User talk:Mfarah

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian, and I wish you well with your edits. Wikipedia is a fun place, and there is always something new to do. Here are some helpful links for you...

The five pillars of Wikipedia -- What Wikipedia is, what we do, and what we adhere by
How to edit -- Editing isn't hard at all, but this guide will tell you how to do it properly.
Help pages -- Having difficulty with something? Need to know how to do something neat, like tables? Go here.
Tutorial -- Need a step by step guide?
How to write a great article -- This will tell you all about quality.
Manual of Style

When you edit talk pages, don't forget to sign your name by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will automatically add your username and the time of your signing.

If you have any questions, you may contact me, Linuxbeak, at my talk page. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! Linuxbeak | Talk 02:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrymandering in Chile

Hi. I don't understand why you reverted my edits at Gerrymandering#Chile. Yes, the "binomial" electoral system is not "gerrymandering" per se, but the gerrymandering without the binomial system would not have produced the results desired by the dictatorship. Plus, you removed a reference which was superior and met WP:RS, unlike the previous one. Happy new year, regardless. Pristino (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself: it's not gerrymandering - it's a different kind of beast. The article starts off stating "gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected districts.". We can agree that this did NOT happen. Yes, an electoral system was chosen to produce certain general results (to force the creation of two large political groups, to exclude both extreme left and extreme right and to force the disappearance of minuscule politial parties [think of PADENA, USOPO, etc.]), but there weren't any measures taken to produce a certain result in specific regions or districts, which is the definition of gerrymandering.

For examples of "proper" gerrymandering, let's suppose that in 1989 the government had moved the Ñuñoa-Macul border several blocks north, to force its (heavily PPD-voting) voters into district 25 (La Granja, Macul and San Joaquín) and away from district 21 (Ñuñoa y Providencia), giving the right-wing candidates in this district a chance to "double up". Or that in 1997, the government had stripped away a long "panhandle" of land from La Reina and Peñalolén and incorporated it into Las Condes, to make it impossible for the right-wing candidates to "double up" in district 23 (Las Condes, Vitacura and Lo Barnechea), as is usual over there. Nothing like that has happened - even the setting up of the electoral districts (for deputies' elections) and circumscriptions (for senators' elections) was done on a geographical/population basis.

Perhaps the deliberate choosing of the binominal system should go into an article about voting manipulation, but it doesn't really belong here.

Finally, yes, the new resource is better than the two ones you replaced. I just reinstated the entire paragraph without any edits, with the purpose of having a discussion before doing anything else.

Mfarah (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

gerrymander |ˈʤɛriˌmændər|

verb [ with obj. ] (often as noun gerrymandering)

manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.

• achieve (a result) by such manipulation: a total freedom to gerrymander the results they want.

—New Oxford American Dictionary.

Please read the reference you removed. Districts were indeed manipulated to favor one political group over the other to the maximum extent possible. Districts were manipulated both geographically as well as in population (district vary greatly both in area and, most importantly, in population, to a disturbingly high degree). Yes, gerrymandering was limited to choosing the most appropriate contiguous communes within a region. This, coupled with the 2-seat per district limitation, is a very overt type of gerrymandering and must be mentioned in the article. Pristino (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I guess we're going to have to accept we're in disagreement here - in the worst case, boundaries weren't manipulated: they were *set up* in what was, for all practical purposes, for the first time. Also, I read back then the draft proposals that were made (they were published in El Mercurio) before the government settled on the third and definitive one, and it's obvious the changes were made on strictly population and geographical basis. I do remember one example that contradicts the idea of gerrymandering: in the first draft (drawn mostly on the older population densities), Providencia was tied up in a district with Santiago. The second one (based on a perfectly proportional population to seats assignmnent) had Providencia by itself; this was unpopular because it assigned !42! seats to the city of Santiago, while sparsely populated regions barely got any. The third and definitive one had Providencia tied up with Ñuñoa, as it is today. Had a gerrymandering intention been in place, Providencia would have been kept alone, giving the right wing parties a good chance to "double up" there... yet that didn't happen.

Quite frankly, I look at the map of the districts and, at least in the Región Metropolitana's case, I don't see any "unnatural" grouping of communes to ensure a particular result in it.

Perhaps we should involve a third person in this discussion? Perhaps Juan Ignacio García? ;-)

Mfarah (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a source that says district boundaries weren't manipulated for political gain. I am providing one that says they were, so I ask you to please stop removing it until you find one that contradicts it. Cheers. Pristino (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, what needs to be done here is to reach an agreement on what the definition of the word "gerrymandering" covers - we actually agree on the same thing here: the military government set up an electoral system that favored certain... er... qualities (see my paragraph above), but it did not modify existing districts to guarantee specific results.

*You* say this qualifies as gerrymandering and *I* say it's a different kind of beast. Hell, let's look at this as an opportunity - we can coin a new verb: "To Pinochet", meaning "To set up an entirely new election system in a new or newly restored democracy with specific goals in mind". I'm guessing several countries on where democracy were to be implanted suddenly are candidates to have a "pinocheted" electoral system. We can leave gerrymandering as a vice of continuously existing democracies (USA, for example, where gerrymandering is prevalent).

Mfarah (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that what happened in Chile constituted "gerrymandering". The SOURCE is saying it and I'm citing it. You do not provide a source contradicting it. The definition of gerrymandering is clear (see above) and, according to that definition, and according to the source I'm citing, the electoral districts in Chile were indeed modified to favor a political group. If you revert again, I will request mediation. Pristino (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source, if you're still in doubt. This is from a study released by the Chilean Library of Congress, citing a work by Patricio Navia and Priscilla Cantillana:

"... el mapa electoral (los límites de los distritos) utilizado en Chile desde 1989 hasta la fecha fue diseñado para favorecer sistemáticamente a una opción política, por lo que el requisito de representatividad... no está siendo adecuadamente satisfecho".

Pristino (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mfarah. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]