User talk:Pave Paws

Pave Paws
	All 585 seats in the Chamber of Deputies; 293 seats needed for a majority
Ferdinand Sarrien; PRRRS	Ferdinand Sarrien; PRRRS

This is Pave Paws's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drewmutt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Links to wiki pages and sources related to the topic are not well-established reliable sources independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:BanditTheManedWolf/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:BanditTheManedWolf/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BanditTheManedWolf! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russia-Saudi Arabia oil price war (March 11)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS

Sulfurboy (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russia-Saudi Arabia oil price war has been accepted

Russia-Saudi Arabia oil price war, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

\

I cannot account for the previous review. but I accepted it. Please strengthen the article further by adding additional sources showing the international significance. Startwith the ones in thecurrent New York Times. Let me know on my user talk p. if it gets nominated for deletion, though on the basis of over 12 years experience here, I am reasonably sure it will not in fact be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just wanted to drop a message to say thanks for your patience in dealing with this, and sorry you've been dragged into it. Nearly the entire series of articles had the nonsense results reinstated yesterday... Number 5 7 10:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re the removal of the vote figures at the 1889 election, the total votes and electorate is useful to show the level of voter turnout. Would it be an issue to reinstate that? Number 5 7 10:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue at all, I just figured it may be more useful to condense the results table given all of the empty spaces. Perhaps the total votes/electorate can be represented in the infobox? "registered" and "turnout" are available options in the template. If not, reinstating it is fine. Pave Paws (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible, go for it. Number 5 7 11:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, is –1 correct? In 1902 we have PRRRS winning 104 seats, ARD 62 and RI 129 (total 295). The three then won 337 in 1906, which would be an increase of 42. I am guessing the difference is the Socialists being included in the left bloc in 1902, but they are not in the left bloc in 1906 (the SFIO was then a standalone group), which if in the infobox, would have its own seat swing of +11. Cheers, Number 5 7 02:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is due to the fact the Socialists and Rev. Socialists are combined in 1902; if they were not, it would be a positive swing in 1906. The Socialists were part of the Lefts Bloc in 1902, but the SFIO was never part of it. F-P looks like it disentangles the Rev. Socialists and Socialists in 1902 but the seat total there is all wrong. Perhaps Nohlen and Stöver has something? Pave Paws (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nohlen & Stöver has completely different seat figures for both elections... Number 5 7 14:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm led to believe that Independent Socialists were part of the Bloc des gauches in 1906 but apparently not in 1902, if judging by the French Wikipedia article for the government of Ferdinand Sarrien, which shows Aristide Briand (an Independent Socialist) as a government minister. I'll add the Independent Socialists to the infobox total for the Bloc des gauches in 1906 for now unless there's a source that says otherwise. Pave Paws (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I am concerned that grouping the parties into the Left Bloc is WP:OR, particularly when reliant on other Wikipedia articles. Maybe it would be better for the infobox to summarise the results table (which has the advantage of including more parties) – see right for what it could look like. Number 5 7 23:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If OR is a concern I think we can revert to previous edits where the infobox displays the individual parties (but with accurate figures, of course). I'm personally against the legislative elections infobox, but not for any reason other than aesthetics, mainly preserving the infobox images, and it being somewhat redundant with the results table being right next to the infobox. Pave Paws (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring a party-only version of the current would be preferable to the current one, but I don't really understand the objections to the proposed one – why is it better to have only three parties listed than seven? Not sure I will ever understand the reasoning for wanting images in infoboxes for parliamentary elections... Cheers, Number 5 7 21:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Including Popular Liberal Action, Nationalist Party (France) [fr] and Reactionaries

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cuban Missile Crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page R-12. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi

hey :) Lough Swilly (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey!! Pave Paws (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Including Popular Liberal Action, Nationalist Party (France) [fr] and Reactionaries

[a]