Jump to content

User talk:Number 57/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Requesting advice - action against disruptive yet "good faith" editor

Hi N57. I hope you don't mind me dropping by at random - I do so only because you are an admin whose name I recognise, even if I don't think we've ever come in contact before. I'm currently having a fair amount of trouble with another user who I don't want to name at this time because this is really a first step and I want to keep this anonymous at present.

Now, this other user is a hard worker and I believe firmly believes that what he (or she) is doing is in good faith, and ostensibly it is. However, this user has taken it upon himself to basically police Wikipedia - not only for vandalism and bad faith editing, but for anyone who edits an article and fails to update it completely. This would be fair enough if he were specifically targeting people who basically half-complete information - football articles have long had issues with people, say, updating one team's goals for a match report and not bothering to do the other team's, and so on - but he will literally revert any work if it is not done to 100%. No report added to a match update? Revert. Updated a top scorer table but forgotten to modify one player's figures? Revert. Changed an entire table of playing statistics but forgot to change the "updated on" date? Revert. What makes it most aggravating is that he could just as easily correct these oversights, but he insists instead on just reverting and making someone else do it.

I'm concerned about the impact this is having. I know for a fact that his actions are angering a great many people. I raised this point with him a few weeks back on his talk page and he refused to defend himself but carried on, promptly multiple people (none of whom I had invited to comment, all there by coincidence) to add further comments saying that they agreed with me. Further, though, I'm concerned that this type of behaviour is going to drive dozens of new users away from the website. I know for a fact that if I'd have joined Wikipedia and within days found several of my edits reverted because I wasn't thorough enough, I'd not up my game but instead decide that clearly the website had standards which I didn't have the energy or enthusiasm to match. I would simply give up and say "well, if this is how they are going to treat a new user, I think I'll just let the established users do the work instead". I wouldn't stay on this website a week.

Please tell me therefore - what is the correct stance here? While his behaviour is clearly upsetting the majority, is his stringent adherence to exacting standards ultimately agreeable to those in authority positions such as yourself, or is there something that can be done to make him realise that he is going too far? Bear in mind I have already attempted to engage him in conversation, and he showed zero interest in debating the point. Falastur2 Talk 23:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Falastur2: I assume you are talking about QED? Yes, their edits are unacceptable, disruptive and clearly violating good faith (I have seen it before). If you see them continue to act like this, let me know and I will give them a warning. If it continues, I think taking it to an admin noticeboard would be the next step. Number 57 13:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yes he is talking about me, and yes I wou like to think I have improved. The main compliant has been me not updating timestamps, which now I do (at leat for most of the times, while I also created User:Qed237/live, User:Qed237/time, User:Qed237/infobox and User:Qed237/player to faster give the editors informative messages. Previously I was a bit sloppy with those as it took a lot of time to write a new message every time, for example now I just have to write {{subst:User:Qed237/time}} if an editor has problem with timestamps.
And all above points I can explain:
  1. No report added to a match update? Revert I did this once recently, yes. That was because I have been told my self earlier that the report works as source, and without it the information is unsourced and should be removed. As Template:Football box collapsible/doc#Parameter says "report - An external link to an official match report or box score. It is important that match information be referenced, so please use this parameter! (See also: Verifiability and No Original Research)"
  2. Updated a top scorer table but forgotten to modify one player's figures? Revert. This is simple not true, I do revert if it is not according to the given source of that table and if the editor only updates their favourite player and not the rest. If only one player is left out, I update that player.
  3. Changed an entire table of playing statistics but forgot to change the "updated on" date? Revert As I said above I do not do this anymore, or it may look like that in my contributions maybe. I do revert sometimes so editors know it is a problem (especially for editors that keeps on doing same thing), but then I also self-revert/undo myself and update the timestamp myself while leaving a message to the user (their talkpages pops-up when I revert them).
Did I miss something? Honestly I am concerned about the good faith from Falastur2, as he things I am delibirately trying to aggrevate people and writes that I am Disgraceful and Can't you see how little good you are doing. I am doing little good? Oh my God, then he missed a lot of my edits. Sure I am not perfect, no one is, but saying I am doing only very little good edits, wow. I know I upset him when I revert his precious edits, but come on. Also If an editor edits 30 minutes a day, and gets a complaint every two weeks (after a total of 7 hours), no one bothers much. If I spend 7 hours a day (may happen on a weekend) and gets one complaint a day editors like Falastur2 complains about my behaviour. In the discussion started by Falastur2 on my talkpage, I had three real complaints in a month (and one that was really upset for other reasons). So as I said, am I perfect? No. Can I do better? Probably. Are there far more important issues out there? Definately. Qed237 (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: The problem is if you are continuing to make reverts like this. Number 57 20:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
First of all, that was long ago, and secondly they were unsourced? And I could not find a source for them, As I said above, the stats should be supported by either match report or by source. Also to add to the info above, an editor took me to ANI about a month ago and they cleared me then. Qed237 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: If you need to be reminded that not everything needs a source, then I think I see where the root of the trouble is. It was very simple to find a source (I added the figures with a source four minutes after you reverted). The problem here is your unhelpful attitude – did you really think an experienced editor was inserting incorrect figures? Number 57 21:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Stats and numbers needs source, practically every time there are different numbers on different pages. Qed237 (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: No they don't – the only thing on Wikipedia that always need a source are quotes. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Number 57 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: I will admit that my blood was up when I last saw your edit - the one I marked as "disgraceful". I will also admit that I am somewhat hot-headed when I am worked up. The language I used there was language of frustration and short-lived anger, which I somewhat came to regret even before reading your response here. If you have indeed taken to updating things like timestamps then I thank you for it, and I will concede that I haven't seen you reverting anything on that count in some time. However, I was troubled by two things.
Firstly, when I addressed you on your talk page, you made absolutely no response except "Message received". I was hoping for some sort of a bilateral discussion - even an attempt at justifying yourself - but simply writing that struck me more as a dismissal of my comment than anything. The fact that that message then prompted numerous supporting comments from users I've never even heard of seemed to reinforce my belief. Your lack of response really threw me, not to mention the rebuttals you gave to them but not me.
Secondly, you still made this change and others like it. My point to you originally was not so much "stop reverting un-time-stamped items" as "consider whether your reverting is actually saving time overall or costing it". In the case of reverting entire updates because a simple report is missing I'd argue the same thing applies. By all means revert when someone makes half an update but leaves loads of stuff still to be done, but if minor bits of information are missing, either fill it in yourself or just leave it undone. It's far better than Wikipedia is 100% up to date and 99% complete than 100% complete but three weeks out of date. Chances are someone like me will drop by to fill in the missing information for you if you just wait a few days. Falastur2 Talk 21:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seychellois parliamentary election, 1957, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahé. 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) 09:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Tagging - Template:Refimprove

Hello, The two articles you mentioned only had two and six references. That is not very much for a notable topic. I used the Template:Refimprove, which means I'm not challenging the articles notability. I am just asking for more references, so the article is more reliable. If the article is more reliable then that is better proof of notability than if the article is less reliable. That is what I meant by proving notability by adding more references. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

My edits

Sorry for not responding earlier. I will review my edits and rewrite them soon in a way not to go against copyright. Lesson learnt. Thanks. J Johhart (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Omani general election, 1994, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liwa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Tanzania

Hey, long time ;)

Dunno if youre following the controversy in Tanzania (and Haiti and Congo-Brazzaville), but there are some issues there. I added it to the page, so do check it out. But we should hold on firming the result for now as theres a court case pending to get final results. (parliament too)Lihaas (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Category

Hi, User:Tim! did the same thing in various other cases, for example in elections in Ghana (here). Is it wrong? Thanks;--151 cp (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I just restored, sorry. --151 cp (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, i just restored also Malawi. I apologize for the distraction. Hi! --151 cp (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace

If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: Er, I really don't mean to be rude, but why are you telling me this? Number 57 22:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You do as you like. It was a suggestion. Embrace it or dont. Its up to you my friend. Cheerio.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@BabbaQ: I'm just wondering why you asked me specifically. It's not really my topic area. Did I sign up to this somewhere? Number 57 22:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
That is alright. You do as you please :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Celtic Park (1888–92) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Democratic Republic of the Congo general election, 1965
added a link pointing to DECO
Omani general election, 1997
added a link pointing to Liwa
Portland Park, Galston
added a link pointing to Galston
Spanish Guinean provincial election, 1960
added a link pointing to Santa Isabel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to North Caledonian Football League may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | [[Orkney F.C.|Orkney]] || [[Kirkwall]] ||[[The Pickaquoy Centre]||align=center| 500 || <ref name="NLS_Ork">[http://nonleaguescotland.org.uk/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It gives me great pleasure....

The Football Barnstar
I would like to award you this for all your incredible work in creating articles on old Scottish football grounds. Jellyman (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jellyman: Many thanks :) Only a few more to go now! Number 57 22:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Marie Serneholt

If you want to, please take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt, which is this weeks selected TAFI article. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Cut & paste moves

Hello Hanam. I saw you attemped to move North Vietnamese parliamentary election, 1946 to 1946 Vietnamese National Assembly election by cutting and pasting. This is not allowed; if you want to move the article you must use the move tab at the top of the page. If this doesn't work, you have to use the WP:RM process. However, the title you moved it to is a violation of our naming guideline WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums, so any attempt to move the article to that title is almost certain to fail. Thanks, Number 57 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you should let the name is 1946 Vietnamese National Assembly election because the election was held in all of the north and the south of Vietnam. If you let it North Vietnamese parliamentary election, 1946, i think readers will meet confussions. Why the election was held in the national wide but its's name is belong to the northHanam190552 (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
If it was held in both halves of the country, then the appropriate title would be Vietnamese parliamentary election, 1946. However, is this really the case? The Nohlen book says "Direct national elections were first held in 1946 on the territory controlled by the DRV." - i.e. only in North Vietnam. Number 57 16:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The parliament in Vietnam is different from parliament in the US or the UK. The parliament in Vietnam has only the lower house (house of representative) and it is called as the National Assembly. Secondly, I aggree that the election was held in the territory controlled by the DRV but you should know that in 1946, the DRV controlled over 95% of Vietnamese territory, French colonist has only less than 5%. I am sure about this informationHanam190552 (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I have reworded the article to state the territorial control. Please don't use biased phrases like "unpatriotic" though. Number 57 16:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In the 1948 interview, Hồ Chí Minh said: French army occupied some cities, such as Hue, Ha Noi, Hai Phong and some other areas but 95% is belong to Government of Vietnam - Gorverment of the DRV. (Kết quả quân Pháp chiếm đóng những thành phố như Huế, Hà Nội, Hải Phòng và một vài nơi khác. Nhưng 95% lãnh thổ Việt Nam vẫn ở dưới quyền Chính phủ Việt Nam)[1]. You can use Google translate if you cannot speak in Vietnamese.
Can you suggest me some ideas. I think "supporters" cannot express the nature of those Vietnamese. They let their private benefits over the national interest of Vietnam, including national independenceHanam190552 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
With regards to the claim of Hồ Chí Minh, I don't think his statement can be considered a reliable source, as he would have had a clear bias/agenda. If an uninvolved source states this, then that would be fine.
With regards to the other issue, I think "French colonial authorities and Vietnamese sympathisers" is probably the best way of wording it. However, is this claim supported by any unbiased sources? The source I have makes it quite clear that this was not a democratic election. Number 57 17:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, please stop reinserting false claims to the article – this was not the first election in Vietnam. Please stop editing the article until some appropriate wording can be agreed. If you attempt to restore your edits again, I will report you for edit warring. Thanks, Number 57 17:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
how can you prove that the election did not happen in all localities of Vietnam? The result was collected in all areas. With regards to the other issue, you should write that French colononist and Vietnamese sympathy with French colononist. Because French colonial authorities was ousted by Japanese colonial authorities in March, 1945. French accepted to bring Vietnam to Japanese. Việt Minh (not French) was the main force fighted against Japanese. After the Vietnamese August Revolution (Việt Minh ousted Japanese colonial authorities), Viet Minh controled all of the country
It was the first election in Vietnam. Can you find anaother first election in Vietnam? How can you prove that the first one was not the 1946 oneHanam190552 (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there were elections to the Colonial Council for decades before 1946. See some information about the 1939 elections here and here. Further information on previous elections here. Regarding the other claims, you need to provide sources. Also, you were introducing contradictory information into the article stating that voter turnout was 75% and 82% – it can't have been both. Number 57 17:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hanam190552 (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Oh, your resoures do not say that Vietnamese people had the rights to vote. So it is not an election of Vietnam and they were elections of French colonistHanam190552 (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Vietnamese people were allowed to vote (see here), and secondly, even if voting was limited to French citizens, they were still elections in Vietnam. I think the point you are trying to make is that hey were the first elections under full universal suffrage. Number 57 17:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, those elections was for voting local administration in France. According to Treaty of Huế (1884), Cochichina was a part of France so those elections were French local elections, not Vietnam's elections.

Secondly, it is said that electorate for these elections was small and restricted to Vietnamese aldready having connection to colonial goverment. It means that only small part of Vietnamese has rights to vote. So I think we should reach consensus with writing that the 1946 election was the first election, in which all of Vietnamese citizens had rights to vote.Hanam190552 (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cochinchinese parliamentary election, 1939, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constitutionalist Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

DYK for Celtic Park (1888–92)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Celtic Park (1888–92)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Manning pages 268-270 pdf

Hi, I can send you a pdf of:

  • Patrick Manning (2004) Slavery, Colonialism and Economic Growth in Dahomey, 1640-1960, Cambridge University Press, pages 268-270

to fulfill your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive16#Slavery, Colonialism and Economic Growth in Dahomey, 1640-1960. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Email sent. Many thanks in advance. Number 57 09:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mendham and Withersdale Street pages

I edited these pages the other day to add comments about the latest developments surrounding the village hall and added information about a local history book that I have written for the parish of Mendham. It was funded by the local community and is a non-profit venture to bring all the historical information together. I find that it has been removed. Why?

I make no money for the book and people will find it interesting. It is not advertising a commercial venture at all. The village hall has commercial events and references to that are deemed OK.

Can you explain please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.115.230 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see the comment I left at User talk:Colindh. Number 57 19:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Table edits

Are you running a bot of some kind? You keep editing hyphens into tables that I just edited for Burmese general elections, but I'm not sure what purpose is being served in doing so. As it stands, the tables look better before the edits take place. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Maswimelleu: I'm restoring the proper format of the tables; the dashes are supposed to be there to show that the cells are deliberately blank. Cheers, Number 57 20:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you let me know on my talk page if you make similar repeated edits to my work in future? Initially you were outright reverting my edits, which meant I had to go back and re-do work without knowing why it had been reverted. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you not see that the edits you were making had left broken tables? Number 57 22:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not seeing broken tables. The edit revert you're performing is frustrating because it isn't a solution to the issue you're describing. I don't know whether there's a difference in how the tables are displaying for you, but you keep removing the line break between the vote count and totals that is present on templates such as Template:Election summary begin, which is used repeatedly elsewhere on Myanmar pages. It would be more helpful if you could simply replace the code you dislike with a more aesthetically pleasing line break, if you find the existing line break to be unsuitable. Per your comment on my talk page - I'm upset that you're calling me a liar regarding my claims about other articles in the Myanmar elections series. This is not an emotive or personal argument given that it is a debate over an extremely insignificant piece of table formatting. You describe the 2010 and 2015 election articles as requiring a fix - isn't the manner in which the tables are presented something to be discussed openly? You dislike the line break, so is there any other way to highlight the total votes cast and registered voters segment of the election tables to display clearly but also in a way that does not utilise a line break? I would suggest using a solid fill to distinguish them from the rest of the table, which I will try to demonstrate for you in a moment.Maswimelleu (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments on my own talk page. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I see (external link): http://i.imgur.com/iZG5bMx.png I think our difference in browser may play a part in what displays in a decent manner. Maybe you'll disagree, but it that screenshot it looks pretty decent. I coloured the two bottom lines because I personally find it difficult to quickly interpret when summary data (total votes, total registered voters) is not visibly distinguished from the rest of the table. The source line was moved to a reference attached to the title - two issues in one for you there. Could you link me to an election results table for an election unrelated to Myanmar that you would consider to be an example of good practice? I find graphically embellished tables such as the ones used for Indian elections to be very interesting. The colspan for invalid votes envelops more than just the party colour in the Irish article - that's what I meant. It's relatively trivial though, just a way of establishing a break in the table below which there are only summaries of the existing data. The 1990 table looked very, very ugly when I started trying to improve it. It appears you wish to complete the work yourself, but it could have been helpful to make a standard template for all election tables in Myanmar, if the articles are to be homogeneous. I don't know if you've read all the articles back to 1922 yet, but some of those could use tables in the correct style. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a very subjective issue, then. To me, the picture I linked looks considerably better than the tables you linked. As it stands, I'm probably not going to touch elements of tables that you find to be controversial in future, unless that election series has established a clear consensus to the contrary. The cell wall issue is tiny - it took me a while to see what you meant. I may experiment with creating a very thin grey line over one cell in its place, although I don't expect that to be rolled out to any articles in the near future. Tables in the correct style - I just mean that the tables should be of a consistent standard as far back as they can go. Maybe they are now - I haven't double checked. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Mahane Yatir

Hi Number 57,

Good to hear from you again! Yes, Lev Yatir is Mahane Yatir. You can make sure by doing the following:

  • Take the coordinates from bycode.xls, they will look like: 2057258396
  • Separate into two parts: 20572 58396
  • Look in up on a site that allows this coord set, like amudanan.co.il (not convenient tbh, but possible)

Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the Israeli Transverse Mercator system. A while back I saw a converter available to either UMT or regular decimal degrees, but don't remember where now. If it's really important I can find it for you. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
None, apparently. The CBS says as much, as the code of the regional council should appear in the "municipal status" column is the population statistics. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RFPP

I would normally have gone to RFPP but this was active and ongoing and the slow response there wouldn't have been much use. Thanks for your help. WCMemail 13:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Flags

I do not suggest to remove the flag, I suggest to remove just the abrevation of the country from (), for example is no point keeping (ENG) when you have the flag in front ! You can go with the arrow on the flag and it will appear "England". so why to keep (ENG)?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It does not look better with the table more compact ? Easier to read it, without white spaces in the table, and also has the flag in front of it. Is like FIFA Ballon d'Or.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The table in format you talk is to long, you have to scroll down double to can reach the bottom and is harder to read not being one line for a player ! Look now how tidy it looks, you can see better the players in table (not having spaces and multiple lines for one edition) : Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) and is same like FIFA Ballon d'Or.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Dalton

Hi, Dalton, Israel has some references that contain wikilinks in Hebrew that go nowhere. Probably they were just copied verbatim from the Hebrew wiki, but my Hebrew is not up to the task of fixing them. Can you take a look please? Zerotalk 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Done. I think it was a bit of a mess as three books were being cited in one reference, and one was wikilinked as there is an article on it he.wiki (he:בתי כנסת קדומים בארץ ישראל (ספר)). Hopefully now it makes sense? Number 57 23:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kenyan legislative election, 1938
added links pointing to Francis Scott and Nyanza
Kenyan legislative election, 1944
added a link pointing to Nyanza

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Football squad player

Hi! I believe you may help me, i wonder if its possible to change background and text colours in this template header? Think it is nice to change this neutral blue colour to a suitable for each particular club, but couldnt find a way to do it. Cheers, Martinklavier (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Martinklavier: It would be possible, but to be honest I'd strongly advise against it. You would have to raise this at WP:FOOTY and get wider consensus before implementing it - remember, this is used on thousands of articles. Number 57 10:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
No, no. I meant a function for it that could be used in every single article to change the colour - if you dont use it, then you see the default colour. Martinklavier (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Martinklavier: Before making any changes to a widely-used template, it is a good idea to seek consensus. Personally I would not want to see it in different colours on different articles, and I have no idea why this would benefit the reader. Number 57 10:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hm, ok then. Thank you for quick response. Martinklavier (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Angola page move

Hi Number 57. You are 100% right. After I moved, I got up to do something else and while I was a out it, it dawned on me that I had done the wrong thing and came back here to turn it back. Yes, indeed, the term "general" covers both. Thanks for fixing and contacting me. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Burma parties template

Wow, you're marking party pages faster than I can count. I might add a few links around and update some early election pages to reflect what you've added, but since you're adding them so quickly can you add them all to the former parties section of Template:Myanma political parties? I think it'd make life easier for editors if not readers if they were all there, as quite a few are getting orphaned by not being put on there.

Another quick question - do you think it'd be wise to add "appointees" to the results boxes for elections held in the partially elected chambers of British Burma. As it stands, it's not entirely clear that only 80 out of 130 seats were up for election in the 1920's.

Oh, one last thing. The flag of Burma was technically this before 1937. How do I set it to come up properly on the election pages before then? Maswimelleu (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Maswimelleu: Rather than editing the template in a piecemeal fashion, I was planning one big update when I finished all the new articles, which hopefully should be within a week or two.
If we know the number of appointees, then I see no problem adding them. The one issue I have is that the Fukui source states that there were 82 elected seats in the 1922 elections (58 non-communal seats and 24 communal seats). Is he wrong, or was the 1922 election different to the 1925, 1928 and 1932 elections in terms of number of seats? Certainly the 1932 election (the only one which Fukui accounts for all seats) has a total of 80. What I really need is a proper source dedicated to Legislative Council elections in Burma (the ones I have are more focussed on the political parties, or are sketchy news reports in the UK).
Re the flag, it's not included in {{Country data Myanmar}}. This will need to be amended to add another year to make the 1932 flag appear. Number 57 22:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Seychelle 2007 election

Hej Number 57

i would like to know why you changed my edit on the 2007 Seychelle election. And it would be nice to know what the problem is with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcaton15 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

RfA nomination Qed237

Hi.

I write this message to you as you are one of the administrators that I come in contact with on a regular basis.

The reason is this nomination at my talkpage from a editor that I dont have talk with very much, but I see him/her editing the same articles. I have been nominated by others before (never nominated myself), but in those cases I withdrew immediately, before voting started, because I did not feel ready.

Now I wonder if you, as an administrator, have any comments regarding this nomination or perhaps even questions? Do you think I have any chance of becoming an administrator and that I should move on with the nomination or should I withdraw? What is my next step?

Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian parliamentary election, 1848-1910

If I remember correctly, you created and expanded the articles about Hungarian national elections between 1920 and 2010. If you will have time and feel, could you do that same thing at Hungarian elections before 1920? The current situation is horrible and unsourced. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Norden1990: Unfortunately I don't have a source for those elections. If I did, I'd be more than happy to sort them out (I agree they are in an awful state). Well done for creating all those political party articles though!! Number 57 12:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Next week, I'll go to the metropolitan library to find sources, but Hungarian election systems were usually over-complicated in history. During the era of Dualism, only 5-6% of the people had right to vote. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem, and good luck! I have largely exhausted easily available sources for election articles now, and am spending increasing amounts of time at the British Library or the SOAS library to get obscure books... Number 57 16:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

East Timor Football

Since you rejected my efforts to removed questionable content I think you might be interested in http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/sock-puppets-attacking-football-data-in-south-east-asia/ Gnangarra 08:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: But you weren't attempting to remove questionable content – you were simply seeking to delete a viable article. What you should have done was to try and source it properly (which I have now done). I also have to question your subsequent tagging of the article – you've tagged it as unreferenced (when it has a reference), of dubious notability (it's a list we have for every country) and as having verifiability problems, yet have not started a discussion on the talk page (as that's what the tag refers to). Perhaps you could have been a bit more constructive about fixing the problems rather than simply trying to delete it. In sourcing the list properly, I identified that there are several clubs in the category that do not appear to have a listing, namely:
You might want to consider whether some of these are hoaxes instead. Number 57 12:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burma Democratic Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Democratic Front. 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) 10:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference style at National Independent Union

Hello, Number57. With this edit you reverted the changes I made to one of the references in this article, with the comment that the "change to reference was awful". It may not be to your personal taste, but it is in line with the guidelines (see Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_page_numbers), which the old article was not; it mixed two different citation styles. If there is another relevant guideline that I am not aware of, then please bring it to my attention. Otherwise, I think the guidelines take precedence over personal preference.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I think you've misunderstood – that is a help page showing you how it can be done, which is very different to a guideline showing you how it should be done. I have never seen this format before in my 10+ years editing, and as I said, it is really awful. I will remove it again from the article. Number 57 11:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
A relevant guideline for this discussion is WP:CITEVAR ("Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change."). Number 57 11:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Precisely! I am not attempting to change the style, but to implement one consistent style. If you read on a little further in that same guideline, you will find that it says to avoid switching between citation styles, and it recommends "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles...: an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit". At the moment, it alternates between full and short citation styles, whereas WP:FNNR says to use "either short citations or full citations" (my emphasis). I don't know why you have not come across this; it is widely used and is the recommended approach for referring to different pages within a single source. And I don't know why you find it "awful" - but I don't think that any one editor's personal preferences on style should take precedence over the guidelines.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: As far as I'm concerned, the style is consistent with normal citation methods – the book is cited in full in the first instance, and secondary references to it only need to state the authors and page number. Additionally, I wouldn't say a system used on 0.3% of Wikipedia articles is "widely used". Number 57 11:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there a guideline that supports that mixture of styles, because it is contrary to all the guidelines I can find; they all say to use consistent citation styles. Or are we just discussing personal preferences?--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: There isn't a mixture of styles here. Number 57 11:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Huh; where are we getting crossed wires on this? There are only two references in the article: the first one uses full style and the second uses short style. I find it hard to imagine a more clear-cut example of mixed styles.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: This is a standard referencing technique, not a mixed style. After the first full description of a source, secondary uses do not have to spell out the title/publisher etc in full again. Number 57 12:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Great; if it is a standard referencing technique in Wikipedia then it should be easy to find the guideline supporting it. I can't; all the guidelines I found said the opposite. Even the one guideline you cited says not to do references this way.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: There is no guideline for referencing technique, just examples of how you can do it. Please just respect WP:CITEVAR (i.e. respect the established style for the article). I have nothing more to say. Thanks, Number 57 12:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm - no consensus there, then. I had hoped to engage in a more constructive conversation, rather than just insisting that your way is right because you say so, regardless of the guidelines (of which there are plenty; see what I quoted previously). I was trying to respect WP:CITEVAR, which recommends "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles". But this is not worth losing sleep over and it's getting late here: good night.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tanbircdq_and_Israeli_politician_articles

Maybe you take a look on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Maghtas. I won't bring that to the ANI board - the German WP would be much more critical, but you might see a certain tendency. Regards Polentarion Talk 06:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Armenian Constitutional Referendum

Hi, I noticed you have been editing the article and, since the talk page was unused (and probably not going to be looked at), I thought I'd leave a message here. It says that the referendum is to 'transform the country into a parliamentary republic.' -It would probably be a good idea to include from what it is transforming for the ignorant like myself. Hollth (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hollth: I watch the article (I have almost all election articles outside the UK, US, Australia and NZ on my watchlist) so would have spotted the comment. The term parliamentary republic is linked in that sentence, so you can click through to read. However, I have clarified by adding another link to semi-presidential system, the current status. Does this answer your question? Number 57 16:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Perfect. Hollth (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Venezuelan Election Infobox

As per your edit here, I changed it to what you're asking for. The figure on the 2010 page is 98 seats for the PSUV, so it's a drop of 43. Where are you getting the 96 seats (for a drop of 41) figure from?

"Comparison should be to last election, not situation directly before. See e.g. United Kingdom general election, 2015"

The seats right before the vote were 96, with 2 seats being lost to the PSUV between elections. I'm a bit confused by what you mean, since you seem to have jumbled up the two numbers. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Maswimelleu: I assume you've based the figure on the infobox for the 2010 election, which is incorrect. Have a look at the results table – the PSUV won 96 seats. Cheers, Number 57 19:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow, the 2010 election article is poorly laid out. I'm going to make some corrections there. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Soviet elections

Hi, departing from the exciting talk about singular and plural, you mentioned that you used Nohlen & Stöver on lots of election articles. Does the work have any info on sub-federal elections in the Soviet Union? I'm thinking about Lithuanian supreme soviet elections 1947-1985, in particular. The elections were obviously a sham, but it would still be nice to be able to show how the sham unfolded and would eliminate the red links in Lithuanian election template. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@No longer a penguin: Unfortunately not. I discovered a great source that allowed me to do all the Estonian articles, but haven't come across any others. Like every other country, it's on my to-do list at the British Library one day... Number 57 13:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, I'll see if I come across anything locally. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@No longer a penguin: Good luck. Do you live in Lithuania then? Number 57 13:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Not anymore, but I visit from time to time. That said, I haven't visited an actual offline library in Lithuania in years. Could be a fun experience. From what I understand, there is little reason to expect a compiled source about elections to the supreme soviet, but there might be sources related to each individual session of the "parliament". I'll try to take a look. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Elections

Hi, Nigerien presidential election, 2011 and Nigerien parliamentary election, 2011 should not merge into a new page, named "Nigerien general election, 2011" (the first round of presidential election and parliamentary election were held on the same day)? --151 cp (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@151 cp: Yes, that would be a good idea. Number 57 08:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@151 cp: I've done it, see Nigerien general election, 2011. Number 57 14:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir gidabout

Sorry if any genuine ones were caught up, but they are an editor with a long history (in such a short time) of adding false information and also known for trolling (see their block log), and all the edits were unexplained and unsourced. GiantSnowman 09:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Thank you for your tremendous contributions! (And I need some assistance)

Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia! I especially appreciate all the political party pages you created that I did not have time to create myself. It's fantastic that you contributed some of your own time to create them.

Also I have a question: How do you archive discussions on talk pages? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks again!

- CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: Which page do you want to archive. Is this a one-off or a recurring thing? Number 57 17:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: I want to archive discussions that have been inactive for over a year. Is there a way I can do that with a template? Or is it manual? - CentreLeftRight ✉ 17:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@CentreLeftRight: You can set up a bot to do it. Let me know which page and I'll put it on for you. Number 57 17:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Democratic List
added a link pointing to Liberal League
Left Liberals
added a link pointing to Liberal League

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Luxembourg general election, 1954

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luxembourg_general_election,_1954&diff=695948463&oldid=695940843

Maybe you'd like to please leave an explanation on the talk page for this article why you reverted my edit and what your problem was with my changes, rather than just writing "Restore proper results table" ... since what I left WAS a proper results table. Dr Gangrene (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dr Gangrene: I appreciate you may have spent some time on it, but I'm afraid it really was quite awful, and pretty much everything about it was wrong – for instance, it doesn't have a proper header row, the party names shouldn't be bolded, the vote numbers and percentages should be right aligned, the percentage sign is unnecessary, the additional column for the percentage graphic is unnecessary (and duplicates the graph below), the seat number graphic splits over two rows making them unnecessarily large, the +/– is back-to-front on one row. The normal table doesn't have any of these issues. Number 57 23:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Amir Ohana is expected to replace Silvan Shalom as Knesset member

Ohana is also the chairman of the gay Likud cell. You are invited to expand the article I started. --Midrashah (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Zombie

Hi Number 57. I've noticed that on February 11, 2015 you had moved protection settings from Zombie to Zombie (folklore) as per RM at Talk:Zombie. I was wondering if you could move those settings back considering the two pages have since merged as of December 20 2015 (alas) and protection is still needed. Thank you kindly and keep up the excellent work! Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Savvyjack23: Done. Apologies for the delay, but I had other things to do yesterday ;) Number 57 19:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Harper

Done. Sorry for the mistake; I read "who plays for whateverclub" and assumed that he...plays for them, not that he's merely signed to them. Hopefully nobody throws a fit about me deleting a page after the prod was contested. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elections in Rwanda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plurality. 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) 09:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Ari Ankorin - Should be Ankorion

Hi, I don't know how to change the heading (Never done that), but the correct name is Ankorion. See web-site of the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) with his short bio https://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp?mk_individual_id_t=263 Jgalron (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jgalron: That's very strange. The Knesset website had him as Ankorin 3 days ago. Did you influence their change?
You move articles using the "move" tab at the top of the page. Number 57 20:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I sent them a message, and they fixed it. I saw that there are also entries in the Lithuanian and Czech Wikipedias. As I mentioned earlier, I am not practiced in Wikipedia editing - I still have to find the "Move" button :-) . Thank you for your help. Jgalron (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Although I have my Wikipedia account for a long time, I don't have enough editing history, so I don't have the "Move" tab (I have more experience in the Hebrew Wikipedia).

Would you correct the entry to Ankorion? Thank you in advance and all the best, Joseph Galron-Goldschlager Jgalron (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gabonese presidential election, 2009
added a link pointing to Association
Next Austrian legislative election
added a link pointing to Hare method

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

List of current Senators of Pakistan

Hello, you recently re-named the page from List of MNAs elected in Pakistani general election, 2013 to List of elected members of the National Assembly of Pakistan (2013–) so I thought of asking you about your opinion about List of current Senators of Pakistan. As you can see here, half of the senators took office from 2015 while half from 2012 so I'm confused what to rename the page. --Saqib (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Saqib: Are the elections every three years for half the Senate? If so, I'd have a list for every three-year period (so there would be one for 2015−15 and one for 2015−18. Number 57 17:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To prevent ethnocentric edits

Dear administrator, thanks for your attention to this dispute. Unfortunately some users are trying to achieve ambitious ethnocentric aims and not historically-verified and documented facts are seeking especially in case of so-called the Greater Kurdistan territory. Our goal in free encyclopedia is to promote realistic and not ethnocentric knowledge. I provided some valid citations and sources to discuss but they were moved several times by the user Gomada.
Another falsifying and WP:POVPUSH objective evidence is in cases of Feyli people page [1] and their language [2] which was converted to Feyli Kurds and Southern Kurdish language by this users Oblivious to hot discussions and dispute over their Lurish or Kurdish identity. I hope we find a solution for this dispute. I proposed a move requset to convert these pages to their original names Feyli People and Feyli language and not Feyli Lurs to discuss this pages more honestly. You can see many opposition views over these pages in their talk section.
Best regards--Shadegan (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Tiptree Residents Association

Greetings, Number 57. I have no intention of contesting (ie AFDing) this thing which you dePRODed, but I'm curious about the reasoning; surely have members on the borough council in and of itself does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? I've always been under the impression we stopped at the state/province level for "automatic" notability. If substantial coverage existed, of course, we could go below that; but there doesn't seem to be any in this case.....I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: As far as I'm aware, there is no consensus at all regarding party notability; some editors believe simply being a registered party is enough (which I tend to disagree with). I don't see the harm in retaining this article – the party had a long-term presence on the council, and outide its political role, is also a community organisation. Plus, as I mentioned (I think) in the edit summary, we also have dozens of other articles on similar parties.
On a related note, would you mind withdrawing the TfD nomination? Although I think the system created for the election results boxes is rather convoluted, unfortunately it is what we have to deal with, and deleting the template would break the display of results on a few articles. Cheers, Number 57 11:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I nominated the template because it looked like a useless template created by a newbie; when I click on the template, all I am seeing is its name. I might have misunderstood the way that those templates work, because it seems to be functional on the page you linked? I could withdraw the nomination, but the TfD would still need a formal close.
I'm still rather doubtful about the article, though; is there even any indication that it is a registered party? And if it is, are we proceeding under the assumption that parties with success is local (ie smaller than state/province) elections are notable? That seems rather a low threshold to me, and particularly problematic outside the english-speaking world, where local elections and parties exist in their hundreds, but sources are non-existent. Yes, other articles exist, but maybe it's time for a relook at how we determine notability for all of those. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Yes, I'm not entirely sure how the template works, but basically you put the full party name (as in the article title) into the results box, and it then looks at that template to work out what name to display in the box. You can see in that link I posted in the TfD discussion what happens if the template isn't there.
From looking on Google, it seems the organisation still exists, but no longer contests elections. However, that doesn't have any impact on its notability - historic parties as just as notable as current ones. As I said, there isn't any current agreement (at least as far as I'm aware) of what constitutes a notable party (personally I have only ever created them for parties that have contested national elections or held seats in a national legislature, but I'm aware many other editors feel differently. I don't have any problem with that article existing – I'd imagine if you have access to archives of a newspaper covering the Tiptree area there would probably have been plenty of coverage, as it looks like it was active for over two decades. Number 57 17:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up; I have withdrawn the TfD.
About the article; you're asking what problem there is with this article existing, and I don't think there is any per se. However, I think that's the wrong question. We're not applying WP:GNG here; the closest applicable notability guideline is WP:POLITICIAN, a logical extension of which this would fail; so by creating these articles, we're sort of creating a de facto guideline which says "all parties that have won local elections are notable," even when that is (as at present) unverified. This I have a problem with, because it is a license for folks to create hundreds of unsourced stubs. Particularly in the south Asian pages, where I've worked a fair bit, this would be a serious issue. Do you think it would be reasonable to begin an RfC (what would be the right venue?) to figure this out? Perhaps a proposal at WP:VP? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I don't think any parallels can be drawn between WP:POLITICIAN and a guideline for parties; there are thousands of politicians in the UK who fail the guideline but who are members of notable parties. Alternatively, there are several notable parties who have no members that pass WP:POLITICIAN.
I would probably start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, but any discussion that takes place must be highlighted to all the national and sub-national politics projects (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, as any agreed guideline will have a huge impact on (possibly hundreds of) existing articles that members of those projects have views on, and any discussion that takes place without their input would be pointless. I am skeptical that you'd be able to get consensus as I'm aware there is a wide range of views, so ultimately it may have to come down to a case-by-case GNG approach. Number 57 18:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting NPOL be applied to parties, I'm saying it's the closest guideline by topic matter. Yes, it might indeed come down to a case-by-case GNG approach; but I haven't seen evidence that Tiptree Residents Association meets GNG! Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Population updates

If you read the article reference (in Hebrew), all the population figures are from the latest CBS release, the same source you are referencing. The figures are true of December 31, 2015. While I understand your desire to keep the templates, the latest information, in my view, takes precedence. Besides, more than half of my edits update information from over 3, 4 or even 8 years, not just Dec. 2014. Yours, Eliyyahu (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The strong political tone of that source does not give much confidence in its reliability. I will support you in restoring the orderly use of the templates. Zerotalk 22:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

not biased and from a neutral point of view

Related to Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012: The idea of wikipedia is to provide information and characterize information. For strictly official results people can go to the official links. That is why more information should be provided regarding the percentages because it is part of understanding the political process. If you find something in the table that are not the actual results please correct them.

Thank you for understanding. Caco1313 (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caco1313: Referendum results are presented with percentages related to the options that voters can choose. The fact that some politicians against the result have chosen to attempt to interpret the results in a non-standard way can be mentioned in the text, but the results table is not the place for this. If you still refuse to accept that this is how we present referendum results on Wikipedia, at least respect WP:BRD and start a discussion on the article talk page. If instead, you continue your current tactic of simply reverting, you will probably eventually end up being sanctioned. Thanks, Number 57 11:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the procedure. I just entered wikipedia last week and I am learning my way through. For example, I am not sure I am posting this message in the right way. In this spirit, would you help me how to start a discussion (take it to talk of the page) on the article talk page so we can debate it properly? best Caco1313 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caco1313: We can debate it here, although I'm not sure there is anything really to debate; the alternative results are not appropriate for the results table as they are not the proper results – that is not how referendum results are calculated (blank votes are not included when calculating percentages). The 44% claim is a cynical angle used by opponents of the results to claim that it wasn't the actual result, but on Wikipedia we present facts. However, what we can do is add some text to the article stating that this is how some people chose to interpret the results. Would you be happy with this? Number 57 20:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Good to see your message! Reading the article again I have a suggestion: can we add a section under the results in which the interpretation of the opposition is presented, and labels as such with a separate table. Wikipedia's role is not to support official government positions but to provide information AND characterize information. Some facts remain true: the number of people that voted, the number of blank ballots, the call to leave ballots blank. I don't have issues with angles different than mine to be included if they provide an interesting point of the issue, which is the case here. There is also another point that should be added to the article, another characterization of information, that I heard from those supporting the official interpretation of the results: "Statehood" option in part 2 got more votes than the "yes" option in part 1. Still learning and looking forward to work with you on these. Caco1313 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caco1313: The 61% result is not the "official government position", it is the actual result, and it is not a point that is up for debate. See, for example, how the academic Direct Democracy website presents the result.
But anyway, suggest some text (and provide some reliable sources to back up the claims) and we can start writing a section. Number 57 21:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Using the same reference already cited: 498,604 of the ballots in section 2 were left blank. That is also a fact already included in the article. My point is that it should be included in both, writing, and also table format to make it easy for users to digest the information. The percentage of ballots left blank has political importance regardless of opinions. I propose that we work together on a table that shows this to make sure that the information is clear and useful. On a different matter, do you oppose to include something like the following: "Statehood" option in part 2 got more votes than the "yes" option in part 1. Caco1313 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caco1313: There is no need at all for a separate table as this is a very simple matter and can be dealt with in the text (a table would be confusing to readers, as it may give the impression that the alternative interpretation is regarded as a valid one). How is this for a paragraph?

Although the statehood option was approved by 61% of valid votes, opponents of the result argued that the high proportion of blank votes in the second question meant that only 44% of voters had actually voted for it. However, the statehood option received more votes in favor than the option of continuing with the current territorial status in the first question.

Number 57 16:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

List of members of the ninth Legislative Yuan

It's not necessary a better title. For anything regarding renaming an article title, please consult first in the talk page. I've named the title as such (List of Legislative Yuan members elected in the Republic of China legislative election, 2016) because I was following the previous titles as well, which are:

I mean, once change of a title will effect other related articles name changing. And it has to be renamed all if you want to change one, to maintain the consistency.Chongkian (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Chongkian: It's a fairly standard format for naming. See (e.g.) List of members of the twentieth Knesset, and also matches (roughly) the category name. Another would be List of members of the Riksdag, 2014–18. The title of the Legislative Yuan ones is both unnecessarily long and complicated, and also limits the list in terms of what it contains (specifically, it would also be useful to include any MPs replacing incumbents if they retire or die, but having "elected in XXXX" precludes this).
Do you really think the move is so controversial that it requires an RM? IMO it would be easier simply to rename the 2008 one (I would have done that too for consistency, but I couldn't find it as it wasn't included in Category:Members of the 7th Legislative Yuan). Number 57 00:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you have taken it upon yourself to unilaterally change the names of Taiwan-related articles away from its official name, which is the Republic of China. The China-Taiwan issue is a sensitive one which extends to the naming of each political entity. For instance, you ignored a previous RM on the article Elections in the Republic of China which concluded that it should not be renamed. Kindly conduct the needful in making a request for renaming. Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Huaiwei: Firstly, accusing editors of acting "unilaterally" is never a good start, as WP:BEBOLD is a Wikipedia guideline, and this kind of attitude is never going to help you start a debate in a constructive manner. Secondly, you mention me ignoring an RM, which I was unaware of, which is rather unfair. In contrast, you are almost certainly aware of the fact that the main article is at Taiwan, and that any articles related to a subject generally following the same naming pattern. Number 57 16:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Patish

Hi there. When u created the Patish article, you wrote "Located in the north-western Negev near Ofakim, it falls under 683." - what does that last part mean? Bad Dryer (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bad Dryer: It should have read "it falls under the jurisdiction of Merhavim Regional Council. In 2006 it had a population of 683." I must had inadvertently deleted the missing text whilst editing the article. Now fixed with the most recent population. Number 57 08:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assembly of Representatives election, 1944, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maccabi. 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) 09:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

First Ibrox article

Hello, I've started an article on Ibrox Park (1887–99), as this was something of a glaring omission from coverage of Scottish grounds. Just wondered if you might be able to suggest any improvements, as I've only used one reference so far. Jellyman (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jellyman: Good work, I have expanded it. Number 57 16:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! Jellyman (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Spanish NATO referendum

Before you go on and revert other people's edits, please do use a calculator and check what you think are "correct percentages". Divide the number of votes "yes" and "no" with the total number of votes, and see who's right. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 07:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sideshow Bob: I don't need a calculator – the infobox on the article has it built in, and automatically calculates it. But for your sake, I've done the calculation myself and come up with the same result as the infobox. I assume you've made the mistake of including blank and invalid votes in your calculation? The total of yes and no votes should equal 100%. Number 57 08:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Philippine House of Representatives elections in foo

These articles had existed since 2010 (such as Philippine House of Representatives elections in CALABARZON, 2010), and the format and titles were based on articles such as United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts, 2014. It seems that the relevant section(?) in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation) didn't exist in 2010, so I followed what was the only articles that were similar in scope. I'm not saying that these articles are not within the scope of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation), but seeing as the titles were adopted before the policy was made, I'm saying that at least the titling of such articles be at least considered for discussion. –HTD 12:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: Wouldn't it be simpler to simply rename the 2010 articles? I don't see it being terribly controversial. The older naming format is very awkward. Cheers, Number 57 12:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"Philippine House of Representatives election, 2016 (Ilocos Region)" implies that the subject is commonly referred to as "Philippine House of Representatives election" in the Ilocos Region. There is an argument that it isn't. This is a descriptive title, and what's in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation) is assigning it a title when there shouldn't be one.
Also, there's some grammar issue with "House of Representative election, 2016" vs. "Legislative (or parliamentary) election, 2016". The former works if the name of chamber is used; if there is more than one election (or "district"), we'd use the plural form "elections", and if there's only one election (district), we'd use the singular "district". For the latter, AFAIK, it's a;ways singular. –HTD 12:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: I don't entirely follow your first point, but my understanding of the naming guideline is that common name doesn't really come into it – it's a set formula.
I'm not sure I really understand your second point either. We shouldn't use the plural even if there is more than one district – the two examples cited in the guideline are regions with multiple constituencies. I don't see any grammatical issue with either singular or plural (which are commonly used fairly interchangeably for elections), but the guideline specifically advises using the singular. Number 57 13:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggest we continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation). –HTD 13:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
On my second point though, it was my understanding that we use how many "elections" are there if we're using the "<country> <chamber name> election/s, <year>" format, and singular "election" in "<country> <type of election> election, <year>" format, as these make perfect grammatical sense. –HTD 13:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Re: Electoral wards

Hi Number 57, first time using a Talk page so I hope I am doing it right! (not sure if best to reply on original message or on your TP). Thanks for the... thanks! I do plan to link the wards to all the election pages when I get around to it along with making the bottom-page-infobox (not sure what its actually called!). I did try and make an infobox earlier but failed miserably, although with the link you provided me I will be able to draw one up with ease. I'm working on some infoboxes for the top of the ward pages right now but will move on to the others when I get a chance. Of course, feel free to help! Thanks, C.david.ham (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57:: Sorry to bombard you with messages; very quick question: do you think it would be wise to change the naming format of the Colchester wards from "x (Colchester electoral ward)" to "x (Colchester BC ward)" as is the format for the Kettering ward names or just leave them as they are? I would prefer to try and standardise naming formats if possible but it may not matter much, I'm not sure. Any advice appreciated. Thanks. 09:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wilfrid Havelock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abyssinia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

You do not pick your fields of interest on wikipedia and where you contribute very well. Just a thought as it might become worrysome! There is a conflict of interest between some political pages where you have contributed. If you have strong affiliations towards a specific one,please do not contribute to the other one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.127.200 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@5.12.127.200: lol, very funny. Where do I have a conflict of interest then? Number 57 20:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not funny at all!!! I am not able to get publicly into details. I have messaged the admin over the details and they should contact you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.105.172 (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure "the admin" will take your claims very seriously. Number 57 09:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a lot of nerve. Eventually I will kick you out myself off that specific page as you probably know what I am talking about and obviously you only look for trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.105.172 (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Judging by your IP address, you appear to be in Romania, so I'd be very interested to hear what conflict of interest I have in relation to anything to do with the country, seeing as I've never been there. Which page are you referring to? Number 57 10:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Colonial elections

Thanks for the feedback - much appreciated! I normally don't create very brief stubs, but they'd been important unfilled articles for so long and I figured getting something in there with the exact dates might allow them to be filled out in bits over time.

I think the "colonial election" bit just started as a shift when we got back past federation, after which time "state election" is used universally, and we needed something to denote that they weren't actually states before 1901. I do kind of like it - unlike a lot of places, Australia's one place where a bunch of distinct colonies directly transferred to becoming states in a federation, but I am not wedded to it, we just need something that makes that distinction so people don't get confused about the election status.

"House of Assembly election" doesn't work because of the Legislative Council elections, which very often but not completely reliably were held as part of the regular elections. (I left it out of the stubs in most cases because Legislative Council election dates are a seriously confusing task that I still haven't completely straightened out prior to 1910 in any case, since they've got staggered terms, kept changing the bloody structure every few elections, and are less interesting to me than in the House because they were mostly landed gentry, but it does need to go in when someone can be bothered.)

I would probably suggest going all the way back to using "general election" if you really dislike "colonial election" - I have a slight stylistic preference for the latter, but they're both correct so I'm not going to get too worked up either way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Number 57

The Shirt58 award for having a username that includes a player number
I identify as quite bonkers most of the time.

That said, thank you for your improvements of Michael Blundell. Sir Michael does seem to be an important figure in post-independence Kenya. While I am aware that he could be considered as an extension of the "The White Man's Burden" in post-colonial Africa, he does appear to have loved his adopted country, and done hist best of all of its citizens. Could we possibly work together to get the article up to WP:DYK status?

ps: have i mentioned that I identify as quite bonkers most of the time? Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Shirt58: Yes, you might have mentioned it :) The article is now long enough to qualify for DYK, so it's just an issue of picking what what interesting fact you want to use for the hook. Perhaps "Did you know that Michael Blundell founded the New Kenya Party, the country's first multi-racial party?" Number 57 23:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Ready — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.102.45 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Nice work fixing the Bosnia and Herzegovina page so that flag inside its Infobox national football team does not fall on the second line below the Bosnia and Herzegovina long name. This bugged me for ages, your fix made my day. I am sure many will notice and appreciate it. Many thanks. BiHVolim (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Talk:Arlington Heights station (Illinois)

Hey, could you take another look at your close at Talk:Arlington Heights station (Illinois)? It seems the support was leaning for Arlington Heights station, which is still a red link.--Cúchullain t/c 17:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Sorry, my bad. Thanks for bringing it to my attention (I did think it was a little odd that there was no DAB page). Now moved. Number 57 17:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for the quick fix.--Cúchullain t/c 17:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Combined general elections vs Split parliamentary / presidential (etc) verisons

Hi — I noticed your rename of the Kenya National Assembly elections, 2013 via the associated change on Wikidata. Recently I've been trying to do something similar on Wikidata to what you've been doing here — i.e. ensure that every national election has a page there with at least basic info. But triggered by this, I'm curious as to whether you have any thoughts around how to best handle simultaneous elections: for example the quite common case — like this one in Kenya — where there were presidential and legislative elections on the same day. Often Wikipedia only has one page for the elections as a whole, whereas it seems like Wikidata should really have one for each conceptually different thing within that: the 'office contested' will be different, the 'successful candidate'(s) should probably be differentiated, the 'follows' / 'followed by' might differ if the elections aren't always on the same cycle, etc. I don't think there's necessarily a big problem with having them split up like that — it just makes it slightly difficult sometimes to work out how to do the cross-linking — but it also seems like they should also be grouped together in some way too. (Or if there's already been relevant discussion on this elsewhere, a pointer to that would be most appreciated — I haven't been able to find anything so far). And thanks for the great work on making all the pages exist here — that's been making it much simpler to go through and connect them all up on Wikidata! --Oravrattas (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oravrattas: Generally we have a single article on national election events (general elections). In a few cases there are separate articles (e.g. the US), but this tends to be where a combined article would be huge; in other cases, separate pages can be created for the detailed results (so one article for the combined elections, one specifically for results). The Kenyan articles were a complete mess (it seems someone created one for each individual consistency) and I will start cleaning these up in the near future.
What kind of pages are you creating on Wikidata? Cheers, Number 57 15:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
in most cases it's been more a matter of making sure that the existing Wikidata pages all have usable 'instance of' values set, but in quite a few countries that has been slightly complicated by being mapped to conceptually different things. To take something like Template:Brazilian elections: the 2010 elections have separate pages — Brazilian presidential election, 2010 and Brazilian legislative election, 2010, and therefore have separate Wikidata pages too. However the 2006 and 2014 elections each have a combined page on each site, and so the linked Wikidata pages would really need to split in two. In some cases this further complicated by some language Wikipedias having separate pages (often fr), but others not, or only doing so sometimes, and the values in Wikidata being set to an odd mix of both, presumably from people coming through from each site, and separately thinking it's about something subtly different. The most common case is that this results in legislative elections having the Office and/or Winner set to the president, but I've also had to unravel some cases where the 'follows'/'followed by' links go to mismatched things. I can certainly see the value in having the combined pages within Wikipedia, but it seems more sensible to have them split within Wikidata. --Oravrattas (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Falsification on Palestine national football team

Hi, there's an edit war and falsification at Palestine national football team. Again, once in a while, some editor associates the team with Palestine although the official sources from FIFA says completely the opposite (see the disscusion). Can you spare me the reporting process and deal with it? cause i'm sick and tired of doing it all over again. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't falsification. There are links from the FIFA website proving the fact that Mandatory Palestine's games are indeed associated with Palestine- the association page on FIFA.com says the FA was found in 1928 (http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=ple/index.html) and the match log attributes games in 1934 (http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/teams/country=ple/matches/year=1934/index.html), 1938 (http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/teams/country=ple/matches/year=1938/index.html), and 1940 (http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/teams/country=ple/matches/year=1940/index.html). Israel's first match? 1948 (http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/teams/country=isr/matches/year=1948/index.html)

I've got better things to do with my time than edit Wikipedia pages- but look at my history- I'm the one updating this page with squad information- this isn't some attempt at trolling. Infantom obviously has a political agenda and is ignoring facts from FIFA itself. There's a link between Mandatory Palestine and the IFA but there's also a link with the PFA. This would be an issue if I was going on that page and deleting history- but I'm not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstriker06 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that you've repeatedly tried to reinsert the controversial claims about the Palestinian FA's history. As I said on the article talk page, I suggest you see what other editors think at WT:FOOTY. Number 57 20:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please consider the closure of this Rfc

As you may be aware, a user (Spirit Ethanol) has requested that Palestine be displayed as a sovereign state in its own right over at List of state leaders in 2016, and he has, in my opinion, falsely worded his Rfc question: "Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel"—which, in my estimation, is a blatantly biased question, as hardly anyone would ever infer that Palestine (i.e. the Palestinian National Authority renamed) is purely some sort of "substate" of Israel, more accurately rather a "quasi-sovereign state partially under Israeli occupation". Most of the contributors over at the Rfc seem currently unaware that the status quo is in fact Palestine being listed as a separate sovereign entity, believing that the Rfc is a proposal to revert this to what the status quo actually is at present, hence the confusion and commotion. Personally, I honestly believe that the user is simply trying to score pro-Palestinian political points (as per WP:POINT) and is simply in denial of the reality on the ground over at that disputed area or perhaps unaware. Due to the sensitive nature of the dispute, the survey has become heated somewhat with editors misled in believing that Palestine is somehow displayed as a subnation within Israel. This is 100% untrue. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, Palestine is not considered a sovereign state on par with Israel and other independent nations. If you could review the dispute, please consider either closing it altogether or temporarily halting it (a moratorium), as the neutrality of its wording has been called into question by at least two other editors involved. On a further note, the issue was not even discussed on the talk page before the Rfc, as the aforementioned user decided to skip this part of the process, further calling into question his conduct and reluctance to seek local consensus first. All that said, I believe that WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT seems to be his argument at the moment—as he has not sufficiently laid out his reasoning as to why Palestine should be displayed as a fully independent & sovereign nation. Thanks.--Neve–selbert 06:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You really need to read up on CANVASSING and FORUMSHOPPING.--TMCk (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@TracyMcClark: I have. You must realise that time is ticking with the aforementioned Rfc, with many editors likely to be mislead via the bias and non-neutrality of its wording. This is a serious cause for concern.--Neve–selbert 15:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
No. There is no deadline and the only "serious concern" is you posting all over the place trying to get your personal preset outcome implemented while flat out dismissing every concern voiced by others. That is a fact, whether you see it or not.--TMCk (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@TracyMcClark: Look, the Rfc question was misworded. Nobody has suggested that Palestine is some sort of a subnation within Israel, yet that is the accusation others have made against my position. One cannot simply whitewash this patent travesty of conduct on the part of Spirit Ethanol. He also failed to discuss the issue before the Rfc—surely this is a cause for concern?--Neve–selbert 16:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hello, Thank you for the barnstar.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Amir Ohana

Hello. Could you please let me know why did you remove Ohana's activities list in 20th Knesset? Is there any reason for that? Thank you and regards. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @Arthistorian1977: Because it was inappropriate for an article. What you added was something I would expect to see listed on his Knesset page or a CV. By all means add something in the text (e.g. "Upon entering the Knesset, he became a member of the Lobby for medical cannabis and chair of the Lobby for shaping the gun carrying policy in Israel."), but please don't re-add a bullet point list. Cheers, Number 57 09:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The information I've added is taken from Knesset website. I don't understand why do think it's not appropriate.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Arthistorian1977: This is not the Knesset website; profiles on the Knesset website are bullet point lists akin to a CV. The information itself is not inappropriate; the manner in which you were adding it to the article was. I hope you understand now? Number 57 11:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I understood your point, but looking at the other politicians articles, I find the same manner in which their positions are listed, i.e. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Itzik Shmuli, Dov Khenin, etc. Cheers. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Arthistorian1977: Apologies, I missed your last message. Very disappointed to see you've added the CV stuff again. I have converted it into text as suggested above. Please be more constructive in future. Thanks, Number 57 15:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57: No need to apologize, there is still something I don't understand. You change other articles about Israeli politicians I mentioned as well, but did not change Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. You also removed the structure - header and sub-header, which are also customary for many other politicians. So, the question, why you didn't do this for American politicians and did for Israeli? And I still think that using headers and bullet items makes this information to be better presented. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@Arthistorian1977: I have no interest in American politics and no desire to get involved in those articles. On the other hand, I have the majority of MK articles on my watchlist (as I created most of them) so am doing my best to ensure they are generally consistent and well-written. Number 57 20:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Results table in Bangladeshi general election, 2014

I want to improve Elections in Bangladesh, a high importance but low quality article in the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh. To that end I'm trying to improve Bangladeshi general election, 2014 a bit before using summary style to recap it in Elections in Bangladesh.

With this edit you removed some changes I made to the results table on Bangladesh general election, 2014. Your edit summary was "remove parties that didn't contest (we don't include them as standard)."

  1. Would you point me to the discussion(s) where consensus was reached regarding omitting boycotting parties? I searched WikiProject Elections and Referendums for guidance in this matter, but couldn't find any. Studying results tables for other elections, I saw that boycotting parties were often omitted, such as in recent Iraqi elections, but in those cases the parties did not go into the election holding seats. There are election articles you've worked on where boycotting parties are included in the results table, such as Zambian general election, 1996. I find it confusing for the table to show parties gaining 35 seats without giving any clue about where those seats came from. It also seems at odds with the way Infobox Election is used on the Bangladeshi page. The infobox shows the boycotting BNP as the "second party".
  2. Would you explain why you don't want {{election table}} used in place of a vanilla wikitable? It's widely used, including in featured articles, such as Scottish Parliament, and this use seems consistent with those. My plan is to split the table out into a new Template:Bangladeshi general election, 2014 to facilitate sharing it with Elections in Bangladesh without copy and paste duplication.
  3. Would you explain why you don't want a ± column for percentage of vote? Again, having one seems fairly standard.

Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Worldbruce. To answer your questions one-by-one:
  1. As you have stated, there are no examples of boycotting parties being included in the results table. I'm impressed that you've managed to find Zambian general election, 1996, but I don't think you've looked closely enough at it – the reason the "boycotting" parties are listed in the results table is because they didn't actually boycott the elections fully – only parties that participated in the elections and received votes are listed (e.g. UNIP received 477 votes). If the same is true of the Bangladeshi elections then of course they should be included, but if they didn't run any candidates at all, then the status quo is correct (the total ± of seats rarely adds up to zero as in many elections parties that won seats in the previous parliament disappear. However, the article also covers the boycott in great depth, so it would be difficult for anyone to miss this; by all means, add something to the text of the results section stating how many seats the BNP and its boycotting allies held prior to the elections if you feel it would help). Regarding the infobox, the BNP should not be in it, and I have removed them – I hadn't noticed that they had been added, but this page attracts a lot of dubious editing, so I probably missed it.
  2. Election table is simply not a very good table; it was widely used in the early days of Wikipedia, but is much less commonly used now. Its primary use nowadays seems to be creating the templates that are displayed on non-election articles. However, on the election articles themselves, it's not particularly good – for example, including a completely unnecessary heading (and the heading itself is often problematic as it is often rendered in an ungrammatical form and breaks over two rows as is often wider than the table below). By all means create the table and display it elsewhere, but it's really not necessary in the election article itself.
  3. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's standard. It's used for a small number of countries' elections (I would be surprised if over 10%). I don't have a problem with you adding this, but you left it empty, so I thought it was rather pointless. If you want to fill it in, by all means reinstate it.
Cheers, Number 57 09:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for the explanation. I noticed that the UNIP received some votes, but it wasn't obvious to me that they were included in the table for that reason. From the Bangladeshi election table one might reasonably conclude that the criteria for not meriting a row was "neither having seats going into the election, nor winning seats in the election" — because several such parties that won votes are not in the table. In any case, as you say, the table can be explained at length in prose, and I'll do that. Over the next 6-8 months I'll be tinkering incrementally with many Bangladeshi election/politics articles in an effort to improve them. Hopefully you won't find the edits dubious, but my deductions from studying the corpus may sometimes fail to divine your intent. Worldbruce (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Worldbruce: I don't really understand the second half of your last sentence, but any improvement to the Bangladeshi articles is welcome – they are in a generally poor state and prone to drive-by POV editing by presumably displeased supporters of whichever party lost or boycotted the elections. Number 57 08:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Choiseul/Shortlands constituency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Choiseul. 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) 09:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Categorisation

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Le Deluge's talk page.
Message added Le Deluge (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Move review for Humour

An editor has asked for a Move review of Humour. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:95B4:F4A:9B7E:1497 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Swiss referendum results

Hi, I added the outcomes to the recent Swiss referendum articles, which you reverted saying there is "no need for this". In my opinion there is, because then the outcome of each referendum is clearly visible to the reader, as opposed to the current simple listing of descriptions and numbers. Wikipedia is there to inform on all relevant information. I'm fine with any other way of clearly showing the outcomes, but I think the current format very much lacks this. E.g. the German Wikipedia has something similar too. There have been even cases where a majority voted in favour, but it did not reach a majority of cantons – readers may not be aware of this requirement and assume it passed. If anything, what is the harm in adding it?

More generally though, while you do a great job at adding content on election articles, I have often had the impression that you tend to "push through" your format of election articles and results tables in particular. For example (and there's so much more I'd wish to have time to discuss), I've had this edit in mind and I've wanted to restore the custom table. I'm a big fan of consistency, but in some cases there are different systems or particularities, requiring to deviate from the standard format. It follows the same logic as above: I would like to make it clear visually to readers what legal requirements there were and whether they were met.

Kind regards, SPQRobin (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@SPQRobin: If you can guarantee to do it for all the Swiss referendum results back to 1992 (i.e. the articles using that table format), then I won't stand in your way. However, please ensure that you get the table coding correct and don't leave a missing cell in the bottom right-hand corner like you did with the 2015 and 2016 articles. In the long run I would also like to convert the pre-1992 articles to the post-1992 format (it was the point at which there started being a silly number of referendums that I realised that individual results tables weren't particularly good).
With regards to the Slovenian article, we need to achieve consistency between articles on how results are presented, which is why I assume someone developed that template (it wasn't me). The explanation of the turnout can easily be done in text near the table.
With regards to your more general point about me pushing stuff through, I appreciate it may look like that to people who work on the articles of only one or a small number of countries, but it is really only about consistency across our wider article set as I do articles across >150 countries.
On a more positive note, I kept meaning to say well done for adding all the constituency data to the Belgian election articles! Number 57 16:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
As for Switzerland, it is quite a bit of work to update all referendum articles, but if I change something to one or more articles of a certain set of articles, it certainly remains on my mind to complete and make the full set consistent. Thus, I will do so sooner or later. In such case I would've certainly caught the error I made before continuing. I agree that it makes sense to use the compact format given that in most years a quite large number of referendums are held.
As for Slovenia, I developed that custom template on Slovenian archives law referendum, 2014. It was the first referendum held since the constitutional requirements changed, and I would use it for the 2015 referendum as well as any future Slovenian referendums under the current system.
With regards to the general point, I know you work on a lot of election articles, but I do so on many too and I know most of the formats and practices. Contributions from other users (e.g. of a certain country) may be of value too, as it seems practically impossible to me to know the election system and specific rules of each jurisdiction (which may change quite regularly). My point is that we should indeed have some consistency across the wider article set, but consistency across a certain article set (e.g. a certain country) is more important in my opinion. A certain degree of variation for a certain set should be allowed (such as the Swiss and Slovenian cases we're discussing), otherwise we remain at a status quo of a strict format across all election articles that is very hard to change (and may not be necessary to change for a lot of countries). And given that you mostly work on election articles across countries, you end up as the arbiter of what is allowed and what is not, hence the impression of "pushing through".
Sorry if I come across as a bit too negative; I'm not the best at formulating things. You certainly do a great job, and I appreciate your thanks to my work on the Belgian election articles. I intend to continue if I have time for it again.
Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@SPQRobin: I completely agree that different countries and different systems require different presentation of results; hence why Luxembourg election results look like this and Mauritania's look like this. For me the consistency is about using the same types of tables, just changing the shapes as required to fit in whatever data there is. Number 57 15:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Uninvolved?

Even though you are not a warrior in the I-P area, you do still edit occasionally in related articles and partake in related debates. So I don't think you should be adjudicating AE requests under ARBPIA. I write this even though I have a lot of respect for your work. Zerotalk 01:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I occasionally comment on AE requests related to the I-P area as I think it's important that an admin familiar with the topic area weighs in. By all means comment on this on the AE page if you feel I am not being impartial. Number 57 08:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of partiality, though you do have a particular point of view like everyone else. It's a matter of principle and policy. Because you have edited a lot in articles related to Israeli politics, it is against policy for you to be admin in relation to those articles. Just like I don't. I think you should put your comments outside the admin section, then the uninvolved admins can decide what to make of them. I don't want to make an issue of this on the AE case, though I do find it incomprehensible why you think PS's reverts are not reverts. If I delete A and B, then someone puts them back, then I delete A again, my second action is a revert without a doubt. It fits the definition 101%. Zerotalk 09:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I read your explanation on AE after writing the above and I see your point of view now. I think that blanking a page by using a keyword in a tag is still blanking the page. So I don't agree with you, but your point of view is reasonable and I won't argue that further at AE. Zerotalk 09:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zero0000: The cases brought to AE are often complex and my experience, having watched this board for a few years, is that admins from outside topic areas often struggle to see the wood for the trees – this is one of the reasons I rarely comment on other cases brought to AE. The Bernie Sanders topic ban is a rare example of another area where I actually knew the background to the dispute so felt well-informed enough to comment on the case. I disagree that my editing history makes me involved, but by all means raise this with a wider audience if you feel otherwise. Number 57 09:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Number 57. I am planning to close WP:AE#Arminden (within a few hours) as no action. A plurality of admins seem to favor that. If you disagree, can you post in the request? I don't see either party as being innocent, but issuing blocks off a confusing record may not be the best course. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Fine by me. Whilst I think there was a definite violation, I don't think Arminden is usually involved in this kind of behaviour, so happy to let it go. Number 57 16:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC and content freezing

Dear Number 57, you closed an RFC process here on the 23 November 2014.

I have a question for you - when you closed the RFC, did you intend to freeze the content of the article so that it could not be changed in future?

You might like to comment on that talk page.

-- Callinus (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dominican Republic general election, 2016
added a link pointing to Proportional
East Choiseul constituency
added a link pointing to Choiseul
Taiseikai
added a link pointing to Jiyūtō

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Second round

Hi, just a question. Under what criteria does articles about elections with second rounds shouldn't have only two candidates? Is that a policy in English Wikipedia? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dereck. Yes, we only show second round candidates in the infoboxes in elections that have two rounds. One reason is that showing the other candidates will be confusing to readers – for example, when you included Otton Solis in the infobox of the Costa Rican general election, 2002, the percentages added up to 126%. Cheers, Number 57 08:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Sad, there is no way to fix that maybe with multiple layers? As in the Spanish Wikipedia. On other issue I would like to expand the info on elections and political parties (most of which is very dated) but I fear for my grammar, if you can check it would be great. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

British categories for Pitcairn Islanders

Pitcairn Islanders are full British citizens. They are as much British citizens as someone living on the Isle of Wight. Less than 60 people reside on the Island so specific Pitcairn Island categories seem unnecessary and could fail WP:SMALLCAT. Could you tell me what policy-based reason you have removed the following categories from the two articles?

AusLondonder (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @AusLondonder: Because, as far as I am aware, these categories are for people from the United Kingdom, not the Pitcairn Islands. The last one specifically has UK in its name, whilst all the other are subcategories of UK categories. Given that Pitcairn is a separate jurisdiction to the UK, I do not believe a SMALLCAT deletion could be justified if Pitcairn categories were created. Number 57 10:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East Makira constituency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Alliance Party. 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) 10:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

OLANO-NOVA

Merged or allied? The official site of Slovak elections here still says OLaNO - NOVA, party #3, as the official name.--Enzino (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Enzino: OLaNO renamed itself OLaNO - NOVA as a precursor to a merge and according to New Majority, NOVA no longer exists, so I assume the move went through. Number 57 08:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
if they change name into OLaNO-NOVA (as the official site of the elections does), why put only OLaNO? I still do not unterstand your move...--Enzino (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Kiribati figures

Good night. Ko rabwa (thank you) for your question. For the moment, as Kiribati is very far from modern world (but they do have Internet, expensive but), there is no official results yet "published". The votes have been posted on the official FB page of the Tobwaan Kiribati Party, and have been confirmed by ... my son (his job is in the Interior Dpt). I know that this is very poor, but I am certain they will publish them soon on the official sites of gov.ki. Things take time in Kiribati. Tia boo.--Enzino (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Enzino: Can you give me a link to the Facebook page? Number 57 00:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Municipal elections

Hi, I made this article: Costa Rican municipal elections, 2016, maybe you can help in some regards. For example I have no idea why some parts of the infobox are invisible like the leaders and the data from the fourth party onnwards. Thanks. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Fixed. The issue was the "type =" – there is no option for = Municipal; it has to be presidential, parliamentary or legislative. But in your case it doesn't really matter. Number 57 00:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I see, perfect, thank you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Reference errors on 13 March

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

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) 00:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Addition of Pro Skateboarder / stuntman and Actor RUBEN NAJERA

Hello Number 57 may we create a page for Professional Skateboarder and Actor Ruben Najera His official website is www.rubennajera.com

you can google his name he is very well known here is his IMDb page as well

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6870271/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

He has been invited to sign autographs the last 2 years at the world famous San Diego Comic Con as well and has been invited this year again. his full resume is on his website he also has a big social media following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Struggleskateboards (talk • contribs) 09:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Struggleskateboards: You appear to be closely linked to the Ruben Najera, or are actually him. Therefore it is highly inappropriate for you to add any information about him to Wikipedia. Please see our WP:Conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks, Number 57 09:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know.

[3] I think someone is pretending to be you, and trying to terrorize other editors. Just a heads up. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And I'm glad to see the impostor has now been blocked. PamD 22:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
How odd – must be one of the most bizarre things I've seen. Thanks to Good Olfactory for blocking them. Number 57 22:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Made any enemies lately? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Good Olfactory: I blocked whoever keeps trolling the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 the other day. Can't think of anyone else. Number 57 22:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 March

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

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) 00:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Alicia Marin

Hi there

You can probably guess what I'm going to ask... Was there a policy reason for moving Alicia Marin, or.was it just consensus by vote count? I havent seen any valid argument why it should have been moved, and wp:diacritics coupled with usage in English sources seems to fairly conclusively say we should not be using that accented I. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Consensus. Whilst there is scope for admins to close discussion in favour of the minority viewpoint (which I have done on a few occasions), I don't believe anyone would ever close a 5–1 outcome in favour of the 1, unless the five were obvious socks or meatpuppets – this is not vote counting, but a simple assessment that generally editors are clearly in favour of one position. Number 57 17:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi again... I don't want to make a big deal of this, as it's not really important in itself, but as you're an experienced admin, I am curious about your response to this, because it's never been my understanding that it works that way. I agree with you that a 5-1 majority is a strong mandate, clearly weight of numbers always matters. However, per WP:NOTVOTE a "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, or may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote-count. Thus although vote counting is important, it is never a sufficient condition. In the Alicia Marin case, there are five support votes, as you say, with the following explanations:
  1. name with í
  2. Use of diacritics is well extended.
  3. WP:ESMOS
  4. per the above.
  5. per all.
Not one of those gives us any sort of reason based on policy or guideline, as to why the move should take place. ESMOS is specifically not a guideline, as it was never accepted. And "use of diacritics is well extended" is vague and doesn't mean much to me. In this scenario, if I were an indepdendent closer, I would probably either: (a) research the matter myself and give a clear reason for moving - this would not be a supervote, so much as finding a legitimate reason for the move and making sure that it's clear for anyone looking at the RM why it was closed that way; or, (b) relist the discussion, ping the five supporters, and request them to provide more valid reasoning for the move. What I wouldn't have done, is to close it with just "move" and nothing else, and I wouldn't have inferred that the five votes were sufficient reason in and of themselves.. Unless there's something "obvious" about the reason for the move that I've missed, of course! I will probably extend this for discussion with the community as well, as I'm interested to know the outcome of this... it may mean we need to reinterpret WP:NOTVOTE, and hopefully I'll learn something myself about the best way to handle closes. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Again, if the discussion had been less one-sided then I would have given greater weight to arguments that used policy/guidelines. However, when it's a 5–1, there is no realistic way that you can say consensus was against the move or that there was no consensus (with the exception of ESMOS, I don't see any of the supporting rationales as invalid). You also have to consider the possibility that when discussions end up with outcomes like that, the guidelines may not be reflective of what the wider editorship actually think (and this is one prompt that can lead to guidelines being amended). Number 57 10:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages not with articles

Hi 57, thanks for your help earlier with the talk page move. There are more, for example Amer Masarwa's talk page needs to go to the same spelling as does Baže Ilijoski, and Arthur Antunes Coimbra Junior and Basem Fathi (no preference in these cases on which version is "correct"). Could you fix these, please? There are undoubtedly more, perhaps I will update at a later moment. Thank you, C679 17:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cloudz679: All fixed, I just moved them to the current titles. Cut & pasting really is an annoying habit... Number 57 17:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, also ATM FA for now. Thanks, C679 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Cloudz679: Done. Bizarrely that was not a cut & paste move, so I have no idea why the talk page didn't move when the main page was moved (there was no block on it). Number 57 23:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
A few more: A.S. Lucchese Libertas 1905, Air Force SC, Sulaymaniyah FC. Thanks, C679 18:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Cloudz679: All done. Only one was a cut & paste move this time. Number 57 18:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Yet more: Pahang F.C., Persiba Bantul, Police United F.C., Simba FC. Only 800-odd more to check! Thanks, C679 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Cloudz679: All done. Number 57 22:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Good work. Here are some more! Balkan FK, Bình Định F.C., CE Constància, CE Sabadell FC, CSM Paşcani, CSM Şcolar Reşiţa. Thanks, C679 12:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Cloudz679: All done. Cut & paste moves by @Hanberke, IncredibleSE, Raymond Cruise, and Rhinen: respectively (Rhinen was the editor responsible for both of the last two. WP:TROUTs all round guys, please learn how to use the WP:RM process. Thanks, Number 57 22:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. One more, special request. Western University FC and Sparta Cambodia FC for a history merge of mainspace pages (and talk too). Thanks, C679 07:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Cloudz679: Done and moved back to Sparta Cambodia. I've no idea what the current name is, so best move it properly from there. Number 57 09:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Naming of constituencies

Hi. Not sure how to proceed with the naming of the Czechoslovak constituencies. '(foo) Xth electoral district' isn't ideal, but not sure what would be a better option. Senate and Chamber of Deputies constituencies are different, but in four cases they match (Prague, Presov, Uzhorod, Tesin). So I kept a single article for Tesin and Uzhorod.

If we look at [4], the constituencies don't have any names as such, just being called 'Xth electoral district'. So an other option would be to use 'XVI electoral district (Czechoslovakia)' and 'XI Senate electoral district (Czechoslovakia)' instead.

Also, I'm not sure to what extent there is a continuity into post-WWII elections, my impression is that the boundaries were heavily redrawn then (ending the ethnic gerrymandering). --Soman (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Soman. No, I'm not sure how best to proceed either, I was just trying to get some consistency. I'm happy to go with whatever you feel is best. And yes, I suspected the boundaries would be redrawn after WWII, which is why I listed them as First Republic districts on the template.
On another note, I was planning to discuss this with you at some point, but do you think it would be worth moving Elections in the First Czechoslovak Republic to simply Elections in Czechoslovakia and also covering the post-WWII elections? For pretty much every other country we have a single article dealing with elections throughout its history, even if the systems are completely different. This would also give us a useful link on the heading of {{Czechoslovakian elections}}. Cheers, Number 57 15:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
For me 'Elections in the First Czechoslovak Republic' is a transitory stage for a 'Elections in Czechoslovakia' article. Initially I was going to write an article only on the constituencies, but it grew into a general article for 1920-1935 elections. The issue is that for an 'Elections in Czechoslovakia' there would need to be a balance between 4 very distinct periods; 1) First Republic, 2) Transition phase at end of WWII, 3) Socialist Republic, 4) 1989-1992 transition phase towards the division of Czechoslovakia. I wanted to go into certain dept on the First Republic, and thus at this stage it has not been possible for me to do justice to the entire period of 1920-1992. --Soman (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@Soman: As long as the long-term plan is to move it to the Elections in Czechoslovakia, I'll be happy! Number 57 13:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for your contributions to this and other articles of common interest. --17:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Dude, what did you do to my talk page?1982vdven (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Just fyi

A vandalism-only account decided to impersonate you, for whatever reason. It's been blocked now, but I thought you'd be interested to know. [5] Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Impersonator

Hey, didn't know if you noticed, but a attack account was created and went and vandalized lots of people's userpages. User:Nunder 57. Just a heads up. --TJH2018 talk 17:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 and TJH2018: Thanks – this is the second time it's happened recently (see #Just to let you know. above). I assume it's the idiot who I blocked for vandalising the UK referendum article. Cheers, Number 57 20:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Next Israeli legislative election

I took the liberty of fixing Next Israeli legislative election. You may know some more information to add to it.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Cuban parliamentary election, 2013

The table looks better IMHO with the "source" row in a smaller font size. It improves clarity, as it quickly tells the reader that the last row is not part of the results. We could also place source info outside of the table. Pristino (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

IMHO there is no problem with it being normal size – it is quite obvious to anyone that it is not part of the results data. This is the standard practice across thousands of articles. Number 57 15:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
You always have it your way, don't you? Enjoy your evening. Pristino (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Pune metropolitan region

Even after an uncontested RM, if a new case error is noticed, it should not be considered controversial to do a case correction that agrees with the only cited source. Yes? Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: It's bad form to move an article just after an RM, plus I don't think it's a "correction" – in my experience, formal area names are usually fully capitalised (e.g. North East England). Also, see the contents of Category:Metropolitan areas of India – the majority are capitalised. Number 57 21:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This is not a formal area name. Even the rationale for the RM was very suspect, as nom took it from the name of a development authority. Both terms are in use, but neither is capitalized in sources except in things like that development organization's name. And not sure what you mean by "bad form"; is there a guideline relevant to when one can fix new mistakes? Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: It is a formal name, and is capitalised – see this, this, this, this this or this (all from different news websites). If you want to amend the result of an RM so soon after it's closed, start another RM, don't just move it. Number 57 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's equally easy to find large numbers of web and news hits with lowercase; per MOS:CAPS we treat it as proper if it's consistently capitalized in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Watt / I-80 West

Would you please consider reopening the move discussion at Talk:Watt / I-80 West? While it was initiated a while ago, most of the discussion only happened in the last two days, and it seems counterproductive to close a discussion just when it finally starts to develop. 06:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Done, although I can't see it ending up with a consensus – everyone seems to have a different idea of what the preferred version is... Number 57 09:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. You may well be right (and there clearly was no consensus at the time of your close), but I thought some progress was being made. Fram (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Absurd overreaction

As promised, your personal attacks have been reported at ANI; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Accusations of misogyny. Number 57 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

  • That's absolutely absurd. I accused all of us of misogyny - myself included. That doesn't come close to a personal attack. Please apologize. Nfitz (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The meaning of your first few posts was very clear, and your attempts to backpedal are not going to hide that. Your request for an apology is a joke. Number 57 22:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I know what the meaning was of what I wrote. I never accused you or anyone else individually of misogyny. You need to apologize and focus on how we fix the project, rather than carrying out your vendetta. Nfitz (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop the BADGERING at deletion debates

Please stop the endless WP:BADGERING at deletion debates, as you have done at:

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brogan Hay
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife

Please, I ask of you to take some time to please read: Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process.

The definition of that is:

"Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. This can happen on a talk page, deletion discussion or in any discussion at Wikipedia. It is undesirable. If pushed too far, it may be considered a form of disruptive editing."

You've commented sixteen (16) times at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brogan Hay and thirty-one (31) times at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife.

I recommend you try another approach: Trust in the consensus of the Wikipedia community and give some space and room for debate among other editors.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: I will admit that one of my weaknesses is that I (to paraphrase the idiom) do not suffer bad arguments glady. However, if someone is unable to present a policy/guideline-based reason for deletion, then I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to be challenged.
We have particular problem with debates on women's football; we delete dozens (possibly hundreds) of articles every year on male footballers who do not play in a fully professional league, and no-one bats an eyelid. However, often deletion debates on female footballers descends into accusations of chauvanism, misogyny etc, and frequently ends up with a bunch of editors who have no interest in football and apparently little understanding of the sport arriving to decry the potential deletion. As a result, we often end up with a load of commenters who have completely failed to understand the guideline, and I feel this needs to be responded to. I don't think this is badgering; as you'll have seen, I didn't respond to anyone who made a proper argument such as GNG, except in one case on the Brogan Hay article where someone cited GNG but claimed systematic bias (I responded to this).
I support women's football; I've written numerous articles on female footballers (two of which I got on the front page in the DYK section) and I went to the 2011 women's world cup. But being familiar with it also means I recognise the realities of the game; I watch men's football, both professional and non-League, and most women's domestic football is definitely in the same category as the latter (seven of the nine clubs in the top division of the English Women's Super League play at non-League grounds rather than the main stadium of the male club). In a way it would be nice to have articles on the Sudbury players, but realistically it isn't feasible – the same applies to semi-pro female footballers.
Anyway, aside from this, I was considering sending you a message saying how surprised and disappointed I was with your conduct during the AfD. I don't believe we've previously interacted, but from afar I had a fairly decent opinion of you. However, the manner in which you approached our debate on Jenna Fife was really quite poor. I hope the comments on the WP:BLPN (where I thought your initial report of the dispute was really quite appalling) have given you some perspective on the matter. Number 57 19:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say, your thirty-one (31) comments at the same AFD also left me feeling quite frustrated, Number 57. It left me feeling as if you were intentionally trying to drive me off the page with your sheer force of words and insinuating things I had not said. I also wish we could get along better. Part of that would depend on your ability in the future to WP:DROP THE STICK. I hope you will take some time to reflect, and hopefully to decrease your amount of WP:BLUDGEON in future deletion debates. — Cirt (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cirt: I find your narrative of the debate difficult to believe. I responded to your initial comment, presenting you with an example of a potential article on a semi-pro player. The rest of our conversation was you focussing on the Baker article and going on about BLP/POINT rather than addressing the substantive issue. I'm not sure how asking you twice to do so is an attempt to drive you off the page. Number 57 19:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The sheer force and amount and repetition of your replies was exhausting. It's been years since someone has evoked that much WP:BLUDGEON on a deletion debate I commented at. The sheer volume of your comments and amount of them was frustrating and tiresome. I hope you can realize that commenting thirty-one (31) times like that can have a negative impact on other user's states of mind and does NOT foster Wikipedia community and positive collaboration on this website. I hope you will think on that and adjust your behavior patterns accordingly in the future. — Cirt (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cirt: It's exhausting for me too, but I don't think incorrect assertions should be left hanging in something so binary as an AfD – the point needs to be made so the closer is fully aware of the facts. The amount of comments is very high, but I think it's an unfortunate reflection of the awful standard of the debate. As for the community and positive collaboration, I agree it's not ideal to have conversations like this (it's certainly made me feel nothing but animosity towards a few of the contributors), but in the wider context, I think editors make deliberately misleading comments (which did happen) or accusing others of misogyny is more of a problem than a robust debate. Plus of course you have to consider that around a third of my comments at the Jenna Fife AfD were dealing with your BLP/POINT accusations. Number 57 19:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I myself have not accused anyone of misogyny. But I do think your editing style and behavior pattern of WP:BLUDGEON in deletion debate may unfortunately contribute to the Gender bias on Wikipedia. That is most unfortunate and yet another reason I ask of you, please, to moderate your style, okay? — Cirt (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cirt: I've contributed more to women's football on Wikipedia than most people in the debates, so I don't accept that I contribute to gender bias – I've actively tried to resolve it by creating articles. I agree that the nastiness in debates is unhelpful and I don't enjoy it, but if people make incorrect assertions then they deserve to be challenged – I certainly don't think we should ignore dubious comments to try and avoid offence. Based on what I've seen elsewhere (e.g. the Mohammed image debate), perhaps what might help is to create an FAQ page (which we link to in such debates) explaining the guideline in greater detail and a request not to start throwing accusations around, which could reduce the number of comments that need challenging. Number 57 20:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
What I mean is that the tactic of WP:BLUDGEON likely may have the impact of driving valuable editors off Wikipedia. I hope you will consider the impact of your behavior in deletion debates and adjust accordingly. It certainly has had a negative impact on me, today. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cirt: Likewise, and with regards to the BLP/POINT issue I hope you are able to contribute more productively to debates in future – I think we have pissed each other off enough for one day. I'm going to go back to something enjoyable like writing articles on defunct political parties in Laos :D Number 57 20:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you take any responsibility for the impact on your actions? Do you agree that as an administrator you should hold your conduct to a high standard? Do you think that it can sometimes be helpful to take a break and see what others in a deletion debate might say? Do you think you could please read over WP:BLUDGEON ? Do you see that sometimes not all parties are 100 percent wrong or 100 percent right in a dispute, and that it is possible that you can in the future tone down the length and frequency of your responses in deletion debates, please? — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: Perhaps you need to read up on it yourself given the six comments in a row citing the same essay... I do hold myself to a high standard, and am happy that my conduct was perfectly acceptable here. I'm going to concentrate on writing articles now, and won't respond to any more comments. Go enjoy yourself too. Number 57 20:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to compromise here and say I was taken aback by your style and the number of your responses and that yes, that did indeed impact my responsive demeanor and for that I say I am sorry to you. What about you? Do you feel one hundred percent in the right here? Is there nothing you feel you did wrong? Anything you can work on yourself and change for the better? Please? — Cirt (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"lit."

"Literally" almost never means quite what people think it does, and often the supposed "literal" translations are surprisingly free. Regardless, even on those rare occasions it's used properly, the "lit." doesn't actually add anything of value, as the context makes it obvious that the gloss given is a translation. Please take those "lit."s back out. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, is that a legitimate CITEVAR you reverted? I'm not familiar with it, and I assumed it was just laziness—especially since in some of these articles I've been gong through both spaced and usnpaced page numbers were given. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
This is clearly an error—English glosses are not given in italics. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Curly Turkey My understanding is that the "lit. " and Italics is standard practice; I guess I probably picked this up from articles that translated Hebrew as Israel-related articles is where I started my Wiki "career". Is there actually a guideline or MOS that states what to do? Happy to take them out if there is a recommended way to do it (and it's not this).
With regards to the refs, CITEVAR basically means you shouldn't change the established format of references unless they are really rubbish (e.g. bare urls). The way I do it is the way I was taught at uni; I've never thought of the lack of a space or full stop as laziness; plus I like the more compact look of it (I do think some editors tend to stretch out the reference a little bit too much, which makes it unwieldy). As far as I'm aware, there shouldn't have been any spaces between the p and the number in the ones I added? Also, thank you for your work tagging all the talk pages. Cheers, Number 57 23:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Italics is standard practice for transliterations: if the example were
Impartiality Party (Japanese: 中正会, Chūseikai)
then it would be correct, but definitely not
Chūseikai (Japanese: 中正会, Impartiality Party)
It is definitely not "standard practice" to include the "lit."—merely a common (and badly mistaken and wrongheaded) one. It adds nothing, and is far too often mistaken: for example, at Japanese battleship Asahi it once stated that asahi literally meant "rising sun"—well, no, a lexical translation would be closer to "morning sun", but "rising sun" is a much more poetic and apt translation, particularly as both "asahi" and "rising sun" imply "Japan", but "morning sun" does not. then there's the issue of words that don't really translate, or words that translate in many differnt ways depending on the context, or words that have many implied meanings but only one is given in the "literal" translation, and on and on and on ... just give the gloss and don't fool yourself into thinking a "literal" translation is a reasonable thing to assume you've given.
As for the page numbers—I wasn't touching them at first, but when I ran into mixed styles, I grabbed the one I was familiar with and stuck with it. In more than one of these articles I've even found three styles (with & without spaces, and with & without periods after the "p." or "pp.") I don't know who wrote what article, so I was fixing what "looked like" errors to me. I'll stop if that's your style, but don't be surprised if someone else does the same thing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: I agree with your two examples above; the difference I suppose is that I think the second example is wrong because it omits the "lit." before the italicised translation. I disagree about whether it's standard practice – it is in areas I'm familiar with – see U'Bizchutan as an example. Perhaps this needs a higher level discussion, although I'm not sure where the best place would be. But anyway, it's certainly been interesting doing the reading to write these articles; I had no idea that pre-war Japanese politics was so plural, and the parallels with European countries attempting to block the rise of populist or socialist parties in the late 19th and early 20th century via gerrymandering or banning them is quite striking. Cheers, Number 57 11:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe I've ever seen that style before—it's definitely not the accepted style for Japanese articles, as you can see at {{Nihongo}}—also see articles such as Adolpf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi which employ the same style of term ("gloss") and avoid the complications of "lit." Regardless, "lit." is almost always misused—aside from the cases I gave above, the translations often add or delete words and thus can't be considered truly "literal" (think of a translation like "land of the rising sun"—there is no equivalent of "the" in Japanese, thus such a translation could not be truly "literal", but leaving the "the" out would be a terrible mistake). also, llok at all the different translations of Chūseikai: "Fairness Association", "Upright Party", "Fair Party", "Association for Impartiality", all of which are more-or-less "literal" as each other, depending on the shade of meaning you want to emphasize, but they obviously don't all carry the same meanings in English ("upright" vs "impartial"?) What to do? Give every possible literal translation? One is helpful enough, and is best dealt with by dropping the implications of "lit." and letting a helpful gloss just be a helpful gloss. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: Fair point; Hebrew translations are usually unambiguous and straightforward, whilst it seems Japanese ones are open to creative interpretation. I won't restore the "lit." to any Japan-related articles. Number 57 11:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Enfield Town F.C.

Way back in 2012 you indefinitely semi-protected Enfield Town F.C. due to persistent edit-warring and threats for it to continue. Seeing as it's been almost four years now, it might be worth removing the protection status. I doubt the offenders are still watching the page and waiting to pick up where they left off! — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 11:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gasheadsteve: You'd be surprised. The article had to be protected in 2009 (twice), 2010, 2011 (three times) and once in 2012 before the indef protection was introduced; they were certainly persistent. However, I've unprotected it for now, and let's see what happens. Number 57 11:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that's some persistent edit warring! I've added it to my watchlist so I can keep an eye out for any re-occurrence. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 19:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Gasheadsteve: Good stuff; it's on mine too, so hopefully we can respond fairly quickly if they come back. Cheers, Number 57 20:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Bell AfD

Hello. You'd do better assuming I didn't think at all, in fact :-(

First I knew of it was when I noticed the bot put it back, had a look see who'd removed it, and was surprised to find it was me. Must try harder, particularly in the current climate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Important note to visitors to this user talk

Got a warning or fake block notice that appears to come from Number 57 that makes no sense? This user was recently impersonated by the now-blocked Number 56. It is very likely the warning, block notice or vandalism you spotted or received came from the impersonator instead.

(Sorry for hijacking your page with this message, Number 57, just hoping to prevent confusion. Please feel free to remove if/when you feel it's no longer necessary) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: I'm not sure that he left any signatures, unlike my impostor, or Oshwah:'s. Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Adam9007: Hm, you might be right. He did nonetheless copy over the entirety of Number 57's user and user talk page and edited some of the same articles as the actual Number 57, so the potential for confusion remains. (Though if he didn't outright link, not so much as with the impersonation of you or Oswah. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@AddWittyNameHere: And he's just copied the talk page again, and then some! Disruptive surely? Adam9007 (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Adam9007:Undoubtedly. I'll drop a line on the blocking admin's usertalk if they could perhaps remove talkpage access. (Though let's move any further conversation to your talkpage or mine rather than Number 57's?) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@AddWittyNameHere: Thanks, and no problem. This is the third of fourth time it's happened recently. Number 57 07:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, and that must be getting annoying. It appears that LTA/Troll/Puppeteer season started early this year. So many different long or long-ish term folks active again (or in a few cases, never even went inactive) that barring a handful of very recognizable folks I don't even bother attempting to figure out who's behind what. Just from top of my head, I've seen evidence of Evlekis, Nsmutte (well, not really long-term that one so far, and hopefully won't become so either, just really prolific puppeteering), ItsLassieTime (or whoever is pretending to be ILT, because I suspect the 2015-onward cases are impersonation, tbh), Cnslrken2, what I suspect might be JarlaxleArtemis (or at least it somewhat closely matched behaviour I've seen from JA before), Link Smurf, Mangoeater, Isla Riordan, Cow Cleaner 5000 and Starship9000 being around or having been around in the past ~2 weeks. And of course Genghis Khan and their many socks, though I think that's linked to an LTA-case just not sure which. A couple of cases I only saw after having been dealt with, a couple while they were being dealt with and some I helped rollback/report/what-have-ye. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: To be honest, it doesn't really bother me. It's very easy to just hit rollback, and they're just wasting their time doing it. Plus it always seems to happen in the middle of the night UK-time, so by the time I'm online the next day, it's been sorted out by others. I had thought about semi-protecting my talk page, but I get constructive messages from IPs and new users on a regular basis, so better to put up with whoever's doing this than prevent some useful conversations. Might put a note at the top of my talk page along the lines of yours though. Cheers, Number 57 08:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured the actual vandalism wouldn't be a big deal—like you said, rollback is easy enough and they're merely wasting time (and every moment a vandal spends vandalizing a vandal-fighter or admin's user/user talk is time they're not messing up mainspace. I tend to just see it as the vandal's form of a barnstar, means you're doing something right). Was mostly referring to the causing of possible confusion as getting annoying because sadly, WMF hasn't yet figured out how to allow editors to rollback or massrevert confusion or misunderstandings.
Cheers, the chronic-ramble-box known as AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sussex County Council

There never was a "Sussex County Council" - the Local Government Act 1888 which created county councils set up East Sussex and West Sussex County Councils from the start. DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Thanks for pointing that out; the infoboxes on the East and West Sussex articles are a little misleading in that regards (I guess that's what you get for trusting Wikipedia!). I've readded the years but under the correct headings. Cheers, Number 57 16:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it helps if you actually know something about the subject in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it would probably be better overall to distinguish between LGA 1888 administrative counties and LGA 1972 non-metropolitan counties. The boundaries often differ substantially (for example, Mid Sussex was created from bits of East Sussex but ended up in West Sussex), and of course the County Boroughs were independent of the administrative counties. Also, the templates as they stand would seem at the moment to need the addition of elections to the pre-74 boroughs, county boroughs, UDCs and RDCs which would bloat them enormously. Better to maintain separate templates - and articles - for the "old" and the "new" counties in my opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: I think it's unnecessarily pedantic to separate the pre-1974 county council elections. Yes, there were boundary changes in some places, but councils were largely continuous bodies. I also disagree that it requires the addition of the RDCs and UDCs, although I wouldn't have a problem with county boroughs being done (they are on some templates, even in cases where there have been annual elections since 1889).
Also, your comment above is unnecessarily dickish. We all make mistakes, and this is a collaborative project where we are all volunteers. Comments like that do not create a positive atmosphere to work in. Number 57 20:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Why have some defunct sub-county councils and not others? As for being dickish, if you had read the articles about either East or West Sussex, or about the LGA 1888, then you would have known not to add lots of fictional elections to the template. Making up lists of elections based on nothing more than a supposition does not help the encyclopaedia at all. By the way, as I have a watchlist you don't need to ping me when you reply. DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Because I suspect the RDC and UDC articles will never get created as they are too small, whereas most of the county boroughs still exist. I am aware of a handful on Aberdare, but no others anywhere. And as I stated, I did check the articles and the infoboxes state the counties were established in 1974. Your attitude is disappointing; sadly more and more editors seem to be behaving this way. Number 57 20:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I have been treated with far more rudeness than I have shewn to you by admins for many years. I find your attitude - that a misleading and inaccurate template is to be preferred to an accurate one, far more disappointing than any snippiness. Infoboxes only present a very limited précis of an article, so should not be relied on when making up lists of elections. My suggestion of treating pre- and post- 74 counties separately would help others avoid this confusion. And of course no county boroughs still exist in England, none have for over forty years. DuncanHill (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Your poor treatment by some editors doesn't justify you giving that treatment to others. Also, pedantic comments like the one in your final sentence above will inevitably lead to other editors losing patience with you. The point was that many places that were county boroughs still exist as separate local authorities (I'm sure you knew this, but for reasons known only to yourself decided to try and make some kind of point about it). Number 57 20:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
So when you say county boroughs still exist you mean they don't exist, but that there are new council areas with similar names. How very encyclopaedic! DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I think I'm beginning to understand why you have been treated with such rudeness. Goodbye. Number 57 21:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Last time I checked this is not Simple English Wikipedia, but a "regular" English Wikipedia. So, PLEASE, stop deleting my tweaks to the It's Enough (party) page. Readers deserve complexity and nuances. Ktnxbye. --Anihilacija (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Sevcohaha sock

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Marchjuly's talk page.
Message added 21:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Territorial Party

I'm quite happy for you to create categories. But I make no apology for deleting non-existent ones.Rathfelder (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Would it not be a more productive use of your time to create them? Plus on Afars and Issas legislative election, 1968 you replaced it with another non-existent category anyway. Number 57 12:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought we needed a category for the country before we created years for it. Given its short life I'm not sure the subcategories for years are helpful.Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: We have year categories for every country, and the 1968 one appears in Category:Years of the 20th century in Djibouti. Number 57 12:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
We don't have year categories for every country and this does not belong in Category:Years of the 20th century in Djibouti as at that time Djibouti did not exist.Rathfelder (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: Of course it existed, it just had a different name. If it's the same entity, it goes in the same category (see e.g. Category:Manchester United F.C. seasons). Number 57 12:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
That is not how countries are handled. If its the same entity - and I defer to you, as I had never heard of it before today - then the categories should use the same name.Rathfelder (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: It is how countries are handled in my experience. It would be inappropriate to have a 1960s category called 196X in Djibouti, but stupid not to have a 196X in French Somaliland not in the Djibouti category. Number 57 12:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Number 57. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That edit summary

Interesting choice of words. Heard of WP:AGF? AusLondonder (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Canvasing

You mentioned in the article of Yisrael Katz about a users being canvased into the discussion. So far I noticed a few in this edit [6] (Dan Murphy, Zero0000, Sean.hoyland and Huldra) - where else was the canvasing? Especially since the user opened a 1rr noticboard. Caseeart (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Caseeart: Just look through their user contributions - there was an attempt to round up support on another talk page and repeated pinging of editors that agree with them. Number 57 16:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Wondering if that should be brought up on noticeboard. Caseeart (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
See my response to the IP here. Regardless of the merits of inclusion or exclusion of material in that article, the IP cannot edit the article because it is covered by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, or at least any edits related to the conflict are covered by that restriction. An editor reverting their edits can't violate 1RR. Whether the IP is allowed to participate on the talk page is up to the people participating there, but under the 500/30 rule they have no right, if you want to call it that, to participate. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Sean.hoyland, the edits are not entirely about the Arab-Israel conflict though. There was wholesale removing of contributions including headings, a High Court of Justice response to Mr Katz, Mr Katz's response to the Brussels bombings etc. None of that has anything to do with Arab-Israel conflict. Caseeart removing all of that without responding on the talk page, that's the underlying issue which again appears to be avoided as usual. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"Just look through their user contributions - there was an attempt to round up support on another talk page"
Were the attemps successfull ? Did the users canvass the article ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It makes the talk page very hard to follow. Caseeart (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

The recently created Israel Palestine conflict page is nominated for deletion in connection to the preceding community discussion. You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Palestine conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 14:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greenwich Borough F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princes 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) 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Succession of Republika Srpska

Hi. You have deleted my request for page removal. I still don't get why do we need a whole article for a few statements about that topic. Why a subsection under Republika Srpska article isn't good enough? You obviously are more experienced than I am, thus I could agree with suggestion rename the article. However, there are a lot of factual errors in the article itself, and I feel that the editor in question had made himself an article because he couldn't get that kind of info in Republika Srpska article. I think the proper thing to do is to make a subsection under Republika Srpska article. 89.164.108.85 (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Because the concept of Republika Srpska seceding from Bosnia is a notable topic – you only have to look at how much coverage it gets. Plus we have several other articles on secessionism in other territories. Number 57 20:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I could agree if a suitable name could be found. You have suggested to call it a movement. If a source which would call it that way can be found, then I can agree. The present name is very confusing. The leas is also poorly written. Also, the article has several factual errors for which I think are not done in mistake. For instance calling 2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence a "possibility of Kosovo independence" is probably done to insert POV. The same goes for article name, in my opinion. It would be a hassle to change it. For those reasons I had suggested the article is incorporated in Republika Srpska article. I'll do the edit so we can see if I will be reverted. 89.164.123.178 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
"Proposed secession of Republika Srpska" would probably fit the bill. Number 57 16:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I agree. 89.164.123.178 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. It seems that I don't know how to change the article name. 89.164.123.178 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem, I've done it. Number 57 17:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please move the talk page too

Hallo. You moved an article, but didnt move the talk page Talk:Do-jeon Supermodel Korea (cycle 1), please move it together with the article, thanks. Christian75 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Christian75: Done. Cheers, Number 57 18:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Our old friend

I reverted him at hewiki, too, also as an IP. FWIW—and what I'm about to say doesn't change policy here, of course—he's succeeded in getting that to stick on a lot of other wikis. The only ones that have an article that I know my way around well enough to feel comfortable reverting are he, fr and simple. You know, when you and I have both retired and are living on a beach somewhere without wi-fi, he'll probably try to get in the last laugh. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: I was reverted by a named editor at hewiki. Fine. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Odd. Number 57 12:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Template

Thanks N57, it's been a while since I've edited "properly" I'm a bit rusty :) doktorb wordsdeeds 09:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: No worries, good to see you back! Number 57 10:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Bahamian constitutional referendum, 2016

Hi Number 57. I'm not sure whether or not government works of the Bahamian government are protected by copyright. If they are, we should not be reproducing the text of the constitutional referendum on this website. — Diannaa (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: The text of the constitution appears on several website where I would expect it not to be if it were copyrighted (e.g. the OAS). And is copyright law ever applies to laws and constitutions?? However, if it's really a problem, we can just put the relevant articles in quotation marks. Number 57 11:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Government works are copyright in many countries. This relevant legislation shows (as far as I can tell) that government works are protected by copyright in the Bahamas. — Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Elitzur Givat Shmuel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elitzur Givat Shmuel 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/Elitzur Givat Shmuel 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.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Orly Levi

I don't really know, I asked the same question on the Hebrew Wikipedia talk page. I don't think the page with the mergers and separations lists events like this (not 100% sure though), but it's true, she is still listed as part of Israel Beitenu on the Knesset website, which is strange. Maybe it's just out of date. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Romford F.C. players

I have WP:DEPRODDED this and redirected to Romford_F.C.#Players_and_staff. I have also cleaned up that section of the target article. You are kindly reminded that editors should consider alternatives to deletion WP:BEFORE proposing deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kvng: Thanks, but I didn't consider the redirect option as being particularly helpful because nothing is likely to ever link to that page, nor is it a particularly feasible search term. I suspect in the fullness of time it will end up at RfD. Cheers, Number 57 21:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your full justification. I respectfully disagree because redirects are WP:CHEAP. In any case it would be appreciated if you indicated in your future WP:PROD justifications if you considered and dismissed WP:REDIRECTING and why. ~Kvng (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Primary elections in Honduras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://bqllang.gov.vn/tin-tuc/tin-tong-hop/1378-nh-ng-cu-c-tr-l-i-ph-ng-v-n-bao-chi-c-a-bac-h-ph-n-3.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Number_57/Archive_8&oldid=1253823752"