change that I was making to the titles in the EP infoboxes is simply standardizing the title. The format varies a bit from county to country and year to year. I picked the commonest one and used that one. Spleodrach (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The majority were actually in the format County European Parliament election, YYYY so that's why I went with that, e.g. United Kingdom European Parliament election, 1984 which has been in that format on that article for nearly 10 years. Your decision to a different format in not correct, just your personal opinion. So since you think you are correct, you can standarise all the articles to your format. My main concern was standarising the headings, I really couldn't care which of two equally correct options is chosen. Spleodrach (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

I have explained in the Badalona one, for starters as long as having reliable third party sources available dealing with the event (which I am sure it is not the case with all the municipalities of Spain). Second, adhering to the same "arbitrary" criteria the 2015 Spanish local elections entry uses (arbitrary, but falling short of the 8,000 municipalities) is another possibility.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because that compact format using the legislative election template fits the purpose of a "election for electing a full chamber" best, with the other one you mention giving not enough importance to the focus of the election (electing councillors from a list) detracted by what it is not actually elected in the election. This user has not invented the template, and it may be seen in other elections (with an awfully similar election system) such as the 2018 Belgrade one. In any case, I don't have a problem with discussing the merits of each one and how damaging may that be for Wikipedia.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You considering WP:POLITICIAN in regards of assessing the individual notability of biographies does not change the ultimate nature of any election. Mixing two different things here is an editorial disservice. I can certainly show you examples of how reliable sources tend to summarize elections in Spain using tables and graphics.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria? You accuse me of not reading, but you are also reading me sketchy at best. Barring the use of the standard "you have sources, you create content based on them" criteria (outrageous, right?), the same criteria the 2015 Spanish local elections entry uses for summarizing the change in city control ("Provincial capitals and municipalities above 75,000").--Asqueladd (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, man, sorry for the personal remark, but you literally blanking the Zaragoza one (5th municipality, 666,058 inhabitantes) while also creating the Seville one (4th municipality 693,878 inhabitants) should mark a milestone of unconstructive editing in Wikipedia, certainly worth of some personal introspection.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also claim I need to "abide to BRD". Have you considered that returning entries created some time ago (all of them reviewed by third party users, not me, not you) to the original version, may be the stable version while you may be the one violating BRD when you repeatedly blank them?--Asqueladd (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consejos vendo que para mí no tengo. Let's see:

Out of the blue you decided to create entries for the local elections of the four biggest municipalities in Spain since 1979, some of them without providing a single friggin' source offering context/analyzing the actual election!!!! Is 4 a magic number or something?
When a user different than you create entries for the same thing in case of other big municipalities (including the next most populated municipality!, and all of them deemed within the group of "relevant" municipalities in the entry about the 2015 Spanish local elections), all of them providing at least a reliable source offering context for the election, you bluntly blanked all of them (because going down the slippery slope, you can't have articles for "8000 municipalities"!). That cognitive dissonance is rich, and foremost, it is disruptive and a pattern of abuse.
You blatantly gave a bad assessing about the content of the entries you blanked, like if they were any different from the ones you created. The reality is that barring the inclusion of polls in some of the later, the former actually feature more content about the actual election, with the ones created by you being larger in size mostly because of the inclusion of the same bloc of redundant information about the electoral system across entries that could be better adressed in a potential Spanish local elections entry dealing with electoral legislation and the likes.
Is it rich, isn't it. The reality is that local elections elect local councillors regardless of the individual notability of those biographies to merit and standalone article, and you can't trump that reality (this goes about also the infobox structure and the information in the body of the entry). But then an arbitrary (unlike the former criteria) list of city control change of notable "municipalities" can be included in the 2015 Spanish local elections to the dreaded 8,000 municipalities (which needless to say, it is not the purpose of the election). And at the same time, none can apparently use that same arbitrary list to extract a criteria of notability of municipalities (other than "4 is enough, because four is the number I got to"?).
And finally you try to position yourself in a place of power in this dispute pointing out in a patronizing way that I "need to abide to WP:BRD", when any editor will tell you that the one not abiding to WP:BRD, when you are repeatedly blanking reviewed entries, is you. All of them while "we discuss". How considerate! Why you don't blank the articles of local elections in Spain created by you while "we discuss" too?

I will continue.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I see you keep on repeating a twisted line of thinking, pulling the same one also in regional elections (where it was solved not because of going to the point, but because of adressing notability of standalone biographies). In the most intransigent fashion, you sport the combination of WP:LIST and WP:POLITICIAN policies to deny the addition of whoever was elected in a given election in the article of that election. That's really really going over the top at interpreting policies, because that is not just a mere "Wikipedia list of people". It is also the frigging "result of the election" (the purpose of the whole event, and therefore a core element, if not the core element, for the comprehension of the article). If you question the notability of the results of any election you may be better served questioning the full entries altogether (not just a section), instead of using the argument to distort the meaning of those elections. Because failing to do the former, thus trying to describe a process considering the purpose of that process non-notable, you are bound to create foul creations.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2000 Spanish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1977 general election (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just wanted to say well done for getting all the Spanish election/referendum articles moved, reformatted etc so quickly! Number 5 7 17:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Valencian regional election

This article is a member of Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language and is there because MediaWiki does not recognize Valencian as a language name. The cs1|2 templates put articles in that category when the value assigned to |language= is not a language name or ISO 639 code recognized by MediaWiki. There is no direct ISO 639 code for Valencian but there is an IANA language tag, ca-valencia, which is as close cs1|2 can get at present.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: language=ca-valencia shows up as "Catalan", which in essence is the same as if you used language=Catalan, which is obviously not what intended when using "Valencian", which is a officially-recognized language according to the Valencian statute of autonomy. Possibly, it should be either made as a recognizable ISO 639 code by MediaWiki or else, but changing the name from "Valencian" to "Catalan" in those articles where the first is intended as the proper ref language tag to use is not the most appropiate solution, I think. Impru20^talk 10:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint against me was: This gave no error so I don't know how this translates as a "cite repair". I came here to show that there is an error and to explain why it is there, all in defense of your accusation that I was doing something other than 'cite repair'.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: And your language tag change edit summary was cite repair, which was not an obvious thing since the cite itself did not give errors within the article. In fact, when you explained where the error was, you did not even mention the words "cite" or "repair", but argued that "There is no direct ISO 639 code for Valencian". This is not the same as a citing error (of which there could be multiple ones) nor a cite needing repair. A clearer edit summary in the first place, explaining that this was due to the ISO 639 code issue, would have worked better. Impru20^talk 11:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a message in the article. To see the message and others like it, you must enable them; instructions for that are at Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have hacked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox to support |language=Valencian and |language=ca-valencia (MediaWiki still does not):

{{cite web/new |title=Eleccions Autonòmiques |url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgSVrTjCEAAchaz.png |language=Valencian |work=PP |date=12 February 2014}}

"Eleccions Autonòmiques". PP (in Valencian). 12 February 2014.

{{cite web/new |title=Eleccions Autonòmiques |url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgSVrTjCEAAchaz.png |language=ca-valencia |work=PP |date=12 February 2014}}

"Eleccions Autonòmiques". PP (in Valencian). 12 February 2014.

After the next cs1|2 module suite update, templates with these language-parameter values will categorize into Category:CS1 Valencian-language sources (ca) as a subcategory of Category:CS1 Catalan-language sources (ca).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Podemos

I think you should at least mention the connection between Catalunya Sí que es Pot and Barcelona en Comú, because they are largely identical and it was also made in the regional election in Catalonia 2017 (heir even in a column). Braganza (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Impru20 I know, but it can be confusing for readers to introduce extra columns for sister parties, especially if you list En Comú Podem and Catalunya en Comú–Podem anyway. Braganza (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left-right axis, and year-by-year split on opinion polling pages

Hello,

Since you're a very experienced Wikipedian, and on opinion polling articles especially, I would like to ask you two questions:

what is the Wikipedia consensus on the arrangement of parties from left to right?
what is the Wikipedia consensus on the splitting of long lists of opinion polls?

I have come in disagreement with editors on the Israeli page. I have split up the long list into more readable yearly lists (as was done for the UK, Italian and Polish opinion polls). Others disagree and suggest a post-dissolution/pre-dissolution split. I am open at this but I wonder if there is some kind of rule or consensus.

A more problematic issue is my suggestion to arrange the Israeli parties according to the left-right axis (as is done for the French opinion polls). It works very well for Israel, as there are very well defined categories with little to no overlap (Arab, Secular Left, Center, Right-wing, Orthodox, Haredi). Such axis would be a great improvement as most transfers are within one category, or with the category nearby. But people complain of NPOV. Kahlores (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artículos "Results breakdown of local elections"

Buenas, Impru. Estos artículos resultan muy útiles y son un currazo de la leche por tu parte, pero creo que estaría bien enlazarlos con el artículo principal de cada una de las elecciones locales. En este de Asturias 2003, si ves el "What links here", apenas abarca las plantillas y poco más. Un saludo y feliz año 2019. Asturkian (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation to discussion

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden

@Impru20 I don't counting C, V and L as in the government, there was a note that put it right ...

The incumbent government is the Löfven II Cabinet, it is consists of S and MP and it is supported by C, L and V (see here) and was sworn in on 18 January 2019.

Braganza (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quim Torra

Hi,

There is historiography that estates the position of President of the Generalitat of Catalona was created in 1932 and the first president was Macià. That's why many historians says that Quim Torra is the president number 10 as you can see here: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] . So as there is two points of view I propose you to add both numeration each one with its references. Regards. --Kurrop (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody sees Venezuela or China as democracies despite the official version that says so. So as there is controversy I think that both versions should be reflected on the article and don't let a tendentious idea to the reader or sending him to another article in order to have a more clear idea of the matter. What would be your proposal in order to do more neutral the article? Thank you in advance.--Kurrop (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2008 Spanish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antena 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the final vote on the bolding issue

Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election#Final voting. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rafael Simancas

The article Rafael Simancas has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Otr500 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crida

Hi

Will the party contest the Spanish election? And PDeCAT or JuntsCat? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And did you know how many MP, MP of Generalitat, etc, have joined Crida? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Call for the Republic: the number of senators, deputies and Catalan MP is souced? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2008 Spanish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Greens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

It's easy. Up to this point you can't source there is going to be a party coalition between both parties. If so, source it, please. If barrying a probatio diabolica we can assume until confirmed there is no coalition (or rather, given the explicit name of the candidacy, until proving something more straightforward: the nature of something going under the name "Más Madrid" as electoral coalition), Equo candidates will stand as candidates in a Más Madrid list as independents for all legal purposes (just like in 2015 for Podemos). I assume the criteria underlined by your edits at 2019 Madrid City Council election was to only include "sub-parties" when they stand in a coalition, not through the means of "incrustating" candidates in a party list (as the later can be done both by a "party" as by a "neighbor association", the later case being an extreme example of the problems posed by you vis-à-vis "Bancada Municipalista").--Asqueladd (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same than about Equo in the regional election could be said about Actúa (another political party) willing to incrustate in Más Madrid for the municipal election (through María Garzón?), by the way.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we can add them in the municipal election (I am not yet sure if we ought to, though). Just to be clear: my interest is to regulate arbitrariness in what it seems to be a circumstantial discardable box (which I actually abhor). Once accepted the existence of the box we can take two approaches (I personally would lean towards hardcore version of a)):

a) stick to the nature of the candidacies (that entails waiting to know their nature: 1) a party, 2) a party coalition, 3) a grouping of electors or 4) a party federation, with only 2) and 4) being able to structurally include "parties" within themselves)
b) adapt in the run on the basis of what the sources actually "say". The later approach would mean that if sources deal with an unnamed candidacy which it is a "confluence" of three organizations, so be it (not two because we don't "like" it when they are not political parties, as it if being a "political party" held any meaning in the case of the umbrella candidacy being an "instrumental party" or the likes). Or if sources say a party will run within another party, so be it (instead of making that "another" party both an umbrella organization and the organization under the umbrella when that cannot be inferred from the source).

Any deviation from (or mix of) a) and b) adds further whimsicallity we can do without. IMO.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we agree to disagree. Nothing more to say about Equo and Actúa. Regarding the unnamed list if it ever gets a name and the sources still consider it a confluence of three organizations, I may bring your words of "miss key information that may be relevant for some readers" if you drop a name because of "not being a political party" when actually bringing councillors to the (circumstantial) box (Carmona and Galcerán, IIRC). Please don't take it as a blunt "disruptive way to illustrate a point" and accept a reflexion about it.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep track on developments "Municipalistas" (the Spain-wide referent of La Bancada) registered as party on 4 March 2019, "Anticapitalistas Madrid" registered as party on 1 March 2019. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Spanish general elections

Template:Spanish general elections has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Spanish general election, 1979

Template:Spanish general election, 1979 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carles Puigdemont

Hello. Since I noticed that you had to deal with similar situations, I come to you so you can take a look at here: Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Disputed. I don't understand the point of having a permanent template in the article saying "disputed" on something that is clearly not disputed. And as far as I know, users need to expose reasons in talk page before making any change. But this seems straight bad faith. I understand that Carles Puigdemont is a polemic figure for some people, but whether we like it or not he was indeed a president during his mandate. --193.153.142.71 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impru, excuse me for participating here, but the ip 193.153.142.71 is quoting me. I have made a proposal in the TP [11].

193.153.142.71, remember that you must assume good faith WP:AGF and comment on the topics of the pages and not on the users WP:TALK#USE WP:TPYES.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whats is up with this?

What is wrong with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basque_Nationalist_Party&diff=887314465&oldid=887313490 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3CA0:2D3:A461:CE81:E6A7:30AC (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder images

Hi Impru. You'll probably have noticed that I've removed placeholder images from several Spanish election articles. As you'll see from Wikipedia:Image placeholders, usage of placeholder images is deprecated on en.wiki (and just to clarify that page as the tags may appear to be contradictory at first glance, the top tag "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." refers to the fact that the page used to be a guide on how to use placeholder images before they were deprecated, not that the deprecation is a historical issue. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. Please stop adding placeholder images back into the articles. I'm currently going through them all to address the width issues. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to have to do this, but if you don't stop reinstating them, I am going to have to raise this at WP:ANI for action. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am addressing the width issues; I'm going through the articles at the moment. Number 5 7 23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, I'll file a report shortly and ping you. Cheers, Number 5 7 23:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Report filed. Apologies again, but if you'd engaged in discussion as a first course of action rather than immediately start reverting I wouldn't have done this. Cheers, Number 5 7 23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sorry, that was way OTT and I've removed the report. I need some time away from here. Number 5 7 23:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15 March

Hi Impru. My apologies again about yesterday, it had been a bad day but that still didn't excuse how I acted...

My recollection from many years ago was that placeholder images were formally banned following that discussion, and that they were all removed as a result. I guess they may have started creeping back in in recent years as people forgot about it, or new editors appeared who weren't aware of it. Perhaps the best course of action might be to raise the issue at WP:Village pump (policy) to see whether there is still any form of consensus over it. That would result in a much better outcome than any kind of agreement reached between us, which I suspect would be ignored by the editor whose insertion of placeholder images in Montenegrin articles sparked my sudden clampdown. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on using them either way (I was just enforcing what I thought is still a valid consensus), and would probably not !vote either way in the discussion. However, I feel it would be useful to clarify whether consensus still exists on the issue, as I do see them occasionally on other articles. Also, it might be good to clarify when and what type of placeholder should be used - either a shadow image, or the question mark boxes you've added more recently. I certainly agree with your point that placeholders stabilise the width of infoboxes better than Noimage.png, although I guess that could be resolved by having another version of that image with a different height-to-width ratio.

Perhaps it could be a three-part discussion along the lines of

Should placeholder images be used at all?
If they should be used, when should they be used? In all situations or should they be avoided in certain articles (e.g. biographies)
If placeholders should be used, what type of placeholder would be preferable: Shadow images or question mark boxes.

Number 5 7 15:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unidas Podemos

Hi Should we create a new article or move the first article ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But sources from 2019 use Unidos or Unidas? Also, official name is still registrated as Unidos? --Panam2014 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What name have been communicated to the electoral commission? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about Crida. Did it join JuntsCat? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Junts per Catalunya

Hi

The new name is Junts. Should we edit the article and add the new logo? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But we could add the name of the alliance. Is National Call for the Republic part of the alliance? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Podemos

Hi

Will the party contest the municipal election in Madrid? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

En Marea have been replaced by En Comun-Unidas Podemos. Should we create an article? Also, what is the name of the coalition who have replaced A la valenciana? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But should we have an article for En Comun-Unidas Podemos? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crida

Hi

Crida have really 20 MP in Catalan parliament, 3 deputies and 2 senators? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

Could you make a chart for the coalitions like for Denmark, thanks ;) Braganza (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recaps

On one of my sandbox pages I merged the colorful provincial recaps that you made for each constituency, on one page. I think it looks very good and could be used for a potential Wikipedia article to give a quick, overall view of the trends.

I applied the same system for the recent history of the Catalan and Basque Parliaments. It's captivating to see electoral history recapped this way.

Cheers for tonight and the next days. Kahlores (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive Edits

Hi there. I noticed that you have recently reverted some edits I made to articles in good faith, citing vandalism. I would not hesitate to argue that your own reverts constitute vandalism, given that they are unsubstantiated by the larger editorial collective. I would appreciate if you brought your concerns to the arbitration committee going forward. Thank you and have a blessed day.

2019 Spanish general election RfPPs

Some vandalism is to be expected for an article that's on the Main page. But in this context, the current volume of these is not that disconcerting. I am applying blocks liberally, however. But there is no need for further RfPPs unless the situation becomes truly dire. Thanks. El_C 17:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

En Comu/En Comun

Hi Do you have the list of the Podemos-led platforms since 2014? Also, Comun is a name of a party, ideology or other? Also, do you have new opinion polls? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coalició Compromís, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enric Morera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CatComu

Hi Could you upload new logo? --Panam2014 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My images

Hi, I saw you removed my images because of copyright. So, how can I add the images in a way they aren’t copyrighted and which licence should I use? Thanks. Rodrigospascoal (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I very much admire your work on Spanish political issues. Cantabrucu (talk) 18:301, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspicion

By the way Impru, who is this Asqueladd guy, and is his relationship with Maragm anything to do with sock puppetry?

Lo peor es que soy de México y a pesar de estar creando artículos sobre nobleza española, esta despreciando mi trabajo. ¡Quién diría que el es el español!

--Cantabrucu (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 645: / Line 645: @@
 Hi, I saw you removed my images because of copyright. So, how can I add the images in a way they aren’t copyrighted and which licence should I use? Thanks. [[User:Rodrigospascoal|Rodrigospascoal]] ([[User talk:Rodrigospascoal|talk]]) 18:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
-== A barnstar for you! ==
 == A barnstar for you! ==
@@ Line 656: / Line 654: @@
 |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I very much admire your work on Spanish political issues. [[User:Cantabrucu|Cantabrucu]] ([[User talk:Cantabrucu|talk]]) 18:301, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 |}
+== Suspicion ==
+By the way Impru, who is this Asqueladd guy, and is his relationship with Maragm anything to do with sock puppetry?
+Lo peor es que soy de México y a pesar de estar creando artículos sobre nobleza española, esta despreciando mi trabajo. ¡Quién diría que el es el español!
+--[[User:Cantabrucu|Cantabrucu]] ([[User talk:Cantabrucu|talk]]) 16:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)