Jump to content

User talk:Number 57/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 18

Why are non first team honors not a part of the honors on a teamsd page?

General Question, not just Hashtag related. IsraeliIdan (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Because in the general scheme of things, what happens with the reserve team (or in this case, the Sunday league team) is not particularly notable, and the articles are focussed on the first team. Number 57 11:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the edit on the template...

My bad ! I'm very sorry for the inconvenience... Thanks for the info, good day ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CocoricoPolynesien (talk • contribs) 11:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 Moldovan parliamentary election

Hi Dodon have cancelled the electoral process, so the election could be held after September 2019. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Handsworth Parramore F.C. managers

A tag has been placed on Category:Handsworth Parramore F.C. managers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Members of the 21st Knesset (2019–) renaming

Hi, the 21st Knesset ended prematurely. Could you change the name of the category to Category:Members of the 21st Knesset (2019)? I haven't found the manual how this can be done. Thanks, DGtal (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@DGtal: See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Speedy renaming and merging. Cheers, Number 57 13:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I couldn't find a speedy criteria that fit. Should I list it under CfD? DGtal (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@DGtal: As I'm the category's creator, I was allowed to request it under C2E. Barring any jobsworth objections, this should be sorted within a few days. Cheers, Number 57 22:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, DGtal (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Reporting a serial vandalizer

Hi, I did not find a way to report that, but an unregistered user (36.69.94.96) is vandalizing a lot of articles. He/she is in fact replacing flags of territories with either unrelated ones (zanzibar on french ones) or with political groups (UNIA on dutch ones). I don't know what to do, but since your an admin... (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@CocoricoPolynesien: I have given them a warning. Let me know if they continue to make these edits, and I will block them. Number 57 22:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason why 95.151.237.31 is blocked indefinitely? Can the block be reduced to a reasonable length or, preferably, abrogated altogether? 82.69.5.58 (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Frysimo2 and Greek politics

I was aware of a major problem with Frysimo2 yesterday. The number of accounts that were confirmed to Frysimo2 was significant. However, none had any contributions at en.wiki, only at el.wiki where they were indefinitely blocked for socking. Therefore, I took no action. Your behavioral blocks today were of great help and spawned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Efedros.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Wow, that's quite a list. Happy to have been of some help. Cheers, Number 57 15:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Frysimo

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Frysimo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

2015–16 Haitian parliamentary election and 2016–17 Haitian Senate election

Hi

Could you checkh the parties's representation? A cross wiki multi banned used (know as NAPO12 in French WP) may have added false informations to the articles since years. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I think the Senate article is ok – the results have only been edited by editors I recognise, with the exception of User:Asa289. The only edit that drew my attention on the parliamentary election was this, which changes some seat totals. I will try and do a detailed check this evening or tomorrow. Number 57 11:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert warring on The Singing Nun

Hope you well #57. Re. this, I'm afraid (diff, diff, diff) it has continued, in spite of the DS alert, the talk page discussion, and previous EW warnings. ——SerialNumber54129 09:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I've blocked them for 72 hours. Number 57 11:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
A shame, of course, but also avoidable. Many thanks for listening, ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

What are we missing?

Although I disagree with you, I respect your view and its consistency.

Could you tell me what you think Bolter and I are missing? Having read widely on this period, I am certain that the current situation is akin to having an article called the Great War, covering the period 1914-18, and then a sub article called World War I covering the period 1917-18 (post the entry of the United States). The two names “1948 Palestine war” and “1948 Arab-Israeli war” are synonyms in common speech, so our unique way of treating it causes confusion to readers, as evidenced by the pageview stats. It is also an embarrassment for our encyclopaedia, and hampers our attempt to convince readers to to trust our coverage of the overall conflict.

Surely if we had a situation like a Great War article covering 1914-18 and a World War I article covering 1917-18, you would be supportive of fixing it. Yet here you have been consistently attacking our efforts.

I would be grateful if you could try to explain what exactly you are seeing differently here, and ideally point me to some evidence? You seem to have knowledge of this subject, so i’d appreciate your help.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

My starting point is that the most widely known part of the conflict is the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and that title is the best name for that article (I've rarely heard/seen it described as anything else, with the non-NPOV exception of the Israeli War of Independence). The other titles fit around this (if I was forced to suggest a change to the status quo, it would be to merge all three articles to that title, as I've never been 100% convinced that we need three articles).
I think the problem here (what you're not seeing) is that you guys have gone down a rabbit hole on this and have made a mountain out of a tiny molehill. The article titles are basically ok – they aren't inaccurate and they are an adequate descriptor. I think it's a crying shame that you have wasted so much time over such a long period on bringing this up again and again – this is time that you could have spent doing something productive like expanding articles or writing new ones. Instead all you have to show for it is megabytes of talk page discussion that have gone nowhere. Number 57 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your second paragraph, I consider your active undermining of our efforts to have been a part of finding ourselves here. Since it is such a molehill, why have you wasted your time opposing it so many times?
I want to invest time in bringing the parent article up to scratch, but until the titles are fixed so that readers understand what the article is, that would not be a good use of time.
As to your starting point (“the most widely known part”), that is WP:OR.
I consider you to be a top quality editor when you have time to read the sources. And vice versa.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been trying to stop you wasting yours and others' time. I have not invested much time in these discussions beyond opposing with a basic reasoning. I certainly would not waste more than a few minutes on what I see popping up on my watchlist or alerts.
Your second paragraph above is absolute rubbish and I would suggest it shows you have lost all sense of perspective on the issue. Readers will understand what the article is the second they read the first couple of sentences. Suggesting they would not understand it because of the title is nonsense; we have lots of articles at somewhat awkward titles because of needs to disambiguate, and this takes nothing away from the content of said articles. If the location of an article is seriously stopping you from contributing it, I think you might simply not be getting what contributing to Wikipedia is about. Number 57 21:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
We can respectfully agree to disagree on your second paragraph. The fact that half the story has over 7x as many views as the main article shows that readers are not understanding.
I note you have avoided responding to my comments about the sources. If you have time to review them at some point I would appreciate your perspectives.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Try Google Ngrams Number 57 14:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a more relevant Ngram. It shows how rare the term you proposed is, how Palestine War was the original primary name, how Arab-Israeli primarily refers to 1967 and 1973, and how “1948 war” became relevant around 67-onwards as the other names became more ambiguous. On the latter term, if you put “1948 war” in inverted commas into googlebooks, you only get hits relating to this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not relevant, as none of those titles would be acceptable given their ambiguity. Anyway, please stop bothering me about this. Number 57 15:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I must say that the article names are not fine. First of all, there are three articles with different prefixes, which is already confusing. The innocent reader, which may be a 15-year-old student who heard "Palestine" for the first time, or a 30 years old educated person who seeks basic knowledge and either way they are likely to not fully understand the topic because the article titles are too confusing. The article about the second phase of the war gets most of the views, because its title, love it or not, is the most common of the three (Arab-Israeli war) and also makes a lot of sense. The other titles are bad. The long title for the civil war period, which frankly speaking never appeared in front of my eyes outside of Wikipedia, or that irritating "Palestine War", which in my opinion implies a Palestinian narrative, even if that's not what the scholar has aimed for. In my view, changing the articles' title can also help modify the scopes of each article, like there is an article for the Syrian Civil War and there is an article for Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War, Early insurgency phase of the Syrian Civil War and 2012–13 escalation of the Syrian Civil War. So if we change the titles to something better, the effect it would make on the readers will be huge. These articles are of top importance and I view it as an obligation to change that. Wikipedia is more than just our hobby.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't try and have a rational conversation with Number57. He's an admin and therefore he thinks he has the right to have the final say on everything. So I'd just save your time and give up. If he wants articles to be worse off for him being involved in them then he will. He's done it twice with me :-( Cls14 (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mid Wales League

Template:Mid Wales League has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zanoni (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Woodford Town

Hi No57,

Thanks for your advice, sorry i was not try to alter history with the Woodford Town of 1937 i am just trying to link the two together as we are a continuation of the former club. as there is so many variations i trying to either have just one Woodford Town 1937 and just one Woodford Town, with right history linking both, as at the moment the history is relating to club which we took there place in the league.

Jsafer — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSafer (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Millwall Lionesses 2.0

Hi, unfortunately it doesn't appears so simple. It's a continuation of the same team in the sense of players and management. However, based on statements and reports from when the move was first announced, London City Lionesses is a new entity, legally and FA affilation-wise. The Millwall Lionesses football honours are staying with Millwall.[1] The FA WC licence is transferred to LCL, rather than staying with the same (C)FA affiliate with a change of name. We may or may not want to treat the new ML as a continuation the old ML, but we don't treat MK Dons as continuation of Wimbledon FC. Then again, we did treat Notts County LFC as a continuation of Lincoln City LFC even when that wasn't the case either I don't think. -- KTC (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Seasiders

Looks like you walked away from following Blackpool even more than I did. Was just reading your article on the Athletic Grounds, so thought I'd say 'ello. - NewTestLeper79 talk 01:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dudesleeper: Actually, rather than being a Blackpool fan, I was just creating a bunch of articles on defunct Football League grounds like John O'Gaunts and the Castle Ground. Number 57 11:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Greek elections

Hi. You pointed out that the % gains/losses data I added should not be in a column that was reserved for gains/losses data about seats. Fair point! But maybe it would have been more constructive to just move the column to the right place and insert a new empty column for the seats numbers, which would have taken two or three clicks in visual editing, rather than just revert the update and undo my work?

In any case, since you also reverted the partial update I did next (I updated the percentage points but not yet the vote tallies, which I was going to do next), I'm giving up. Best of luck. No-itsme (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

CDE

Hi there, and thanks for all your work, as well as for reviewing my edits -- I always enjoy your feedback. As a quick note, though: "in the hope of" is alright, but "in hopes of" is not ungrammatical. Kind regards, Dahn (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

RE: May & Baker

Cheers for the heads up, completely forgot. Should be relocated to Aveley now. JSWHU (Talk page) 17:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

hiya

Wasn't sure you were online, hope you are all fixed now. Govvy (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: It seems to be a globally banned editor. A couple of days ago they created Numbar 57 (talk · contribs) and closed an AfD posing as me. Presumably someone I've blocked in the past. Number 57 12:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:United Right (Israel) politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:United Right (Israel) politicians requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A pre-referendum that occured in Uruguay on 4 August 2019

Hello Sir Sorry to bother you I see that you are interested in politics and in referendums (After i want to thank u fir ur tireless work efforts and edits) I want to refer to a very unpublicised english-none sourced or mentioned referendum that occured yesterday in August. Hope u can see fit that u or another more experienced editor create the English page for https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consulta_popular_para_convocar_a_referéndum_contra_la_Ley_Trans

For more infos, please check https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Uruguay#Gender_identity_and_expression and a simple google search for Ley Trans Uruguay will give u multiple sources and infos that i'm sure are all in the spanish wiki page of that miserably failed referendum Thank you sir! Cheers! AdamPrideTN (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello sir, would u be so kind and answer if u have time or can or unable to do it, so i can refer it to another more experienced editor than me thank you AdamPrideTN (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@AdamPrideTN: Sorry for the delay in responding. I am planning to create an article as requested – will hopefully do it today. Cheers, Number 57 10:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Number 57: Hello sir, sorry to bother you. But i wanted to ask you, that's ok u are busy and unable to create the page, if u didnt start translating or drafting it please allow me to ask another politics focused more experienced than me editor. Can i ask another or not? Will it be better, Thank you! AdamPrideTN (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@AdamPrideTN: Having looked at the subject, I am not sure it is article worthy – a pre-referendum is quite unusual and I am not sure it is independently notable. I have started a discussion at WT:E&R to seek more views on the matter. Number 57 16:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Number 57: ok thank you sir, with all due respect, i think it is worth it and that the title should hold that this was a pre rederendum. As i said if u dont want to or cant or busy, easy, i can ask another more experienced editor than me to create it. Thank you!AdamPrideTN (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: as i said i'm really sorry sir for this bother, hipe u didnt start working on it if so, i know the name of the more experienced editor than me that i will ask, if he decli'ed or said he can't its i Ok i Will try to create it my self abd seek input from others about the name of the pages. Thx for all and sorry for this bother. AdamPrideTN (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I also found this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_consultation_to_convene_a_referendum_against_decriminalization_of_abortion

which is a translation of this https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consulta_popular_para_convocar_a_referéndum_contra_la_despenalización_del_aborto_en_Uruguay So! AdamPrideTN (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello sir, i asked another editor for that page, thx for taking up time to talk to me Cheeers! AdamPrideTN (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Telling other people what to do

Your tables are not the correct ones if you go to election tables on european or asian parties for exapmle Cambodian People's Party lib dems tories swedish democrats none are using your format.So you are lying to me instead of undoying my work. Why don't you make something productive also why should i use your format. Other articles are using other formats who are you to tell me what to do. I did not break wikipedia rules i even took some of your advice and you go tamper wiht my work leave me alone or talk sowe can find a compromise

I mentioned other parties not only the lib dems also we disagree on other stuff lets talk so we can find a solution aslo i don't know how to pu those thinks on the centers i work with visual editor PLEASEelet as talk so we can agree on a format

Addressing your points

"This isn't really a question of compromise" so we have to do what you say no questions asked

"If you cannot change the alignment using Visualeditor, can you switch to normal editing to allow you to see the code?" Nice idea the problem is i can not code also why does it have to be centre-aligned is written somewhere that they have to be centre-aligned

Perhaps Visualeditor is also the reason why you are adding bolding code where it is not needed?" i don't get your question

"With regards to the heading, there is simply no point in having a heading on the table that is exactly the same as the section heading directly above it. Why do readers need to see "National Assembly" twice in two rows? It's completely unnecessary" no you said heading can't be links so put on the above the table maybe the readers want to click to see the national assembly for example i did not even know that Coloured Persons' Representative Council even existed Please respond can you respond please

Best i can do

Best thing i can do is not doing Duplicate headings apart from that i am not gonna bother with your other requests if you are not willing to compromise i am not gonna talk to you any more. You just enforcing your arbitrary standards and then people wonder why no one wants to contribute wikipedia Btw the things you do is really demoralising to new editors like me who are just trying to make wikipedia better bless your heart

I will see what i can do have nice day

Information

Hi numeber 57 in need to ask some questions

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Maryland House of Delegates districts

A tag has been placed on Category:Maryland House of Delegates districts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pitshanger Dynamo F.C..jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pitshanger Dynamo F.C..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Number 57

Is the number 57 your favorite number? (Just a random question).

Beeney Beeney xx (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Population figures

Hey, was just going to message you about that. I know that it's fairly easy to make it all work, but thought I'd end the need to create weird ucfirst() caps once and for all, it annoys me again every year. If you don't think it's an issue, I will stop now. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: CBS spells Bnei Dkalim as Bne Dkalim instead of Bne Deqalim now, I think that one is worth correcting regardless. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

AC London

Sorry, meant to press thank and got rollback! Red Jay (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Statutory

I understand this is merely a semantic interpretation issue. As provided in dictionaries, "statutory" also means "of or relating to statutes". Thus, "statutory" relates to "Statute" just as "constitutional" relates to "Constitution".

The issue with this is that "autonomy" is not precise enough. Both the 1980 and 1981 Andalusian referendums, for instance, would be "autonomy" referendums, but their scope was vastly different (the first one was for being allowed access to autonomy, the second one was to ratify a Statute of Autonomy). Referendums on constitutional approvals and amendments throughout Wikipedia are dubbed "constitutional", so there is no reason not to use "statutory" for these, as it would be consistent. I await for your reply. Impru20talk 17:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

While I do not really agree with your reasoning, possibly the use of your proposed format could be a good compromise between the over-ambiguous "autonomy" and the seemingly conflicting "statutory" (and it would meet WP:COMMONNAME anyway). I don't know right now whether I should open a WP:RM due to the controversy around the naming of the articles, or just move them right away if they are found to be uncontroversial.
(Note: If the definition of "statutory" can't be used this way, the use of "constitutional" could also be interpreted as controversial, because it poses esentially the same issues you put for "statutory". As a matter of fact, all of these referenda were forced upon by legal requirements, with a "statutory referendum" being defined as "the submission of ordinary laws to the electorate after they have been passed by a legislative body", which is exactly what happened. So it being because of the relation with "Statute" or because it being a legal requirement, both interpretations would be equally valid for justifying the use of "statutory" in the title). Impru20talk 17:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok. So I'll proceed with the moves if they pose no issue. The above would mean conducting the following moves:
Which, btw, I'm frankly surprised at seeing those articles red-linked, not existing even as redirects. Impru20talk 18:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we are having a serious lack of understanding on this issue. XD The "statutory" word at the lead of each article is indeed intended to mean "legally required" in this context, as opposed to "consultative" as used in 1986 Spanish NATO membership referendum and 2005 Spanish European Constitution referendum, for example. Impru20talk 20:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
And it was indeed "legally required" in those cases. XD A "binding" referendum is not necessarily a "legally required" referendum. The difference is important, and I thought the definition of "statutory" had been made clear enough so as to uncontroversially using the word. Further, a "statutory" referendum would always be binding (because of the referendum itself being required by a law, its result is also legally required to be enforced). Impru20talk 21:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, what matters in those articles is the legally mandatory nature of those referendums, which by extension make them binding. "Binding" by itself does not mean this; for example, there could be systems where referendums approved by citizens are turned into binding referendums, despite them being initially not strictly required by a law. Or systems where a referendum is not legally required to approve of specific laws, but if held then they are to be considered as binding. "Statutory" helps explain this, but not "binding". Also, to the issue that it "won't be entirely clear"... well, the whole legal process is summarized in the lead sections themselves, so it can hardly be argued that it is unclear. Impru20talk 21:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I can certainly not understand what is going on here. You contested the "statutory"-bit from being in the article titles because they meant "legally required" and could not be used to relate to the Statutes themselves. I ended up accepting it. I then found the use of this word appropiate for the lead; you then reverted it arguing that "this wording doesn't work as it effectively means 'A legally required referendum...'". I reverted you on the basis that it was actually used to mean exactly that, then you again changed your motives and argued that it simply "didn't work". I'm sorry but I've provided a good reasoning for its use, given that the word does perfectly explain what is being conveyed in the whole lead sections, and you are only resorting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments here. I don't want to clash on this, but if you think this should require further input because you can't somehow stand the use of the word for whatever reasons (and think the issue is so dramatic to require such a procedure), then so be it. Impru20talk 21:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This is not what you said earlier. Further, this is not about "writing something in English that is correct and understandable", because unless you put it wrong, "statutory" is an English word which is only used in the sense of something being a legal requirement, and it effectively means 'A legally required referendum...'. This is exactly what the word is used for in those contexts, in order to define the cause that led to the referendum, i.e. that it was enforced by a law, and thus also binding, a fact that is explained and sourced just further ahead in the lead. And no, I'm not trying to make any point as you suggested earlier; in fact, I found the word appropiate because you had been so insistent on the actual meaning of it and did convince me on its meaning, and now you argue that using it in such a way is not correct English? You've only provided examples of other articles (as if WP articles were consistent at the word level...) and your opinion on why you like "binding" more, but no reasoning as to why using the actual word that is intended to convey the actual meaning that is given to the lead section is not "correct English". Sincerely, I find this discussion rather absurd considering we had already discussed on the semantic issues of the word and reached a quick compromise (which, btw, I do approve of). Impru20talk 21:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

For your work on Alfred Hancock Witherow.

Stuartyeates (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Elections in Europe: A Data Handbook

Dear Number 57, do you still have access to Nohlen and Stöver's (2010) Elections in Europe: A Data Handbook? Could you check a few things for me, or alternatively give me direct access? Thanks! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Yes, I have a hard copy of the book. Let me know what you'd like me to check. Cheers, Number 57 12:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking at Legislative elections in Albania 1945–1987. Does the book break up "Invalid/blank" votes into invalid votes and votes against the Democratic Front? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I will check this evening, but I assume that I got as much detail from the book as possible, so what is already in the articles is probably all there was. Number 57 12:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Check if you will, but it's not a super important thing. I just found a source that did make this distinction and wanted to know why it isn't in the articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: The source only has invalid votes listed in 1970 (1), 1974 (2) and 1987 (1). The IPU has invalid votes figures for 1978 and 1982. For the 1945, 1950, 1954, 1958, 1962 and 1966 elections, the book gives a vote total for the Front and a valid votes figure, which differ, and has zero for the invalid votes. There is also a note stating "the difference between the valid votes and the figures for the votes of the Front could not be explained by official statistical data". I listed the difference as "Non-Front", although I see someone has changed the 1945 article to "Independents". The same note exists for the 1978 and 1982 elections (the difference is the same figure as given for invalid votes by the IPU). It may therefore be the case that some or all of the "non-front" votes are actually invalid votes, but the author of the chapter in the book was unable to confirm this. Number 57 18:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glebe F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Alexander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Israel populations

Hi, a little error in the last changes of template: Ammihay = 198 instead of | Ammihay = 198. I can't fix it. TenBaseT (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@TenBaseT: Thanks for letting me know. I've fixed it. Cheers, Number 57 11:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1874 Northwich F.C. players

A tag has been placed on Category:1874 Northwich F.C. players requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lekhemlogo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lekhemlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Guiseley AFC Badge

Hello,

Apologies, I uploaded this in the wrong place and need to correct it.

The badge is wrong when you export it because the white lines between the elements are missing, this causes our badge to be uploaded in correctly to coloured backgrounds.

You will see what I mean when comparing the badges on say a black background.

I have tried to upload a new version where you suggested but cannot see where to do this as no option appears for me.

AdamAdambridsongafc (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Tunisia

What was wrong with my last edit? Sladnick (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I checked all the articles on last two years of national electoral page -- my last edit kept the same style but presented it more succinctly. Sladnick (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I would really appreciate any guidance. I am just getting into Wikipedia -- sorry that I made a sweeping claim, but I was just implementing what is the doninant format among better-maintained multi-round electoral articles, a convention that seems to have a practical reason behind it. I am just trying to do a good job though, not get into a personal vendetta. Sladnick (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Solomon Islands page moves

Number 57, I note the page moves for List of ambassadors of Solomon Islands to China and List of ambassadors of Solomon Islands to Taiwan. The original titles were intentional as the official name of the nation is without the definite article. 'The Solomon Islands', since 1978, generally refers post colonial era to the Solomon Islands archipelago, which is a different geographical area. Please refer to the discussion in the history of Solomon islands and the talk pages, various places. The SI Constitution refers to Solomon Islands, Elizabeth II is Queen of Solomon Islands, her Governor General is the GG Solomon Islands. This is the convention across all the nation state and archiplago articles and these tiles changes cause an anomally. It is parriclularly problematical because this page refers to diplomatic relations and the diplomatic community will get it right. When the Chinese ambassador is appointed, she/he will be the ambassador to Solomon Isladns not the Ambassador to the Solomonla. Using the 'the' ignores the wishes of the nation, local practice, the consitution and perpetuates a colonial attitude to the new nation. A Google search turns up many more hits with the definite article than without because of the many WW2 pages and because of references to the British protectorate. Part of what was "the Solomon Islands" in colonial days is now in Papua New Guinea. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ex nihil: You are aware that I read the discussion on the Solomon Islands talk page as I pinged you with regards to your unilateral decision to declare consensus existed when none did. As I stated there, you'll need to start a formal RfC if you want a decision made on this. It doesn't matter what the official name is, but what the common name is (hence why we the article on Taiwan is not at Republic of China).
On a secondary note, arguments like "ignores the wishes of the nation" and "perpetuates a colonial attitude to the new nation" are wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please familiarise yourself with WP:AT before starting any discussion. Thanks, Number 57 10:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the response. However, the WP naming convention actually refers to calling a nation what it says it wants to be called, hence Cote D'Ivoire etc. The colonialist comment was not directed personally at you, but is a genuine concern of Solomon Islanders that they not be defined by their colonialist era. It is a legitimate point and these comments were made on yor Talk page, moreover, which is quite reasonable and not on the subject page, where I would entirely agree with you. It is really frustrating because I used to work in the Solomon Islands Ministry of Justice, as an expat, and I know what the facts are and what they want but nobody listens to them. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ex nihil: In response to the claim that "the WP naming convention actually refers to calling a nation what it says it wants to be called, hence Cote D'Ivoire", please note that article is located at Ivory Coast. What Ivorian politicians want is irrelevant. Number 57 18:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, so I see. You are right. I seem to remember it being Cote d'Ivoire in WP once. Same with Timor L'Este, seems to be East Timor now. What an etraordinary thing for Wikipedia to do when there are actual realities behind the formal names. As a Wiki editor for some time now I am a bit shocked that we adopt names based 'common usage' when there is a clearly documented formal name that renders the common usage wrong. I find that a bit distrubing. Maybe the determination of truth should rely on facts rather than old habits. Anyway, no matter, let it go, there are bigger problems in the world than wrong country names. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about today

  • 1. Is a user allowed to have the retired tag if not retired? (Re-Tired)
  • 2. If I ask a question on a talk page and a user replies with a bull shit answer is there a warning for talk page vandalism? IsraeliIdan (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  1. I would recommend raising the issue at WP:ANI as it's misleading.
  2. Difficult to say without seeing the comment in question
Number 57 15:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding 2. See Talk:Israel_Border_Police IsraeliIdan (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Iraqi parliamentary election, 2018

Party totals were calculated from numbers recorded by Independent High Electoral Commission. The total number for each party is the total number of votes it received from each governorate. Source can be found in the Template. Please check sources next time. Kman6651 (talk)

You calculate the votes of winning candidates only. The IHEC has pdf files of all votes recorded in the article itself (Sources numbered 56 and onward). Check all governorate results already sourced in the article. I repeat: Check sources next time. Kman6651 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Responding to your message

There are multiple page that do what i did including Union for a Popular Movement,Sweden Democrats,Austrian People's Party,New Democracy (Greece),Conservative Party (Norway) why should i accdept your opinion when other pages do this and none of them have been touched by me you are always harassing me modifying my work without permission acting you are like some sort authority i even changed the elections tables to your ways by adding {| class=wikitable style=text-align:center even thought most of the election table do not have it i demand you reverse any changes you or we go to the Arbitration Committee you are not the boss none of the tables in multple pages comply your ridiculous standards unless you can prove you are the owner of wikipedia i will not back down on i gave enough ground especially from someone who barely contributes

Refusing to answers questions

i stand by my all statements and i ask again why should we do it your way i provided examples again i ask are you some sort of authority are you the owner why should back down why not try find a consensus. Your logic implies the the notion of a master editor and a slave editor who obeys the majority of election tables do not comply with your ridiculous standards why should i listen to unless you are the owner or the admin again i demand either consensus or arbitration i complied with previous demands in the spirit of unity now i demand on whose authority do you reverse my edits i demand detailed explanations

My proposal

On the unkown tables what if i write N/A i saw it on a table once On the dublicate headings i have 2 proposals both i saw them on the wiki proposal 1 instead of dublicate i write legislative election then the link on the election table proposal 2 i put the link on the heading also before you change stuff i did please contact me and i am more than willing to discuss it also i apologize for saying that you barely contribute

Responding to your question

I think it looks better also some article don't have links to the national legislatures also on the unknown question why not write not available please respond

listen we can't have an empty box in the info table it looks trashy we are wikipedia not some cheap blog about the dual links we are you ignoring all the examples i gave you here Union for a Popular Movement,Sweden Democrats,Austrian People's Party,New Democracy (Greece),Conservative Party (Norway)

"Next Gabonese legislative election" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Next Gabonese legislative election. Since you had some involvement with the Next Gabonese legislative election redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"Next Northern Cyprus parliamentary election" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Next Northern Cyprus parliamentary election. Since you had some involvement with the Next Northern Cyprus parliamentary election redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheshunt FC Edit

Hello, I was just wondering why you removed my edit of the Cheshunt FC current first team squad. It is correct and I am a huge fan of Cheshunt FC. I know non-league players come and go frequently which is why I added. This page will be edited frequently. Please get back to me as I am confused as to my this has occurred. Thank You! HJackson77 (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

, HJackson77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJackson77 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple Solomon Island moves

Number 57, could you please stop making multiple moves of Solomon Islands pages to include the definite article without discussion? A large amount of work has been done by many people over several years to make a distiction between the SI archipelago, the colonial political entity and the nation state and there are multiple locations where the need and history of this is discussed. These pages have become an anomaly and are confusing an issue that was once pretty well settled. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about the articles I moved back to their original titles after you moved them with a false claim of consensus? If so, then I'm afraid you don't really have a leg to stand on here. Number 57 16:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Re elections by year categories

Re keeping national elections in the “20XX elections in Europe category, as well as in the “20XX elections in Fooland category”, the existing countries with these categories (eg United Kingdom, France) do not have this dual categorisation as far as I am aware, so I was following the existing practice with Greece and Portugal. And non-diffusing categoriers are usually marked as such, eg Category:21st-century New Zealand women writers so that other Wikipedians are aware of the special circumstances for those categories eg see Kirsty Gunn who is in that category and also in the Category:21st-century New Zealand writers. Has your idea ever been proposed or discussed? Hugo999 (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

New Article

Hi,

Can you please review this new article List of masechtot, chapters, mishnahs and pages in the Talmud?


Thank You!

@Shemtov613: I'm afraid I have zero knowledge of this topic area. I would suggest asking at WT:JUDAISM. Cheers, Number 57 20:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on MP categories

Hi. Incase you missed my ping, please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1964 in Seychelles

A tag has been placed on Category:1964 in Seychelles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Athenian League name

Yes, my source for the Athenian League name change is the Athenian Football League minutes 1912-1921 which are held at National Football Museum in Preston. Apparently the name 'Home Counties League' was also suggested before the name Athenian League was found to be acceptable. Higherwiki (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

2004–05 Oldham Athletic A.F.C. season

Should 2004–05 Oldham Athletic A.F.C. season be class=draft or class=stub? You were the reviewer.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: For some reason it didn't update the class when I approved it (usually its automatic). Now fixed. Cheers, Number 57 20:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Number 57:Sorry, but it seems to me that reviewed an accepted new articles are not automatically updated from class=Draft to other classes. I have been doing hundreds of assessments using the Rater tool, and I have encountered many accepted articles still in Draft status, sometimes well after the acceptance. I am authorized to do reviews, so I may try it myself. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Improvements" of Friendlyhistorian

Hello, Number 57. I have to ask for your opinion about certain edits of the user in question: namely, "forceful" scaling down of font size to 85%, and especially changes like this one – [2]. So far, the editor added the same change to List of presidents of Egypt, List of prime ministers of Egypt, List of presidents of Iraq, List of prime ministers of Iraq and quite a few others. Needless to say, I don't find those edits helpful at all. --Sundostund (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sundostund: As there seems to be no useful reason for reducing the font size, I would say it's a violation of MOS:SMALLTEXT and should be undone. Be warned that they tend to get very protective of their changes and may react rather overdramatically. Number 57 18:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that we're on the same page regarding this issue. I would undone them myself, but I have no desire to enter into an edit war. If its a policy violation, of course they'd need to be reverted eventually. As for being "protective and overdramatical", that is totally irrelevant. Nobody WP:OWN anything around here, everything is based on respecting policies and consensus... --Sundostund (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Election tables

Number 57 i need your help i need to put something on empty election i know you don't agree with unknown so please think of something i don't want an edit war so came to you first ok

Which election article are you talking about? Number 57 20:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Election tables colspan

Hi, I have done that lately for these tables, unless I'm terribly mistaken? For example, for Results of the 1985 Swedish general election I think I did or was it some particular instance that caught your eye? Glottran (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Update, I noticed I erroneously had put the table in the main article, so I moved it to the results page. Glottran (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Glottran: The problem exists on the bottom row of the two Results by constituency tables in the Results of the 1985 Swedish general election article and every table in the Results by municipality section of the Results of the 1976 Swedish general election article. Number 57 14:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
So there is a difference between "colspan 11" and "colspan=11"? I don't see it with my naked eye when trying to preview it? Or do you mean I chose the wrong number? Glottran (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Glottran: Yes, it needs to be colspan=11. Can you not see that the bottom row of the two results by constituency tables in this old version is only one column wide, leaving empty space below the other columns? Number 57 20:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I feel incredibly stupid right now, but I really don't! Either way, I'll heed your advice regardless from now on and probably go back at some point fixing the old tables :)
Glottran (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Number 57, the images I uploaded were necessary for certain articles of the political history of my country, in fact I will not upload more images, because they are not needed anymore, and the detail you mentioned that I included in the images I uploaded will remove it today, and I apologize if you don't understand anything of what this message says because my handling of the English language is horribly horrifying as a the user DoctorSpeed is disclosing, I hope that the same claims that you apply to me also apply them to other users who make rights violations here. Thank you very much for the destructive criticism. Oli (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bolivian election‎s

Hi. I left my concerns regarding the due weight of the report in the article's talk page. I hope that my edits have not appeared disruptive, and I would like to ask you to let me know if you feel there are further NPOV concerns in the future. I genuinely want articles to have information as balanced as posible. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed your reply in the article's talk page. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way Number 57

You can tell why you have been undoing all the editions that I made several months ago in the article of List of presidents of the Dominican Republic? the article was pretty good as I left it several months ago, why revert my editions? If there are many characters on that list whose articles will never be created because no one will bother to do that, and I apologize if i sound very mean with this message, thanks for reading.--Oli (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@OliverDF: If you look at the article history, you can see I have never edited that article, so could not have reverted you. Number 57 11:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
OliverDF, I have reverted your most recent edits. You don't get to remove someone's response from their own talk page, and you followed it up with a pretty incoherent kind of threat. Number 57 NEVER edited that article, so you need to just fall back. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: You are the lawyer of Number 57 so you can defend him or speak for him?--Oli (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: African Elections Database

African Elections Database often does not publish official results. Sources may publish results based on provisional data, but a reliable source must publish the official results, as they have been published (in this case) by the Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia: 1999 elections (even if it includes a mistake) and 2004 elections. Provisional or, in any case, unofficial results, even if they come from government sources, have no relevance. For this reason, I recommend using sources as AED only when finding official or primary sources is really impossible. --151 cp (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Barkan, Israel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Barkan, Israel. Since you had some involvement with the Barkan, Israel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Huldra (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert on "1955 Singaporean general election"

You've reverted the edit I made to include an image of David Marshall in the infobox at 1955 Singaporean general election with the comment that it was a non-free image. The image in question (File:DMarshall.jpg) was uploaded 10 years ago with justifications provided as to its use on Wikipedia and the image is used on David Marshall (Singaporean politician). What's the problem with using it in the infobox at 1955 Singaporean general election? --Pavithran (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pavithran: Non-free images are ones that are used on Wikipedia despite still possibly being copyrighted. They are used in cases where no free image is available and have several restrictions, one of which being minimal usage. In cases like this (photos of people), they are effectively only allowed to be used on their biography. You can see at File:DMarshall.jpg that there is a "Non-free media information and use rationale"; the image is only allowed to be used on the article on Marshall. Number 57 19:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense --Pavithran (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1964 Papua New Guinean general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Guise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Need your suggestion

I have been doing some edits and while doing that i have deleted the unknown or not realeased on many elections tables but we can't leave them empty do you have any suggestion what to put on the empty election tables also i appreciate your notices it helps a lot when other people appreciate your work please respond when you can

1964

There was not! Thanks for that catch - I've fixed it up. While I'm here - thanks so much for your work on these articles. PNG needs a mountain of work and I've tried hard to chip at it over the years but it's really been a drop in the bucket, so I've been loving seeing someone pop up with great content, particularly during the Australian colonial era, for which digital sources can be extremely difficult to find. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Table edit on 2016 Gabonese presidential election

Oh thanks for catching that issue with my edit to the table. The table definitely renders oddly for me, but that's because I'm using Chrome. You're right, it looks fine in other browsers (I tried Firefox and Safari). Dunno what Chrome 78's damage is but it doesn't do that rowspan correctly at all. --Krelnik (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Krelnik: No problem. But also odd as I use Chrome (no idea which version though) and it looks perfectly ok to me... Number 57 12:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly constituencies

A tag has been placed on Category:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly constituencies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Kyrgyz election issue

Hello, I am having problem with the whole elections thingy on Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan is a unitary parliamentary republic. All pages I see on Wikipedia have usually a title of "general election". Your argument is that it has presidential elections. There's literally parliamentary countries that have presidential elections and they still use the word "general election" for the parliament.

Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.

So why it can't exactly apply to Kyrgyzstan? --ShadZ01 (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello ShadZ. Regarding your examples above, Italy and Germany do not have direct presidential elections so are not comparable. I believe Ireland and Turkey are the only examples of countries that have directly elected presidents and where we call parliamentary elections "general elections". For Turkey, this situation has arisen as direct presidential elections were only introduced in the last decade (and I think we should consider renaming the parliamentary articles). For Ireland it is probably an ENGVAR thing because "general election" would have been a hangover from their involvement in British general elections.
With regards to the comment in your edit summary that "All pages that have that system of government have "general election" as the title". This is not the case. There are far more examples of parliamentary republics with direct presidential elections where the elections are not referred to as general elections, namely Albania, Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Iceland, Kiribati, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia. Cheers, Number 57 12:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, what about the legislative branch elections for the executive president republics?. Instead of "parliamentary election", shouldn't it be "legislative election"?
Like these: 1, 2, 3, 4.
So wouldn't it make sense for all Kyrgyz parliamentary elections prior to 2010 (before it became a parliamentary republic) to be named "legislative elections"?
Parliamentary and legislative are interchangeable – countries with presidential systems still have parliaments. It seems the application by country has developed at random as you have several countries that are parliamentary republics using "legislative" (like Austria, the Czech Republic and Israel) and many that are presidential republics using "parliamentary" (like Afghanistan, Chad or Venezuela). Personally I would prefer they were all unified using "parliamentary" as it is a more commonly understood term than "legislative" for non-English speakers. Number 57 18:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I think the naming should be separate because those branches have different functions. "legislative election", as that term implies an American-style separation between executive and legislative branches which isn't the case in parliamentary republics. This would've made it easier for a reader to understand. Wikipedia is really confusing now and something really needs to change here with the article naming. ShadZ01 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. Parliamentary and legislative are completely interchangeable and "legislative" does not imply anything different IMO; I don't think it would make any difference to readers. Number 57 17:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはNumber 57たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 05:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Article Title

Then the article title is very wrong as it should be Macedonian, and not North Macedonian. I referred to the Prespa Agreement as something that most people refer to when they discuss of this topic. In the international communication or anywhere else where is used official communication the adjective North Macedonian is not used therefore the article topic is wrong and should be changed, otherwise is a big minus for the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.169.241 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

2018 Assam panchayat elections

You changed the name of the page to 2018 Assam panchayat election(s), since it is single election happens every five years, it must be election instead of election(s). So, I request you to change this name. BIKASH NANDA GOSWAMI (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@BIKASH NANDA GOSWAMI: "elections" is used as there are multiple different panchayats being elected. The plural is used for elections in which multiple bodies are being elected – see e.g. 2020 Iraqi governorate elections, 2019 United States gubernatorial elections etc. Number 57 12:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

But it is not consider as election(s), it is a single election where there are different parts like Zilla, Gram....., etc. As I am from India, I know it better & Indian Panchayat elections are totally different from others like Iraq, US you mentioned above. And 'election(s)' mentioned by you totally refers to 2009,2013,2018... elections altogether & since the page refers to only 2018 Panchayat Election, it must be 'election' BIKASH NANDA GOSWAMI (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there a single panchayat with 26,000 members, or are there multiple panchayats? If the answer is the latter, then the current title is correct. "election" would only be used if there was a single body being elected (e.g. 2018 Bhutanese National Assembly election). Your second set of comments make no sense – the articles I linked to are for single years (2020 Iraqi governorate elections only refers to goveronate elections in 2020). Number 57 16:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, take a look at 2018 West Bengal Panchayat elections, 2014 Tripura local elections, 2016 Maharashtra local elections etc. Number 57 16:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Members of the 22nd Knesset (2019–) has been nominated for discussion

Category:Members of the 22nd Knesset (2019–), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there any compromise we could make to fix all of this?

Like, me sticking to the 2018 and perhaps future elections (2022 and beyond) and not making past elections. Also, that regional council elections themselves are allowed like you alluded to? For example 2018 Södermanland regional election should be a perfectly legitimate article since it details that very county and not a larger election? Glottran (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I have nothing to do with that person and it most certainly is not me. If you think there is a problem, I won't stand in your way to delete his/her contribution, but that is your decision.Glottran (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Glottran: County Council election articles (where they are the second tier of government) are deemed notable, so there would be no problem with you creating them (I think 2018 Södermanland County Council election would be the preferred title). See e.g. 2017 Suffolk County Council election. And, as I said, I would suggest you turn articles like 2018 Swedish general election in Södermanland County into Södermanland County (constituency). It's quite unusual that there are no articles on Swedish constituencies. You would basically have the first table in the results section for every election, plus a list of the elected MPs. The level of detail you've gone into in that article (by municipality) is not really necessary, as confirmed Sjö's comments on the AfD.
With regards to the other person commenting on that AfD, the checkuser has confirmed it is not actually you. However, it really is very obviously a vote that you have solicited from someone you know. Accounts do not just turn up after several months and add comments to AfDs in a very similar manner to another editor who they happen to be agreeing with. I have been on Wikipedia for well over a decade and this is not exactly uncommon – as an administrator I've had to deal with it on several occasions and this is what we refer to as WP:DUCK. I noticed that Sjö (who is also an administrator) had exactly the same thoughts and also reported you as a potential sockpuppeteer. Number 57 18:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ak Zhol in 2004 election

Ak Zhol Democratic Party won 2 seats. Here's the link to Russian Wikipedia showing that there were 2 members of the Mazhilis that were representing Ak Zhol (1).

@ShadZ01: Russian Wikipedia actually shows the party won one seat. My guess is that the reason two people are listed, is because (according to his article) Alikhan Baymenov (who was the lead candidate for Ak Zhol) gave up his seat in protest at the flawed election result. The second person is probably his replacement.
Also, don't rely too much on what Wikipedia says (WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source). Reliable sources like the IPU and the IFES/CNN confirm the party won only one seat. Number 57 20:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, he did give up seat in protest, but I'm not sure if it was left vacant or there was a replacement. But he did come back in October 2006 and served in the Mazhilis until 20 June 2007 when President Nazarbayev disbanded the Parliament for the 2007 Kazakh legislative election.

Orphaned non-free image File:Haim Landau.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Haim Landau.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

National Party of Honduras

i was going to fix that myself but thanks for fixing the proplem i appreciate it

1948 United States Senate election in Texas

Hello! I see that you are very interested in elections, and I would like to invite you to look over Wikipedia's page on a contested American election which gave future US President Lyndon Johnson his seat in the US Senate. (Also, if you are interested in the story and want to make a page for the prequel, the 1940 United States Senate election in Texas, let me know!) Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would like to invite comment on my edits at 2016 United States presidential election in Alaska. I'm looking for the results by borough that would back up the claims made in that map, but I haven't found them documented on Wikipedia; hence the map is unsourced as far as I know today. I am pinging you to a discussion in Wikimedia Commons about this (feel free to join in if interested) Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Boaz Toporovsky

Hello there, I dont understand why you delete my edits..? I added many sources and with respect, Boaz is memeber of the Israeli Knesset. Please let me know what needs to be corrected and I will but also, see the Hebrew version and you will see its a translation. Thank you. Rknesset (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There were a few reasons I reverted your edits:
  1. The edits look like ones being made to promote the politician – something that often happens before elections, and this is not acceptable for Wikipedia. I note that you state on your Hebrew userpage that you are a paid editor. Please familiarise yourself with WP:Paid editing
  2. The edits were poor quality; although some information was added to the article, much of it was a rewording of the existing text, but generally in a poor way. The language was often unencyclopedic, and there were many formatting errors, including:
    1. Inconsistent date formats
    2. Punctuation after references
    3. Non-English punctuation marks
    4. A dearth of in-wiki links
  3. The edits generally lacked citations – in fact you actually removed some existing citations.
I've also removed your most recent additions, which were clearly promotional and repeated certain information (such as him having an LLB and LLM).
Based on the fact that you are a declared paid editor and the edits are clearly promotional, and the fact that the edit are just poor quality, I would request that you cease editing the article. Feel free to suggest specific improvements on the talk page though. Thanks, Number 57 17:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ada Maimon: Pekelman under "Trivia"?

Regarding your edit on Maimon, what would you say about putting the information about Pekelman in a "Trivia" section, rather than under the "Biography" section? This would be for the benefit of not leaving the Pekelman article orphaned: the uniqueness and notability of Pekelman is very much because of the document she left as an ordinary person rather than a political or social leader, so it is not easy to link to her. In particular, as far as I can tell, it is reasonable to have trivia sections, per the Wikipedia:Handling trivia section. Thanks in advance, --Rickjpelleg (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rickjpelleg: That sub-guidance appears to be directly in contradiction to the main WP:TRIVIA guideline, which states that Trivia sections should be avoided. Anyway, having looked at her bio, the best place I can suggest a link from is the Personalities section of the Third Aliyah article, so hopefully that resolves the problem anyway. Cheers, Number 57 12:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah; great, thanks! Linking from "Third Aliyah". --Rickjpelleg (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Boaz Toporovsky

Hello there, I dont understand why you again deleted what I added... this is sourced and in Israel being the chairman is a huge deal. Also, its stated in the Hebrew articel. I will undo your undo and add one more source just to make it more sourced. Please, before you undo again, explin what else you need because this is very importent piece of information. Thank you! Rknesset (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rknesset: I didn't delete what you added. I moved it within the introduction to a more chronically logical position. If you had actually bothered looking at the change, you would have seen that the words "A former chair of the National Union of Israeli Students" appeared in the version of the introduction you reverted.
As stated in my previous reply to you, please make yourself familiar with WP:Paid editing. I strongly suggest you stop editing the article (your edits are not only a conflict of interest, but also display a lack of competence with Wikipedia formatting). Number 57 15:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
I award you this Special Barnstar for being such a great editor and having an AWESOME name! #bodyContent a[title="User:Tsunami307"] { background-color: #ffa500; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } 18:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for adding the Talk page to Montreal (Province of Canada electoral district). Thought I had added it, but I must have forgotten. Appreciate the wiki-help! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Guernsey Election 2020

Dear Number 57,

The edits to the Guernsey General Election 2020 entry were made by the Election 2020 Team from the States of Guernsey to change inaccuracies in your copy. Thank you.Dominatricks (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

PNG

The terms in Abaijah's infobox added infobox here are wonky and overlap. Not entirely sure how you were intending to organise this one so thought I'd bring it to your attention rather than fixing it myself. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Thanks for letting me know. Now fixed I think. Cheers, Number 57 21:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion

Hi! A few hours ago I started a move discussion at Talk:2020 Malawian presidential election. Thanks very much for the prompt response and for completing that move. However, the way that process played out left me with an open question. In your message when you closed it, you critiqued my request with the comment "This should have just been moved without starting an RM." This was my first time noticing that a page should probably be moved where a) the page was part of a system of pages that I have never touched before, and b) I didn't really know the reliable sources enough to be certain that the move was correct without substantially more research. WP:RM#CM point 2 says that if "someone could reasonably disagree with the move" -- which is tremendously broad advice -- then the correct procedure is to start a move discussion, and in general my understanding is that starting a conversation is preferred on Wikipedia when you cannot reasonably assume a consensus. So that I can have a finer sense for when to start a discussion and when not to, I'm curious why in this case it didn't make the bar for starting a discussion, and how I should be reading that second point in WP:RM#CM. Thanks! - Astrophobe (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Astrophobe: I think for cases like this, where the title is patently wrong, you should just WP:BEBOLD and move the article yourself. I don't think anyone could have reasonably challenged it, and even if someone did have some bizarre objection, the worst that could happen is that it's moved back. By going down the WP:RM route, you're leaving the article at the wrong title for another seven days. Cheers, Number 57 10:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, thank you for the explanation! I really appreciate the time. :) - Astrophobe (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Image - Boaz Toporovsky

hi there, please the following confirmation for us sending the permission: Subject: [Ticket#2020021210003611] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Toporovsky_Boaz_2019 [...]), can you please restore the image? thank you, Rknesset (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rknesset: Which image are you talking about? The last one you added has been deleted. Also, I won't be doing anything on your behalf until you comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose. Number 57 15:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: Hello there, yes I am talking about the last image added. I will read what you sent and do my best to comply (i was sure I have) but I will go over it again. Thank you. Rknesset (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Page creation - Cameron Wilson (football)

Hi, I am a semi-pro, ex full-time footballer looking for a very basic, informative Wikipedia page creating about myself.

Would I be able to pay you to do this for me?

Below are the details:

Details: Cameron Wilson DOB - 14th October 1997 Place of birth - Stockton-on-Tees Playing position - Midfielder

Current Team - Billingham Town Youth Career - Middlesbrough - 2013, York City - 2014 - 16 Senior Career - Whitby Town - 2018, Stockton Town - 2019, Billingham Town - present

Cameron is an English football Midfielder who plays for Billingham Town in Northern League Division One. Previously in Middlesbrough's academy and a Youth Team player at York City, he made several appearances in the FA Youth Cup.

Links to help sources/descriptions: https://stocktontownfc.com/player/cameron-wilson-2/ https://the66pow.blogspot.com/2015/09/mansfield-town-1-v-york-city-0-football.html http://nonleague.today/news/details.php?news_id=6282 https://stocktontownfc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CWilson-e1564961790213.jpg https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/sport/13712555.york-city-looking-for-new-striker-with-jake-hyde-ruled-out-for-two-months/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritof86 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1972 disestablishments in the Solomon Islands

A tag has been placed on Category:1972 disestablishments in the Solomon Islands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

i answered your qustion on the israeli election page --213.8.151.40 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, feel free to put up your articles on this! Keep up the good work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Zarcademan123456

Thank you for noting my factually correct edits...also, I wanted to respectfully point out that according to (what is at this point, the 8th citation in the Jordanian annexation of west Bank article) I read that, regarding Pakistani recognition of the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank: “[8] It is often stated that Pakistan recognized it as well, but that seems to be incorrect; see S. R. Silverburg, Pakistan and the West Bank: A research note, Middle Eastern Studies, 19:2 (1983) 261–263.”

Perhaps this is a factually incorrect source (I freely admit I did not check this source)... if this is so, I apologize for enhancing the dissemination of factually incorrect knowledge. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zarcademan123456: It is very odd to have such a claim in a reference, and was probably added inappropriately by an editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards. It's not an area I am familiar with, but either Pakistan should be removed from the list, or that reference claim removed. Number 57 21:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

ok, thank you for letting me know at least Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

pcbeducation.com

Hi. I see that you recently blocked

and I have just blocked

and globally blacklisted the domain after m:User:COIBot/XWiki/pcbeducation.com and more—already deleted from enWS, and Commons. Not certain whether we would find anything from a sockpuppet investigation, though thought that I would flag to you. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your work on politician biographical articles on Wikipedia, especially Israeli ones. Your hard work is much appreciated. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Robbie devereux

I would like to sort out my dad’s Wikipedia. Can you allow me to edit it and then leave it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuben devereux (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

AWB

Thanks for the heads up, I'll tweak the settings. GiantSnowman 18:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Source you might find useful

Just reading through your latest batch of work on PNG and I realised you might not know this already - the National Library of Australia's Trove archive has the digitised Papua New Guinea Post-Courier from 1969 to 1981, which should have more material on many of these not-super-super-early people. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Great – thanks for letting me know! Today I have also been able to secure access to the handbooks of members for the 1968–72 and 1972–76 Houses of Assembly (I already have a full copy of the 1964–68 one), which should also provide some useful details (and photos). Cheers, Number 57 21:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Another one - did you know newspapers.com is part of Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, so we have free access when requested? Another useful tool in the arsenal - just found an obit for Faoliu there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Thanks for the heads up! With regards to your additions to the article, is the DOB right, as it would make him 44 at the time of death rather than 52 as stated in PIM (which is often wrong but usually not by so much). Cheers, Number 57 20:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
The Honolulu Advertiser gives that DOB and also says he was 44. That is indeed a very strange difference in sources. I'm not sure how to reconcile it: the aged 52 comes from the first article, which is extremely brief and has few details, and doesn't seem to be in the second one which is a much more detailed account, and the Advertiser article has lots of detail about his life as an apparently-well known community leader there and has things like listing his address in Honolulu which suggests they knew a bit about him. Could it be that the first PIM article had just gotten a detail wrong? I dunno. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: Yes, I suspect so. Let's go with the Advertiser. Number 57 20:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Israeli election

Just saw your comment after I had already done a couple of edits in the article. I think it is updated now though I do not understand the turnout issue. It was 71.3% before so I updated it to 71.5% according to official figures. Should it be removed? Impru20talk 22:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I removed it because it seemed to be the issue of contention there, though seeing that the CEC source does not give seats yet I'll re-add it (with a footnote maybe?). Impru20talk 22:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, could work as well. Impru20talk 22:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2006 state legislature elections in the United States

A tag has been placed on Category:2006 state legislature elections in the United States requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sasakila

Sorry about that! I do like to follow a lot of your edits because they're so relevant to my interests and not often dealt with on Wikipedia, and I also wanted to know who won the by-election!

I think it could go either way. It doesn't seem to have had much impact before it was overturned in a relatively short space of time, but the situation of an MP being unseated and then un-unseated has happened before with greater effect so I'm not sure if it's useful to note generally. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge question

Should One Israel (1980) be merged to Yitzhak Yitzhaky (politician born 1936)? If it is a "one-man political party", wouldn't the content be handled better at the bio article? buidhe 05:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The description was incorrect; the party had a 64-person list for the 1981 elections. I've corrected the article. Cheers, Number 57 10:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1975 New Hebridean general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jimmy Stevens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Article title

Hello why you moved the page and changed the title, this looks confusing From (Albanian referendum for autonomy) to (1992 macedonian albanian referendum) it doesn't make sense like this? VMRO-DPMNE (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Because the naming convention for referendums requires article titles to be in this format ("19XX Foolandish topic referendum"). See WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums.
If you think about it in parts, it is a 1992 Macedonian / Albanian autonomy / referendum. Or a 1992 / Macedonian Albanian / autonomy referendum (Albanians in Macedonian can be referred to as Macedonian Albanians. Number 57 22:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for editing the wiki page! EhsanAhmed (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@EhsanAhmed: No problem. Let me know if you have any questions about how things work. Cheers, Number 57 13:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

PNG

I think it's questionable that they're the same body: a colonial territorial legislature with initially limited powers is a very different beast from an independent national parliament, even if they're essentially contiguous. Its powers and the legal basis for its existence as the House of Assembly were quite different to both of those things as the National Parliament, even if the sitting term of the House of Assembly did morph into the National Parliament. It's obviously not a clear-cut situation but my inclination is to treat them as basically separate bodies. Even if they were treated as one body, I think it's critical to separate them at least in the template because otherwise it gives the misleading impression that people who weren't members of a national legislature were. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense to me (and I think sticking the LC in there would be useful as well in that case). The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Football

There's a lot of assumptions there. Wikipedia has articles on tens of thousands of trivial male players who would be less notable, and of far less interest to less people, than top-tier women players. The "professional" delineator doesn't work well for women's sport, where even many televised national leagues (in various sports) are still technically semi-professional: the assumption that there's "sufficient interest in the league" for men's leagues worldwide (no matter how obscure) but not "sufficient interest in the league" for women's sports with national television audiences and comprehensive newspaper coverage because they attract less sponsorship dollars (speaking generally rather than just about soccer here) doesn't hold up. The guideline is not "simply a reflection of the real life level of interest in different leagues" - it's a reflection of how a small group of largely male Wikipedians interested in soccer view the real life level of interest in different leagues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting that you think it's an "assumption" that there's more people interested in some dude who played one game for a minor professional club in the 70s than a career top-tier woman player. Women's sports have generally struggled for sponsorship until very recently, even where there's television coverage/strong media interest/etc: it's just not a reliable barometer. Neither is attendance, in which case men's soccer guidelines would be far less tolerant than they are: there's plenty of semi-professional women's leagues that attract higher crowds than professional men's soccer in many countries (in my country, the A-League's attendances are smashed by semi-professional women's leagues in at least three different sports). The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
That's just the nature of women's sport at this point in history (not bizarre to anyone who's paid attention to women's sport!) - and that's why these assumptions are a problem. I actually forgot about the Big Bash, so that's four leagues with higher crowds than the A-League. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Deceased players

So, for example, how should the info be conveyed for Joseph Nalbandian? We know he isn't alive per this article, and that he was born in 1919. Should I write (born 1919), (1919 – unknown), or nothing? And in the infobox, should I just keep 1919 as the birth year, and remove Unknown from the death year? Nehme1499 (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Based on articles like Arthur Aaron (footballer), Harry Abbott (footballer, born 1883) I would say just write (born 1919) and remove the unknown from the infobox. Cheers, Number 57 14:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! Nehme1499 (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Banstead Athletic

Hi there, I am a club official at Banstead Athletic and the squad list is correct as we speak so I will repost it. Please feel free to message back but it is with permission of the club that the squad list is posted. Matt Longhurst (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Banstead Athletic F.C.

 Done GiantSnowman 19:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Ward Articles

Hi. I've done that now. Sorry it took me so long.

Misleading post

I am writing this in good faith. I really was hesitant at reverting your post, but it is sneaky to edit your original post which had a time signature of 18:37, to edit the article at 19:03 and then edit your original post, so it appears to the reader as if it had been always been there. If you want to change your posts in that way, you should remove it, move it after my post and change the time signature accordingly. As an experienced user: you should really know that is the honest thing to do. As I say, this is in good faith and don't want this thing to blow up, which it shouldn't and we can eventually get to a resolution on our disagreement. Humongous125 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't see how the timeline of when the infobox being added/removed has any importance, hence why I refactored my original comment rather than add another one – just mentioning that there was one and it was removed is all that matters; when it happened is totally irrelevant to the discussion as far as I can see. On this basis I can't see what's "sneaky" or dishonest about it, even more so with the amended wording.
What is a problem for the discussion (as it stands) is that your post isn't a response to mine, it's just a completely separate statement (I appreciate that was probably because we were writing them at the same time). However, this doesn't help anyone else joining the conversation. It would be better for the discussion if you could rewrite it as a response to what I wrote. Also, having the table there isn't really helpful as it gets in the way (it certainly made it difficult having a conversation on your talk page). As long as it's linked in a diff, that's sufficient for editors to look at. Number 57 21:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
My response after yours reads fine to me. If you edit your post so its putting across a different message (which it did, and still slightly does), you should change the time signature and move the comment. And in all good conscience, you should revert your post to what it originally said and add a new post after mine if you want to add anything to the talk page. Humongous125 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution for Icelandic Elections

The proposed format for the tables was referred here and in the Wikitalk for Elections which you set up, a user stated that the leaders column was sometimes useful. The other user didn’t think it was worth discussion unless it was being deleted from another page. As there had been some sort of agreement developed with the other users that responded in both talkpages, I thought it would be okay to continue implementing the proposed format. However you have been reverting the edits I make and I think you are abusing BRD. Therefore I am informing you that I have referred this issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to clear this issue up for the Icelandic Elections. Humongous125 (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2013 Icelandic parliamentary election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bjarni Benediktsson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Molitoni Finau

I see that you created this article and I’m wondering if you are sure about Finau’s dates. Genealogy sites show Molitoni Fisiihoi Finau as being born on 26 March 1875 in Kolomotu'a, Tongatapu, Tonga and dying aged 90 on 11 June 1965 in Nuku'alofa, Tongatapu, Tonga. they show him as being married twice but also bringing the father of Lupeti. I’d appreciate your advice on this before changing anything on his bio. SproulesLane (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@SproulesLane: While Pacific Islands Monthly sometimes has the age at death a year wrong, I think it's highly unlikely that it would have the date of death wrong in the circumstances. I would always prefer a reliable publication like this to geneaology sites (which I often notice are wrong when researching people like Finau). If a site has his death wrong, I would be uncomfortable using it for his date of birth. Also, if he was born in 1875, it would mean he was 21 when he went to Newington College. If we assume PIM is correct about him being 84 at the time of death, it would mean he was 14–15 when he went. Number 57 08:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Based on this, you may well be correct about Lupeti though. Number 57 08:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: I agree and hopefully this discussion will bring forth a date of birth and if Finau was still a member of parliament when he died as that is also debatable. His grandson Sitiveni Takaetali Finau (the son of Lupeti and a former Head of Department at Inland Revenue, Sales Tax, Customs, and Postal Administration for the Government of Tonga) is still alive and hopefully he may answer these questions.SproulesLane (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@SproulesLane: If you're contacting people about it, it may also be worth contacting the school to see if they have details in their alumni records. I would also suggest the Tongan parliament, although in my experience you rarely get responses from such organisations. As to whether Finau was still an MP when he died, he was elected in the 1963 elections, so presuming he didn't resign from office, he still would have been an MP at the time of his death. Cheers, Number 57 08:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, if you could ask if he has the DOB details of Lupeti and Tomiteau (their death dates are in PIM), I'd also like to start articles on them. Cheers, Number 57 09:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: I’m not sure that Pacific Islands Monthly is a reliable source at all as it is inaccurate and vague on a number of points. The first group of Tongan students at Newington in 1896, as they appear in admission records with anglicised names are Moulton Finau, Saul Funaki, Tonga Latu, Charles Liu, John Otuhoume, Egan Tatafu, Tugi William Tuboulaki, Solo Ula. The first seven arrived at the beginning of the school year, with Solo Ula arriving some time between April and June of that year. The register has no birth or death date for Moulton “Dave” Finau. I’m not planning on contacting anyone in Tonga but hopefully Tongans might provide information on all Finau parliamentary representatives if they are reading this discussion.SproulesLane (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@SproulesLane: Ah, if Molitoni is "Dave", then ignore my comment above about Lupeti (as that article states that Dave was his father). What is your specific concern about PIM here? Number 57 09:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@SproulesLane: After a bit more digging, I happened across the Pacific Islands Yearbook which gives a DOB for Molitoni and confirms he was the son of David (who is also referred to by PIM as the grandfather of Lupeti). I am also guessing he was named after James Egan Moulton, who took David on a trip to England in 1877. Number 57 14:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: Well done but you now have Moulton as dying in office in your copy but the info box has him only in office until 1965. You also have him dying at 82 and 85. Dave was his nickname at Newington and Moulton was his anglicised name so that needs to be clarified. Thanks for the bio on Lepeti. What do you think his DOB might be? SproulesLane (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@SproulesLane: Thanks for pointing out the incorrect death age, which I've corrected. I've also added details of his names. However, with regards to the infobox, he died in 1965, so only being in office until 1965 is correct, no? If Lepeti went to the school at the same age (around 13), I guess that would give a date of birth of around 1920. However, I couldn't find any source with it in.
ALso, you don't have to ping me on my user talk – I automatically get a notification of a message. It's used to notify people when you mention them in discussions away from their own talk page. Cheers, Number 57 20:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Family Search has Samuela Lupeti Finau as Birth 19 March 1913 Nukunuku, Tongatapu, Tonga Death Age 64 Death 16 September 1977 Nukunuku, Tongatapu, Tonga. I’ll check the Newington register but any age is possible for school arrival especially from the islands.Thanks for fixing Moulton.SproulesLane (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@SproulesLane: Ah well that date of death is definitely wrong given that he was elected to parliament in 1978! Number 57 21:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Newington has Samuela Lupeti Finau as born on 10/12/1915. Will we use that as his date of birth? SproulesLane (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@SproulesLane: Seems a bit odd as it would mean he was 17 when he started school. And as his father had gone from the age of 13. Is there any chance it is 10/12/18 rather than 10/12/15? Number 57 12:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Electoral_systems_map.svg [[3]]

Hi there, I've seen that you are able to edit the aforementioned FPP image, could you include North Korea in another edit? It is seen as FPP on this file [[4]]. Thanks! EnTerbury (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@EnTerbury: I'm afraid I can't edit svgs. I would advise contacting the editors who have edited that map. Cheers, Number 57 08:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry wrong link, I meant this png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_That_Use_a_First_Past_the_Post_Voting_System.png The svg was meant as a quick and easy reference/proof, DRK is red there 

EnTerbury (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@EnTerbury: Ah, I understand. However, I would question whether their system really is FPTP – they only have one candidate per constituency, who you can either vote for or against. According to the IPU it is a two-round system, possibly as if a candidate receives less than 50% of the vote, a second ballot is held. Cheers, Number 57 18:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
understand, however, I think wiki needs to be consistent then, one of which should change or offer further explanation. Would a vote for consensus on it be appropriate here? EnTerbury (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@EnTerbury: I'd say the svg need changing, unless there is anyone who has argued that North Korea uses FPTP? Number 57 19:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. CheersEnTerbury (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hearts of Beath

The Hearts of Beath article regards the historical, long-defunct adult team Hearts of Beath F.C., not the modern juvenile team, Hearts of Beath J.F.C., mentioned in the article as having taken on the name but otherwise unconnected. Can you either move back to plain Hearts of Beath or, probably better to move to Hearts of Beath F.C., currently a redirect? All the links will need to be corrected as well, please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cleared it up now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mutt Lunker: You moved the article by cutting and pasting it, which isn't allowed under Wikipedia guidelines. I have now moved it properly. If an article needs moving and you can't do it by using the move tab, do it via WP:RM or WP:RM/T. Number 57 15:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks and fair enough but, if I detect the slight adoption of a tone, remember it was very late at night, I thought that there was a likelihood that it may be some time before you saw my post and I was attempting to reverse your own original erroneous move for you. If you'd discussed the move first I could have set matters straight and there wouldn't have been a need for the technical work to correct matters. But no hard feelings, apologies if there was an apparent tone to my original post and best wishes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move of Kiev City State Administration to Kyiv City State Administration

Hi. Thanks for closing this long-overdue request.

But there were several specific naming guidelines that supported the move. The guideline cited several times in opposition was WP:CONSISTENT, which was spurious, because it actually supports consistency with all of the many articles with organizations’ containing Kyiv in their names. I’ll ask you to please check you’re familiar with the specific relevant guidelines and arguments, and reconsider the move. Let me know if you won’t, and then I would file a request to review the ruling. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2020-04-09 00:01 z

No problem; given the vehemence with which you supported the move and critiqued the oppose !votes, I was fully expecting this (RMs with a stream of rebuttals like this one often end up being long-overdue as no-one wants to close them and have to deal with the inevitable post-close questioning by the disappointed party). I am indeed familiar with the guidelines and arguments. Although the arguments in favour of the move were probably stronger guideline-wise, the oppose rationales were valid and logical criticisms of the proposal and outnumbered the supports by 5 to 3. As a result, I don't believe the request could have been closed in favour of the move.
I think it's important to stress that requested moves do not always end in favour of those quoting guidelines if good arguments are made as to why they shouldn't and there is not a clear majority of editors supporting the move (and please don't assume this is a case of vote counting; vote counting is where closers only count the numbers of supports/opposes but do not take into account the strengths of the argument – here I am saying both are important). As an example, I have recently been involved in an RM discussion where myself and two other experienced RM closers !voted against a proposed move that is in theory in line with the relevant naming guideline, but results in a much longer name containing duplicate words, which seems unnecessary.
You're more than welcome to go to WP:MR, but honestly I'd be surprised if anyone other than those who already favoured the move will think it could have been closed in any other way. Number 57 12:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I’d sincerely appreciate if you would identify the oppose rationales that were valid and logical criticisms. As far as I can see they all either cited the “consistency” guideline based on assumptions or misinterpretation of its advice and without quoting anything from it, or “talk:Kyiv” where this article’s title was never discussed, and naming discussion has been banned for several months. Thanks for your patience. —Michael Z. 2020-04-09 13:55 z
To be specific, WP:CONSISTENT, WP:CONSISTENCY, and talk:Kiev were cited. —Michael Z. 2020-04-09 14:23 z
All of them made valid and logical points about articles relating to Kiev following the same spelling as that article. As I mentioned above, following a guideline is not necessarily a required element of a !vote rationale if a compelling alternative argument is presented. You're clearly unwilling to accept they have a point, but this was my judgement when I closed the discussion. This is the point at which my patience ends, so please take it to WP:MR if you still have issues with the close. Cheers, Number 57 16:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'll point out that the closing instructions direct an admin to weigh the arguments “as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.” It seems relevant that of the four “oppose” votes one referred to WP:CONSISTENT and two others to WP:CONSISTENCY, but (in my opinion) neither they nor you has related the current title to what is actually written in those guidelines and the facts. So, again, thanks for your efforts and sorry to exhaust your patience, but I will consider proceeding to the review because I disagree that they were valid or logical in applying the naming guidelines. —Michael Z. 2020-04-09 18:47 z

License tagging for File:John Thomson Gunther.png

Thanks for uploading File:John Thomson Gunther.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Eccleshill United F.C.

I don't think there's enough recent disruption to justify semi-protection, but let me know if it continues/escalates and I'll step in. GiantSnowman 16:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 20:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Reverted, warned, page protected. GiantSnowman 16:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

1940 Mandatory Palestine v Lebanon football match

Hey, in case you were interested I've started a peer review for the article, with the idea of promoting it to FA in the future. If you could give a couple of comments I would greatly appreciate it! Nehme1499 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Middlesex University Dubai

Hi there, I noticed that my draft was declined again due to the lack of reliable references but I am a little confused because, the sources I had given was off the university's courses page and the news paper companies, Khaleej Times and The National here in Dubai. I also noticed that Murdoch University Dubai had passed the review with only one reference from another UAE based news agency the same one mentioned in mine The National. You stated that if I have any conflict of interest to state it, after re-submitting the draft only once, which I don't understand why because after I had been told to include other references from the previous reviewer, that's what I did, I'm not getting rewarded and nor am I enrolled in the institution I can give you their email to double check, I'm just here to upload articles. Also the plethora of other sources had been taken from their courses page done similarly on the American University of Sharjah page, I you want I can remove them and provide just one link for all of them. If you could tell me what needs to be done or maybe reconsider the decision, it would be really appreciated thank you!. (Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 18:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC))

As I noted when I declined, the Khaleej Times piece is a press release, not a story written by the newspaper.
However, there is clearly something dubious going on here: The article was originally created in 2017 by Hafees.a and deleted as being overly promotional. Your original draft (which was deleted for the same reason) contains several bits of text identical to that in the 2017 deleted version.
The original article repeatedly referred to the university as "we", suggesting it was directly written by someone at the university, or by someone working on behalf of the university. The fact that you are using the same text suggests some form of relationship.
Murdoch University Dubai was also created as a clearly a promotional effort and was written by someone with a conflict of interest (previous versions were written by someone at the university), which suggests some form of concerted effort to get articles for these campuses. Number 57 18:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I'm being completely honesty when I say that, I had no idea that someone else had written an article prior to mine regarding this university, as I didn't see it being mentioned on the page when I started it, which I had seen on prior drafts that had been deleted or taken down, if that was the case I would've contacted the reviewers who had taken down the page and requested permission and guidance. I did not use any personal pronouns like we as the other editor did in the prior article, as I was strictly following Wikipedia's unbiased formal tone. I hope you can give me the benefit of the doubt, the text may seem similar because these are the articles that had been published so far. The only page I had published so far, was in relation to a Navy SEAL and I took on this one to diversify my abilities in edited and creating different drafts in other areas of the Wikipedia. I have not been rewarded or tasked with creating a page, if there's some way I could prove it to you I would, I'm being truthful in what I say. (Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC))

If you can explain how you produced exactly the same wording as the 2017 version, that would be a start. Did you copy/paste if from other locations? Number 57 20:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not try to copy anything from the 2017 article as I was unaware of it, I got those links when I looked up Middlesex University Dubai news articles to do research on, where I found the Khaleej times article and a couple of pages later The National article. I also used the Middlesex University London page, as the campus was mentioned there and so I got references to a couple of articles or links I could use to report on. I don't think I had the exact wording, I tried to paraphrase or make my own version to avoid copying or getting a copyright claim which was evident in the news articles, If anything I was taking information off the articles not off the 2017 draft which I had no idea of until now. (Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 20:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Keep up the great work on Oceanian topics! Feel free to add your articles to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge!! † Encyclopædius 21:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User Nbanic using multiple sock puppets

Hi, user Nbanic, who has been blocked for violating the 3RR has used first a sock puppets while the block was active Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nbanic and in that way being disruptive on the same article Josip Broz Tito where user Nbanic broke the 3RR. Now he is using a second sock puppet making edits: (Grammar fix), similar to the edits made by the blocked sock puppet Nachtjaeger2: (and subsequent => and the subsequent), (Removing "<>" added by error.) and (on factory workers => on the factory workers) and editing the same material that was introduced by user Nbanic himself when he broke the 3RR: [5]. I thought that you should be informed about this kind of continous disruptive behavior. Can something be done about this repetitive abuse of Wikipedia rules? This kind of behavior by user Nbanic makes editing Wikipedia less enjoyable for everyone and makes it hard to edit Wikipedia when someone needs to deal, constantly with multiple sock puppets and constant edit wars instigated by the sock master account. It is clear that user Nbanic hasn't learned anything from the 48 hour block. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: I've semi-protected the article for two weeks, which means it cannot be edited by any new accounts or IPs. I have to say I was slightly susprised that Nbanic was only blocked for 48 hours for sockpuppetry when they were just coming off a previous 48 hour block for breaking 3RR. Vanjagenije, this seems like a rather short block for such an offence – I would have said a couple of weeks at least for a higher offence.
I was also surprised to see the sock's edits reinstated, formatting and grammatical errors included. I don't think you should have been told that you couldn't remove reliably sourced information; such information can be (and regularly is) removed if it's not deemed appropriate for a variety of reasons (such as undue weight, recentism etc). Number 57 12:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: Thanks for that. I also do not understand why they have been reinstated, especially the grammatical errors. I frankly don't know what to do, it seems to me that no matter what, my removal of them is going to be reverted, as before. :/ This all development is an obvious attempt, by any means necessary, as we have witnessed, to make a POV push by user Nbanic. Can you maybe give an input, on the Josip Broz Tito talk page, on what do you think about such edits? I don't want to drag you into anything, I just don't know what to do else. This all is draining my energy and then to see such disruptive and bad behavior "rewarded" is... --Tuvixer (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

User Nbanic - disruptive behaviour - again

Hi, user Nbanic is no longer blocked and has made an edit on the article Josip Broz Tito, without any consensus, restoring the content added by his sock puppet Nachtjaeger2 - the blocked sock puppet - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nbanic. With that edit, he started yet again one of his common edit wars. You have warned him: "If you continue to make reverts on the Tito article without gaining consensus once your block is lifted, you will be blocked again.". This kind of disruptive behavior makes it impossible to edit Wikipedia when user Nbanic is involved. Unfortunately, this is not the first time, and it is not going to be the last time, that he engages in that kind of disruptive behavior, leading into endless and countless edit wars. User Nbanic has not learned anything after being blocked twice in the last couple of days. Both times for a 48 hour period. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it was a grammar change, i.e. I changed "on factory workers" to "on the factory workers". I sincerely think that changes like that do not need a consensus. The change was again reverted, the user Peacemaker67 told me that my grammar is wrong, I checked it and I stand corrected. If you take a look at my contributions over the years, you will see that most of them account for grammar and I never had to use talk pages for things such as these. As for other topics regarding the Tito article, you may see that I am engaged in a discussion on the talk page and that I have not made any change with respect to that. Nbanic (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
User Nbanic admitted that she/he made disruptive edits. Using multiple sock puppet accounts to avoid block, reverting users without any reason, starting edit wars, etc. This all takes precious time from other users and makes editing Wikipedia less enjoyable. This kind of disruptive and bad behavior should not be tolerated, especially because user Nbanic was blocked and the warned not to make reverts on the Tito article. User Nbanic ignored that warning, learned nothing and did what she/he was explicitly instructed/warned not to do. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I did not admit any disruptive edits, but I admit edits. As for reverting, I always gave a reason on the talk page where some other users declined to enter a discussion. The last Tito edit was a grammar edit, not a single piece of information was changed in any other way, I should probably have labeled it as a minor edit, but I don't see how making a grammar edit is wrong. What seems to be wrong there? Simultaneously, I was engaged a lot on the Tito talk page and did not carry out any edit in terms of content or meaning. It seems to me that Tuvixer is trying to push his/hew own point of view by silencing other users who provide sourced content that brings back neutrality, thus endangering their point of view. As a matter of fact, Tuvixer continuously erased the sourced content and as can be seen by his/her former actions, a lot of users complained at such unexplained sourced content removal. Tuvixer, what seems to be the main problem here? Nbanic (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
User Nbanic, right now, made another disruptive revert on the article Socialist Republic of Croatia, starting another edit war. It is impossible to edit Wikipedia when user Nbanic or one of her/his sock puppets is involved. This kind of behavior is the "signature behavior" of user Nbanic. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I have given Nbanic a DS alert and warning that they are liable to be blocked or topic banned from Yugoslavia-related articles if they continue to revert material back into articles without gaining consensus (i.e. if they do not follow WP:BRD). Feel free to revert their edits at SR Croatia as they will not be able to revert again without incurring sanctions. Number 57 12:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I will now go to the talk page for the case of Socialist Republic of Croatia and argue there as well that what has been reverted by Tuvixer now is in my opinion removal of sourced content that has a neutral point of view. Additionally, I would like to ask the following: is it OK to make grammar and typo errors without seeking for consensus? Nbanic (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is ok to make grammatical and spelling corrections. However, it may be preferable to avoid the grammar corrections if your understanding of English grammar is not great. Number 57 13:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, great, that's some progress here finally :) When I'm in doubt, I usually check it with some specialized software or I check the style in books on similar topics. Nbanic (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive and suspicious behavior

Hi, I would like to ask you a question. Unfortunately this is a serious matter. In the past months I have observed a continuous disruptive behavior by some users in topic related articles. They engage in edit wars and without any attempt, after being reverted, to start a discussion and to seek consensus. I have observed that this users only stop edit warring, after being warned or when an admin intervenes. Then they ignore the discussion on the talk page or they do engage in a discussion but only to go on and on in circles, often name calling other users and pretending like the fact that they have been reverted multiple times and have engaged in disruptive behavior is nothing. The edits cover almost the same general topic, and the sources provided are mostly not reliable. Often these users try to push some changes falsely and intentionally misrepresenting what the sources state, even when reliable sources seem to have been provided. It is done in a manipulative way and shows a significant amount of bad faith by the users in question. These users often "help" each other by joining the edit wars that some of them have started and reverting others involved them from breaking the 3RR. All that behavior is disruptive and it makes editing Wikipedia really impossible, in a meaningful and productive way. The explanation of edits is often manipulative, and the overall demeanor in general. All stated above and below and even more, are the reasons why I am forced to seek protection from that kind of behavior and practice. There is much more to it and I can explain everything in detail, so this was only a very brief summary of what is going on.

This behavior I have observed mostly around user Sadko, but looking only in the past few days I have seen that other users seem to be involved in this in one way or another.

This all I have observed in the following articles:

this all happened only in the past few days. And I have observed this only by quickly looking at contributions made by user Sadko in the past two or three day, so I could have missed something. The articles in question are all Croatia related articles, and all the edits are same or of similar nature and cover the same general topic. I can explain this in detail if needed. If there is need to explain why some sources, that these users have provided, are not reliable, I can do that in detail. And if it is not clear from the start that the edits made by this users are POV pushing I can explain that also, in detail. A few developments in the past month, and especially in the past few day have revealed something that was not clear before. The edits made by this users particularly in Republic of Ragusa and Glina, Croatia, if looked closely, indicate and clearly show how the edits made by the users in question are biased and only made so that they can be misleading. They are giving undue weight to unreliable sources and interpreting the sources in a misleading way. It is really hard to engage in any meaningful work on Wikipedia when such behavior is constantly practiced. I can explain also how these users are trying to push some changes by falsely and intentionally misrepresenting the sources. The kind of manipulative removal of content in the Glina article, just because they do not like is unfathomable. I can explain this in detail. There seems to be an agenda behind that kind of removal of sourced content and edit warring. It seems that, article about Glina being a small article, the involved users thought that this kind of edits will "pass under the radar", that no one will notice. I have observed also that this behavior often seems coordinated. So my question is basically, what to do? I have spent some time reading what should/can be done but still I don't really know. This behavior is not only edit warring, here is happening something more than just edit warring. There might even be a conflict of interest. Also maybe even sock puppetry. It can be also said that this is a sort trolling with purpose, or bullying, but maybe I would not go that far. I am saying this because all this is mostly done in a "smart" way by long time users, who know how Wikipedia works. That is way all this is so much more troubling. Not to mention the coordinated help with the 3RR. Because pf the scale of it and that it is focused explicitly in Croatia related articles it is hard for me to know, where I should file a report or what to do in this kind of situation? What noticeboard is best suited to deal with this kind of disruptive behavior that is more than just edit warring? If I need to explain something more, please tell me and I will do that. I never thought that this would be the kind of work that I would practice on Wikipedia, but after some months of seeing first hand of what is going on, and that it really seems that there is no way but to seek protection from that kind of behavior, I am forced to resolve this with the proper authorities on Wikipedia. There is no point in editing Wikipedia if this kind of continuous and targeted, disruptive and manipulative behavior is to be allowed. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've heard of a thing called - recent changes patrol? It's a little thing we do to prevent vandalism. You've tagged many of us out, including me, Serols, and Flyer22 Frozen. Quite frankly, we had to continue reverting edits while we wait for the admins to respond. Please, please, please, assume good faith and don't start screaming at us with bold text. it is completly uncivil. As a recent changes patroller, I do not begin discussions regarding topics, I revert edits that are not to Wikipedia's policies, and take appropriate action. As you can appreciate, there are thousands of edits to Wikipedia in a very short time, so we need to keep up to spot vandalism before it is too late. If you have any further questions, please ping me. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
(e/c) I would recommend filing a report at WP:ANI raising concerns that there has been a significant increase in disruptive and POV editing across a range of Balkans-related articles. Hopefully some admins with more experience of this problem will be able to step in. However no-one is going to look at it unless you cut down your text by at least two-thirds. I would also advise against using bold, as it is generally associated with people being shouty and will not endear you to people. Also, several editors involved at the U boj, u boj article were simply reverting what appeared to be IP vandalism and are not pushing an agenda (see comment above). I would focus on the first five editors you mention above. Number 57 18:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This is merely a bad attempt to "remove" editors you disagree with. Classical WP:IDONTLIKEIT taken to another level, as seen on Republic of Ragusa and Ivan Gundulić TP. There was no explanation given why you are removing sources, pretty much randomly and based on author's nationality. Accusing 5-6 editors of some sort of plot while breaking several Wiki rules, like accusing people of sock puppetry just like that, only proves my point. There is no edit warring taking place, just disputes. Nobody except for you broke 3RR (on several articles). If you really think that there is some sort of "traveling circus", bring out some proof for it, by all means. A lot of generalisations, but nothing concrete. Using a bunch of bold "key words" and adding a lot of text will not help with the fact that you are not discussing with fellow editors but attempting to out them, because they do not agree with your viewpoints. Notice that some of the editors you have tagged as "part of the plot" have been editing Wikipedia for 10+ years and have written hundreds of articles. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, the edits of yours that I glanced at look quite clearly like classic nationalist POV pushing/point-scoring in a contentious area. I would tread very carefully if I were you. Number 57 18:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@JamesHSmith6789: I am so sorry. I intended to write that users Serols, BFDIBebble, Flyer22 Frozen and JamesHSmith6789 seem to be only involved in this one article, and that the reverts seem justified. In all this mess it seems that I forgot to write that down. I am so sorry. I only included you all so that it does not sees strange that I leave anyone out from the same edits that were made by the users in question, namely user Sadko and others. I am so soory. It is not my intention in any way to implicate that you or the others mentioned now are in any way involved. I apologize again. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it. And that's okay, we all make mistakes. If need to ask me anything, I'm always willing to respond on my talk page. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: Thanks for the advice. As I stated this was only a very short description of what is going on and really only what has happened only in the last few days. The problem in shortening is that then I would have to leave out some of the evidence, but I will try. Thanks again. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@JamesHSmith6789: again sorry. I appreciate your understanding. Thanks, will do. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: Is it ok that I, write a detailed overview of what happened, for example, on the Yugoslav Partisans article in the article talk page and then and then in the report provide the diff of is so if anyone wants to read more in detail can. Or would that seem inappropriate? --Tuvixer (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I would avoid any "detailed" overviews if they amount to more than half a page of text. Anything beyond that is too much detail. You need to be extremely succinct in your descriptions of any problems. I would stick to stating that there has been a recent spurt of edit warring, identify the articles and editors in question and give several diffs of problematic edits (e.g. addition of point-scoring/UNDUE text, removal of reliably-sourced information etc). Number 57 19:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Tuvixer I don't understand why I'm being lumped in here. If you look at my edits to the Genocide of Serbs article, they consist of an expansion of a section and removal of an unnecessary paragraph that was largely added by WEBDuB. I have not engaged in any kind of edit-warring there. As for the Glina, Croatia article, I stumbled upon it as I was looking up information from the Glina massacre article. I did make an edit which preceded the involvement of other editors, but the reason I removed the content was because I noticed it was cited to what looked like a tabloid newspaper, as alluded to by another user. A large part of that paragraph also appeared to contain unsourced claims. I have not made further edits there. A user added a better source for the part I removed, that's fine with me. If other like-minded editors monitor my contributions and decide to engage in the same topics, I can't be held responsible for that. This by the way goes both ways, as I have noticed editors with opposing viewpoints undoing and removing my contributions. I always make sure to use reliable English sources on any topic and have never engaged in POV pushing. I am completely against it, along with any other type of bad-faith editing. --Griboski (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: I have filled a report and tried to be as brief as possible report. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Should I add a note concerning the point that user Griboski has made regarding her/his edits on Genocide of Serbs article? Griboski the edit on Glina, Croatia is troubling. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Just want to say thanks to Number 57 for intervening on the Gilna, Croatia article. Also a note it seems funny to me that editor Sadko is now mass archiving various wiki talk pages to cover up his contributions/edit history page. Odd timing given their edit history was called out for POV pushing. What is there to hide? ;) PortalTwo (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tuvixer So you're singling me out for one edit I made on the Glina page (even after I explained why I made the edit), because two other editors jumped in afterwards? That paragraph is still largely unsourced by the way. However, if the consensus is that it was a bad edit, I'm willing to admit it was a sincere mistake on my part. Frankly, I don't agree with some of the edits I have seen coming from other editors but I have no interest in engaging in nit-picky editing of Croatia regions or Ragusan issues. So I object to being included in some kind of POV bad-faith editing conspiracy when I have done no such thing. You've also thanked me in the past for edits I've made. This is shameful on your part. --Griboski (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I can vouch for Griboski. Their edits are usually good quality with RS citation. I disagree with their revert of my edit on Glina, Croatia but it was done in good faith as the source was ify. We have done a lot of good editing together on other articles. Griboski I think Tuvixer is referring to your edit having been perceived as problematic being in the middle of all else that went on on the page. Simply bad place bad time. I don’t think you did much wrong in either article. Cheers. Can’t say the same for the others named. PortalTwo (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the support but I didn't revert you. I removed part of a text another user had added months ago. --Griboski (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry you are right, it was the other two who did. All the edit war nonsense got confusing. Anyway, while I think an attempted should have been made to find better sources you definitely were editing with good intentions. Also you don’t attack people for disagreeing. We need more people like you. So I hope you don’t get disheartened by all this. I have been accidentally accused for another person’s edits before by an admin. Happens with all the craziness that went on. Take care. PortalTwo (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@PortalTwo: What somebody finds funny is completely irrelevant to me. I have planned to do it for a long time, considering that nobody has done it for ages. It's quite relaxing compared to complicated historical topics. You can thank me later. All edits are there, and I stand by most of them. Rather than going merry WP:HOUND (I remember saying the same to another editor who reminds me of you, just recently), you can improve various related articles and what not. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: I’m sure I remind you of a lot of people that conflict with you, coincidentally. If you have nothing to hide than you have nothing to worry about. Oddly enough you remind me of another editor who recently left a post on my talk page about also breaking some rule I didn’t break while I was improving the Gilna, Croatia article. They happen to appear on similar articles and write with a familiar style. Yes that’s what it is. ;) Anyways, fail to see how Number 57’s edit bringing me here means I am hounding you. I have seen you hound other users. Suddenly pop up after their edits or talk pages. Also I have added to and improved numerous articles so your snide remarks fall flat per usual. I recommend you not to throw stones in glass houses. Nothing more to say here on my part. Cheers. PortalTwo (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Griboski I have wrote that you do stand out compared to other 3 editors. Only there is that troubling edit on the Glina article. I had to mention that. --Tuvixer (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
They made the wrong move to remove the information rather than to tag for better source or find better sources, but they shouldn’t be on that report page. I think they should be taken off. They did not have bad intentions in their edit. They even said it is fine and accepts if editors feel he made the wrong move. PortalTwo (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I had to be objective. The first removal on Glina article was done by user Griboski. As I have stated I have never seen user Griboski engage in the same disruptive behavior as the other three. --Tuvixer (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Right but including them the way and context that you did in the “4 editors in question” it made it seem as if you implying they were. As long as it is all cleared up. And clear up on the admin report page so as not to inadvertently implicate Griboski, then fine. Just want to make sure.PortalTwo (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't have experience with ANI, so maybe someone more experienced can advise me what would the right course of action be. Again, I had to be objective. I have mentioned in my comment in the report in paragraph 6--Tuvixer (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Griboski stated above “ However, if the consensus is that it was a bad edit, I'm willing to admit it was a sincere mistake on my part. ” So I think they are not still trying to argue against there edit.PortalTwo (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to point out that I have placed my reply on the ANI, but it was removed by user Sadko, the users that is in the report. I don't know if this is regular. --Tuvixer (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as my advice about keeping any report brief was not followed, no-one apart from those involved in the dispute has bothered to respond to it. If you can't summarise a dispute in one or two paragraphs, it is highly unlikely that any admins will take the time to get involved. Despite what I said, the report at ANI was actually longer than the one here.
As you've ruined the chances of it getting sorted out at ANI, the only other route open to you is reporting individual editors at WP:AE noting violation of WP:ARBEE. Again, you will need to keep it brief if you want to be taken seriously. Number 57 09:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand how the report was not brief? I was instructed by another user to reply to the comments made by user Sadko. Also I don't understand how the report on ANI was longer than the one here? I had to provide the diffs. Should it have been differently structured, or what do you mean? --Tuvixer (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't get it. I have written only 5 short sentences and the rest is the diffs of edits. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tuvixer:, I'd like to comment. Imo, this entire situation has just turned into a huge pissing match and argument in poor Number 57's talk page (thanks for handling this the best you could, btw). It's caused a major mess with editors seemingly at each other's throats while nothing constructive is actually being done. While yes, there is some reason for speculation and concern regarding some of these edits, with all due respects, your handling of this has been utter rubbish. This has genuinely just turned into a groundless conspiracy that there is some underground secret Wikipedia editing gang of editors who just want to disruptively edit pages about Croatia. There are some serious civility issues (bold text, am I right?) with everything going on here, quite frankly also accusing many editors assumptions based on behaviour that has only occurred in the past few days. Some of these editors have been editing for years and I think if you looked through their contributions it may appear that there are many other anomalies like this which occur during the role of editing Wikipedia. This dispute could have been resolved far more civilly and in a better place, i.e by going straight tot the correct reporting pages rather than reporting it here. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@JamesHSmith6789: I don't have any experience with this, or if I had any I really don't remember anything. I have went and created a report on ANI. Me using bold text was to point out something more, not to shout. This was the first time that anyone has told me that using "bold" letter is not polite, or that it means shouting. What I know is that using capital letters equals to shouting. So if you thought that I was not civil, I apologize. It was really not my intent. The behavior is only observed in the last few days. If you look at the contributions of the users in question, excluding user Griboski, you can see that the similar behavior is present constantly in the past and in topic based articles. The edits in the last few days are only a small and recent development in a longer history of this kind of edits. Also, as I have pointed out, I really did not know where to go. I had to ask for help. Also I don't understand how the report on ANI is too long. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tuvixer: I apologise if I came off too harsh, I just find it rather frustrating seeing all these editors in a big scrap and not treating eachother civily. I understand that you took action in good faith, which is the right thing to do, so I think you for that. As I am not directly involved, I simply wanted to comment so I will not say anything else regarding this matter. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@JamesHSmith6789: I don't understand why these users had to get "involved". You can see from their behavior and comments, with what I have to deal constantly when editing Wikipedia. This makes editing Wikipedia near impossible and time consuming for me. That is why I had to take these actions, otherwise I don't see a point in editing Wikipedia if that kind of disruptive behavior is going to be tolerated. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The ban

Why is it OK for other users to remove sourced content without proper talk and not for me to restore the removed content even when I solve the problems that they stated? Nbanic (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean, isn't removing sourced content without proper discussion bad? Should one not defend against it? Nbanic (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Content being sourced does not make it appropriate for inclusion. I could add plenty of sourced material to Ipswich Town F.C. based on near-daily news stories on the club. However, most of it would not be considered appropriate for inclusion as it is not significant to the long-term history of the club. It is perfectly acceptable for editors to remove sourced content if they do not believe it is suitable for the article, or a specific part of an article, such as the introduction, and there are a wide range of reasons for doing so, such as WP:UNDUE, MOS:LEADNO and several others, many of which you can read at WP:NPOV.
On a separate note, it seems you are unable to grasp a basic concept of Wikipedia editing – gaining consensus for changes to articles, particularly ones in controversial topic areas. Regardless of whether your edits are sourced or not, if you are reverted, you are expected to gain consensus via a discussion. You were advised of this only yesterday. Number 57 20:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, I think I may have misunderstood some stuff here. Thanks for your explanation. If I understood correctly, I can edit again these topics on October 28, right? Nbanic (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. In the meantime you are welcome to contribute in other subject areas, should you wish to try and improve other articles. Number 57 20:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the day of the feast of Jude the Apostle, at least it's easy to remember. Just for the end, will I also be able to e.g. remove Tuvixer's potentially controversial content should the user add it without consensus or will I still be barred from some privileges of the usual editors? Nbanic (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If Tuvixer has added content or removed longstanding content, you will be able to remove/reinstate it and ask him to seek consensus for reinserting it. The same behaviour is expected of everyone. Number 57 21:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, great, thanks! :) Nbanic (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Gideon Patt

On 28 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gideon Patt, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 08:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Eccleshill United F.C.

Reverted, warned, protected. GiantSnowman 17:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Socialist Republic of Croatia

Hi, today one of my earlier sourced content contributions on the article Socialist Republic of Croatia was reverted by user Tuvixer [6]. In the description of the reversion it is stated that references like that need to have pages. I have the page numbers of course and I checked on Google Books whether they are publicly verifiable - they are. I am now going to put this content back with better the same references reinforced with the page numbers since this was the only requirement stated in the reversion description. I am saying this in advance because it seems to me that some of user Tuvixer's recent behavior in directed at denigrating every thing that I do including stuff as simple as grammar edits with no change of content meaning. So in short - should any accusation fall again, I am editing simply in accordance with the complaint that the references that were there earlier need to have pages - I put the page numbers now and they are verifiable. It seems to me that this should not be a problem. Nbanic (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I would question why so many names are needed in the introduction of the article in the first place, when there is already a section on names. It should be enough to use "Socialist Republic of Croatia" in the introduction and leave the rest to the names section (this was how it was until you two started edit warring over it at the start of April). This shoehorning of multiple names looks like POV point scoring. Number 57 18:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I live or lived in Croatia and I know that this are the terms often used by many people I know in Croatia as well as in Croatian diaspora, but also in many books on the topic of communist Croatia. On the other hand. At least I hear it more often used than the previously used term socialist Croatia. As for the edit wars, my edits were being reverted time and again and I thought that it the normal way was simply to restore them back. I had no similar problems before so my experience on that matter was non-existing. It seems as though I made a mistake and I was already blocked and punished for that. I even publicly apologized to user Tuvixer as he requested in order for him to start engaging in the discussion with me on the talk page for Socialist Republic of Croatia. Nbanic (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi again. My sourced content was again removed without previous discussion and I feel as being a second class editor here. I repeat - the content was sourced, I even added the page numbers, and now there is another excuse, namely that the content does not reflect to the stuff that I used it in. That does not make sense. I neither said whether these terms are good, bad, whatever, I simply stated that they are being used and they really are. I checked the behavior of user Tuvixer and I have seen more people here on Wikipedia complaining about similar behavior from him. If necessary, I make a larger report on that because this does not make any sense. Since when is sourced content being allowed to be removed just like that? I mean, I put multiple references there on purpose to show that it can be seen as used often in proper historical literature. I am writing this before putting the references back and also changing the word commonly to word also since even the term socialist Croatia that was used there earlier is not necessarily a commonly used term. This is to address one of the grievances in the newest reason on the talk page for the removal of the sourced content that was there for a while. Nbanic (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I actually have some of the referenced books not in the paperback, but in the digital format, which I can prove if necessary by citing more content from there that is not available on Google Books and I can provide more information on the surrounding content. Nbanic (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User Nbanic started another edit war

Hi, user Nbanic has yet again reverted my edit without any consensus. User Nbanic reverted material back without gaining consensus in a Yugoslavia-related article. It was not a grammatical and spelling correction but an edit in the lead of the article. I have started a discussion on the article talk page and explained in detail why I have removed such content. Also I was going to propose the removal of everything "commonly called" as you have pointed out correctly that "It should be enough to use "Socialist Republic of Croatia" in the introduction". Unfortunately user Nbanic had reverted me again, in record time, without a consensus. It is impossible to edit Wikipedia when user Nbanic is involved. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, if you check the history, user Tuvixer started deleting sourced content without having a proper discussion on the talk page before that. So, sourced content that was there already for a while. It is not good to delete sourced content as far as I understand. He even gave reasons as to why I deleted it, I corrected the stuff that he requested, then only after that did he find some other reason and this goes on and on. Nbanic (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2005 Zimbabwean Senate election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Movement for Democratic Change (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Bolivia, 2019 General Election, Computer System

Hey, want to know what happened with those servers in the 2019 Bolivian General Election? I wrote this back in December after reviewing all the public evidence. Maybe one day the media will actually do some journalism on this topic too. Probably not. Futurebum (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Rotation government (Israel)

You are invited to look into it, review it, edit and add on information. --Midrashah (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Rajkumar

Hi, There is reference number 18 which is one medium and I think it's not a Reputable source someone is doing vandilism on her page I need your help in this matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowords89 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Prowords89: Your contributions strongly suggest you are a paid editor. If this is the case, please follow the guidelines set out at WP:Paid editing. Thanks, Number 57 21:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Can you help me to make Bangladesh parliament constituency page show as divisionnaly? EhsanAhmed (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@EhsanAhmed: I don't quite understand what you want help with? Can you explain a bit more? Number 57 16:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you want to turn the groups in List of Parliamentary constituencies in Bangladesh into one long list with the division added in a separate column? Number 57 16:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No i just want to it divisional heading. Dhaka Chittagong Like this. EhsanAhmed (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@EhsanAhmed: Which article do you want the change to be made on? Number 57 22:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Bangladesh EhsanAhmed (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@EhsanAhmed: I've done what I think you are asking for. Is that correct? Number 57 21:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Edward S Herman

Thanks for your review of all this. So far I have made good-faith attempts to respond to all the specific requests regarding the edit. Every time, it's deleted wholesale without meaningful engagement; no one will be specific. I am trying; how long should I wait for people to reply before assuming consent is achieved and I can restore the edit? Policies don't seem to say. The guy who reverted me three times and complained about my personal politics (and then complained I'd done three reverts when I hadn't) has already served a lengthy ban from US politics articles, then got reinstated when the person hearing the appeals said they couldn't be bothered to read through what he's done. I just feel like trying to do a good-faith helpful edit giving useful context on an important thinker's most famous work, in the article about him, is the victim of people trying to let his critics dominate the discussion. Thank you for helping. CraigBurley (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You should wait until other editors agree that the text you propose is appropriate. If the discussion stalls, seek wider input at WT:Politics or another appropriate venue. Number 57 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Continued edit warring by User:WildlyAccurate and User:Drevolt

A few days ago, you blocked both User:WildlyAccurate and User:Drevolt for edit warring, mostly at University of Chicago (although Drevolt has been edit warring at other articles, too). The blocks on both editors expired recently and they've gone right back to edit warring. A longer block is probably warranted for both editors. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. Drevolt, please consider this a final warning that if you attempt to remove the text at University of Chicago again without gaining consensus to so do so on the talk page, you'll be blocked. Number 57 18:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Understood, thanks Number 57. Drevolt (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

yaakov avitan

yaakov avitan is a minister of religens now, you can to see hear. 2A01:6500:A048:379A:6055:C6A4:805D:168F (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I have created an article (Ya'akov Avitan). Number 57 12:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Harry Luke.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Harry Luke.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Screen readers

Hello. I've never been a technical expert, but the executive summary goes: what I was led to believe at the time the alternative version was being constructed and trialled was that, while sighted users see and understand the squad as one list laid out in two columns, screen readers follow the html and the users "see" two tables. The missing nationality column header didn't help, but that could've been fixed anytime. You could try asking Thumperward, who was involved with the alternative version and is technically competent.

As to whether it's a significant problem, it'd be sensible to get someone who actually uses a screen reader in real life to look at the old and new versions and get their opinion. Perhaps ask someone like Graham87, who edits using a screen reader?

While I'm here: not sure what the point of the sorting is in the new two-column version, given it works within one column at a time. E.g. if you want to use the sort facility to see how many English players Man Utd have in their squad, and click the sort button on the Nat column in the LH half, it just sorts the column in the LH half. So you see how many English players they have with squad numbers <21 or whatever, but the RH half is a different table and doesn't get included.

Also, the name column sorts by first name rather than surname, which is nothing to do with accessibility but doesn't seem entirely sensible.

Sorry I can't be more helpful. And I'm only here in short and unpredictable bursts at the moment, so don't expect speedy replies. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Struway2: I agree the sorting is pointless and I'm not sure why it was added. I've removed it, and I think it looks slightly better as it's removed a bit of whitespace.
@Graham87: Could you let me know whether there are problems with how screenreaders parse the two squadlists represented at User:Number 57/Squad (the current and the sandbox versions)? Cheers, Number 57 11:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't really want to get deep into this ... but the two-table layouts are a problem in both versions of the sandbox, as described at Template talk:Football squad player#Accessibility. Not a deal-breaker of a problem but still not nice. Also, as mentioned above, the second version has the correct nationality header while the first one doesn't. Graham87 12:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Graham87: Thanks for the response. One thing that no-one seems to have explained properly (at least to my understanding) is what exactly the problem is. What does your screen reader read out (or not read out) that ideally it shouldn't? Cheers, Number 57 12:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It reads out two tables for no apparent reason (from a screen reader's perspective), when it really should read one, which is what sighted users see. It's annoying to navigate between the two of them. Graham87 12:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

I didn't know about the 5% rule for elections - I was just basing it off the wikiboxes on the Spanish versions of the page. But thanks for editing it out! I'll be sure to follow it for next time :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diefreien (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 Togolese Election

Hey, Do you know where I can get better detailed results by province on the Togolese Presidential election. I'd like to make an election map, even if it's just 1 colour. The CENI website isn't the best.

@Sputink: I'm afraid I haven't seen (or been able to find) any breakdown. @Aréat: what about you? Number 57 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: Thats fair. Feel free to tag me on any election page you want a map for. Sputink (talk)
@Sputink: and @Number 57: : Full definitive results were published on the Journal officiel of 11 March 2020. Results by provinces are on page 16-18. It's all in french, but the tables are pretty straightforward, except for "CEAI", which refers to the staff of embassies in others countries who were supposed to prepare for the diaspora to vote, something that eventually didn't happen [Edit: My bad, they actually could vote, and these numbers refer to them, but only those who had previously got a consulate card and actively registered themselves in a specific timeframe could vote, which drastically reduced their numbers to those meager ones]. Do note that the results are first visible on the 3 March decision on page 9, but are then corrected on the 9 March decision on page 15, which start by giving again the previous ones then the corrected ones. So the truly final results are in the third set of tables. ;) Whenever you end up making the map, could you please add it to the french wiki as well ? Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Aréat: This makes sense, and this is perfect! Just to clarify one thing since its not super obvious why they did it this way. The per prefecture results on page 19 are the ones I should use? Sputink (talk)
@Sputink: You're welcome! The results for the five Regions of Togo are on the tables starting with the right side of page 16. Below are the results for the 52 independent local electoral commissions (CELI). I don't know how they match up with the 30 préfectures which are the administrative subdivisions of the régions, sorry.--Aréat (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 Kiribati parliamentary election

I see that the results of the 2020 Kiribati parliamentary election have not been added yet -- is the article out-of-date, or are the full results just not yet counted? Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: I was actually looking for the results yesterday. There are a few websites with a list of the winning candidates (with the exception of the Rabi seat, which is not elected in the same way and possibly not elected yet?). However, I cannot find anything that states their party affiliations... @Aréat, Aridd, Wykx, Arorae, and HapHaxion: Have you seen anything? Cheers, Number 57 16:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: Probably the parties will be available in https://www.parliament.gov.ki/party-members/ Wykx (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wykx: Are these affiliations after taking their seats, or affiliations at the time of their election (I know in a few Pacific countries that people change party after elections)? Also, do you have any idea about the affiliations of the losing candidates? Number 57 16:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I have found this also: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10221368574904514&set=g.567954514011491 and https://www.facebook.com/kiribatimoa/posts/165790391561154 (display the full post to see the whole list) Maybe that can help you! Wykx (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi. When I was filling in constituency results in the equivalent article in the French Wikipedia, I listed as Tobwaan Kiribati candidates those who were so in the previous parliament, as Kiribati Moa candidates those who were identified as such online (notably in the party's Facebook page, and elsewhere), and I can't remember exactly how I identified other candidates as definitely being BTK. In any case, if I haven't made any mistakes, we have at least 9 TK candidates elected, at least 8 BTK, and at least 3 KM (Tinte Itinteang, Banuera Berina and Jacob Teem), with Kourabi Nenem failing to win re-election as a KM candidate. We do have this article from The Guardian saying Tobwaan Kiribati has 22 seats ("out of 45", so presumably including whatever the result for the Rabi Banabans' seat might be). And we have this that says there's a new post-electoral Opposition party, but it's not at all clear whether BTK and KM in their entirety have fused together, or whether some MPs from those two parties have chosen to group together. The situation will indeed become clearer once information is up on Parliament's website, but that will indeed indicate MPs' post-electoral affiliation rather than the party banner they were elected under. Aridd (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wykx:: Thanks! So if I understand that post on Kiribati Moa's Facebook page correctly, TK has 18 seats, BTK has 13, and KM has 12. Which is a total of 43, with one MP apparently being unaffiliated, and the Banaban representative also not being a member of a party. I suppose we can cross-reference with Ruth Cross' post to identify some of those MPs, but we don't know where she got that data, so we can't use her post as a source. Aridd (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57:: In the Kiribati Moa list, I understand the 'aika Oki' are the MPs who were previously elected, and the 'aika aki oki' are the new ones. unfortunately the names are often shortened. For the new party (B)KM some names of the list are also confirmed here: http://www.pina.com.fj/index.php?p=pacnews&m=read&o=15269279945ec21a89ae9da0686bf0&fbclid=IwAR3vA00CJKsUbbMgmb4eIxZ956Rcgvo5Nx-KdgvMscy-pNXtnhApR6el2l4 Wykx (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wykx: That KM post indicates MPs who have founded a new party (BKM) after the election. For example, Pinto Katia was re-elected as a BTK MP, but is now a founding member of BKM alongside MPs who were elected as KM members. Aridd (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Based on the Kiribati Moa source, I've been able to update the French article to indicate the party of each elected MP and of each defeated incumbent, and the total of seats per party. If Kiribati Moa's claims are correct, they have 24 seats - an absolute majority! And Tobwaan Kiribati have only 12! The "aki oki" parts of the list on Facebook seem to mix defeated incumbents and re-elected incumbents, so you can't make sense of the numbers unless you have a list of the elected MPs that you can apply those political labels to. Aridd (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The Maneaba ni Maungatabu has officially published the names of the 2 chairmen of the 2 parties. On 22nd of May, during the first session, 22 MPs seated on the bench of former Government and 22 also on the bench of former Opposition. Because of this strict equality there is no official majority and opposition. As most of the candidates do not declare their party before election, only the first session allows to know which side of the bench they will seat. Of course the following President election could move some membership. It is not correct to say that BKM party was created only after elections. Banuera (Kiribati Moa) already agreed to this merger before the elections if they will support him as the new party candidate. I saw the mention of the new name since March. Now there is a big constitutional issue as only 2 candidates, Banuera and Taaneti, have been nominated for election of the Beretitenti : the section 32 of the Constitution of Kiribati is very clear: the number of candidates should be at least 3, nor more than 4. Only 2 candidates is an unconstitutional decision that will be certainly pointed by the Chief Justice, Sir John Muria (Solomon Islands). The new Speaker, Madam Tangariki Reete waited to have at least a third nomination but was very poorly advised by her legal public office. With only 2 candidates and a hung Parliament, political life in Kiribati will be on the edge.--Arorae (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
the MP designated by the Rabi Council (Fiji) was not there during the inaugural session of the Parliament due to the lack of any transport between Fiji and Tarawa since March. Special flights have been chartered for the MPs of the Line Islands and for Nikunau (no plane of Air Kiribati lands in Nikunau for months).--Arorae (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Number 57, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hope Nakapite edits

Hi {u|Number 57}}, I've recently noticed that you have reverted a whole slew of edits by user Hope Nakapite (all in Zambia-related articles), and you have even deleted sections of the revision log on those pages. I'm not aware of what the problem was with those edits, but most other work I've seen from that user seems legit to me. May I ask why you took such drastic measures? werewolf (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: As I said on her talk page, she was copying text from other websites and pasting into Wikipedia, so they were copyright violations – this is why the revisions had to be deleted. Number 57 16:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha, I should have looked at her talk page first then, didn't think of that. Thanks for explaining :) werewolf (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

People's Political Party (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Why did you remove the arrows there are mutlipble pages have arrows on the first election on the election tables can we discuss it

@Friendlyhistorian: Because it's wrong. If some other articles are wrong, correct them – they are not an excuse for others to be made wrong. Number 57 23:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to be that guy but is it wrong or you decided it is wrong is there any written rule that states the first election on the election table must not have arrows list my proposal is keep the arrows but add new before them show people know in that election the party was new.

You know there are no written rules about this (as we've had these conversations before). It's wrong because of simple logic. When a new party contests an election, we do not show it gaining seats in the results table, instead marking it as "New". Like it cannot be shown to increase its number of seats, a party cannot be shown to make gains in its position.
An additional reason that it's illogical is that every party would be marked with Increase even if they finish last in an election, potentially giving the reader the impression that it is a positive result.
There is zero logic in having "New" and an arrow together. Number 57 23:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:2019–20 Stockport County F.C. season

Hello, I see you rejected my draft edit of 2019–20 Stockport County F.C. season, reason given as - Stockport are not in a top professional league.Tranmere Rovers, Gateshead and Chester, while these are season pages are from 2015-16, These three teams played that season in the Conference National (now named National League), the same league Stockport played in for 2019-20. You say the league isn't fully professional, it has more fully professional teams competing in the league now than it did in 2015-16. Stockport also played in the Conference National (they level they are currently at) in 2011–12 and 2012–13 and these articles have been allowed. Just wondering have the rules changed on Football Club Season Articles since 2015-16? Wna247 (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wna247: The guidelines haven't changed – those articles shouldn't exist either (perhaps they just haven't been noticed yet by editors familiar with them). Almost all AfDs on these season articles have resulted in deletion (I think this is the most recent, but refers to previous ones). Number 57 11:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

1964 Afghan election

Hello. Since you created 1977 Afghan Constitutional Assembly election, would you be interested to create 1964 Afghan Constitutional Assembly election as well? It would be useful to have that article as well, not just for the sake of consistency. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sundostund: I'll have a look at it by the end of the weekend. From memory, I couldn't find much out at the time I was looking at that era, but I guess I could at least start a stub. I know it was the first time a woman was elected to a national body in Afghanistan (Roqia Abubakr was one of the elected members). Number 57 16:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I just saw the article. You did a great job, as usual! --Sundostund (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Apart from spelling your name wrong in the edit summary... I wish we could edit them... Number 57 20:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Taiwanese elections

Hi, as per the principle of least astonishment I believe an explanation for the sudden appearance of 2020 among the pages 2010, 2014, 2018, and that the type of the 2020 election (a recall election) is different from the others. So I thought an extra explanation or note would be useful. Thanks, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 13:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't and I don't see how it's astonishing. The template is only for listing years. No detail about the nature of the election is required and allowing it would potentially lead to an inconsistent mess in future as other editors insist other details are required. Number 57 13:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Number 57, thanks, just that I am worried that the discrepancy may affect readers. Issue resolved! Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 13:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 Zanzibari Elections

Hello sir, While I know you will be actively involved in working on the Tanzanian Election page this fall. Would you be interested to also build the 2020 Zanzibari elections that happen on Zanzibar. While they are part of the Tanzanian election, they have their own presidential and parliamentary election concurrently. Sputink (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing Suffolk parishes

I have started drafts at Draft:Oulton, Suffolk, Draft:Wangford with Henham, Draft:Henstead with Hulver Street and Draft:Whitton, Mid Suffolk. I know you last created parishes in April 2013 and you probbaly thought all exist but the 1st 3 are currently redirects and the last parish doesn't include its settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Massachusetts legislative session article names

Thanks for your input on this topic at User talk:M2545. I've moved the conversation, including your comments so far, to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts#Massachusetts General Court session article names. Hope to see you there! ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 02:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Number_57/Archive_13&oldid=1073322608"