User talk:Number 57

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Legislative Elections - France

Seems people from Twitter/X are reverting your work. Impru20 has come to me to ask for where the conversation was to agree for the legislative election temp. was made too, for the French leg. elects. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people on social media are indignant about what goes on over here, that doesn't mean their voices should be ignored!!!

Many of those people have an invested interest because what you've built over here happens to be a useful resource for tens of thousands of people. They are about it because they love it and they use it. Some of them even contribute to elections wiki. Talleyrand6 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're reverting the work cause the info boxes are objectively a better way of communicating the information Aidanaddsthings (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidanaddsthings: No so, if elected independents aren't represented. Even if it's just one. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna fight this out in a guy's talk page but this really reeks of missing the forest for the trees Talleyrand6 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put a table then in another part of the article then? Otherwise I concur with my pal @Talleyrand6. Hyraemous (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto with @Talleyrand6 and @Hyraemous. Can't see a reason to not have the candidate's portraits in the first section of the page. Lucksash (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed to see the infoboxes being changed back, but a big problem of what is now going on is people blindly reverting made up or incorrect election results back into articles. I wish people would actually look at what they are doing when they are hitting the undo button ffs. Number 5 7 20:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People are reverting your edits which are omitting important information about voter numbers and turnout, along with other information. You are actively making it harder to find out information about these elections in an easy way. If corrections need to be made, then make them without cutting out important information. Wikipedia is meant to be easily digestible, and your edits make it harder to find the facts Maxine McKeown (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imma have to agree with this. Nursultan Malik^(talk) 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Maxine Zlad! (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with this Dylan Glasbergen (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 I understand the frustration with the unsourced results especially, but it does seem like there is little explanation of why such results must be in particular formats. I've asked for clarification on discussions as prior mentioned with @ValenciaThunderbolt and @Impru20, and if you could provide them it would be swell. Especially when there is just a brushing off of such efforts as 'blind reverts' when there are other conflicting reasons it leads people to be more up in arms. Regards, Quinby (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that changing the format of a infobox is different to correcting potentially false information. One can remove potentially false information without massively changing a infobox's look. Hyraemous (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're correcting misinformation on the articles, then that's certainly a good thing - but going ahead with all of these unpopular changes to the infobox formatting alongside the fixes results isn't the way to do it. ItsAstronomical (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

57, what is going on? This is really Twitter-related? Plz let me know if I can help--I have no involvement with these articles. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only twitter-related insofar as the issue was first noticed there. There has, to my knowledge, been so sort of collective action from there. All of the outrage at Number 57's actions is a wholly warranted reaction. All of the page revisions, however, are wholly organic to Wikipedia users AFIK. Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]