Jump to content

User talk:Number 57/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016–17 Cypriot Second Division

Template:2016–17 Cypriot Second Division has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Matt294069 is coming 09:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Renaming of "Parliamentary elections in Singapore"

Hi, I think the article name "Parliamentary elections in Singapore" is more appropriate than "General elections in Singapore" because the article also deals with by-elections, which are not a form of general election. Moreover, the Act governing the relevant election procedure is called the Parliamentary Elections Act. At the least this change should be discussed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jacklee: All the articles on these elections are at "general election" titles. Either they should be moved to "parliamentary election" or the main article should be at "general election". I don't really care either way, but it needs to be consistent. Cheers, Number 57 10:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
When you say "all these articles", which articles are you referring to? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jacklee: I mean Singaporean general election, 2015, Singaporean general election, 2011 etc. Number 57 11:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The word "Singaporean" doesnt really seem "right" t here. perhaps move to just "singapore general election"? Artix (Message wall) 14:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Artix Kreiger: It is right, as Singaporean is the demonym. Number 57 15:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Merthyr Town F.C.

Hi, just wondering on your opinion of the Merthyr Town F.C. page that holds information for the original club (1909-1934) and the current club (2010-), formed following the demise of Merthyr Tydfil F.C.. Can the club really claim to be reformed after over 70 years? Or should they have separate articles? Kosack (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kosack: Bit an awkward situation to be honest. Usually I'd say yes if it was a successor club, but Merthyr Town are the successor club to Merthyr Tydfil. If Merthyr Tydfil see themselves as the successor club to the original Merthyr Town, then it might be worth keeping it all in one article. Cheers, Number 57 21:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Saleh saad will replace KM Trajtenberg who quited the Knessst

Link to the Hebew wikipedia article on Saleh Saad: [1]--Midrashah (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
link to source: [2]--Midrashah (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Midrashah: Cheers, will look at that tomorrow. Number 57 21:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

redirects

Hi, Is there a way to move a page without leaving redirects?Artix (Message wall) 17:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

oh and I was in process of having the leftover redirects of the "-stani" pages changed so they don't point to redirect. Artix (Message wall) 20:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Artix Kreiger: When you move a page, there is a box to tick saying "Do not leave a redirect" or something similar. However, you should in most cases leave one. The only time I delete them is if there is an obvious spelling or grammar error in the title, or when a page is moved from one space to another (e.g. user/draft to article). Number 57 21:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't have that abilitiy. I was looking around and I think its limited to admins and I think WP:PMR but probably only admins.. Artix (Message wall) 22:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Artix Kreiger: Ah ok, wasn't aware of that. If there are any cross-namespace redirects you want me to get rid of, let me know. Number 57 22:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
yeah I think non-admins like me can move without a redirect if the WP:PMR was given out. but i don't have 3k edits year. Artix (Message wall) 23:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Renaming of “Parliamemtary elections in Singapore”

The discussion got archived before I had a chance to respond. Articles entitled “Singaporean general election, 2015” and the like are correct because they are about specific general elections. Similarly, articles about by-elections are entitled in the form “Bukit Batok by-election, 2016”. However, “Parliamentary elections in Singapore” discusses the procedure for both general and by-elections. That’s why I feel it shouldn’t have been renamed “General elections in Singapore”, at least not without a discussion. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Leah Fadida will replace Margalit who quited the Knesset

Same deal. Link to article on Hewbrew wikipedia: [3], and link to sourse: [4] --Midrashah (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Midrashah: Thanks for letting me know; quite a lot of replacements recently. Saleh Saad is there now. Cheers, Number 57 21:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Turkmenistani by-elections, 2017

Does this belong in any template? Artix (Message wall) 23:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: It could go in the main election template, but ideally we'd have more dates to put in. Number 57 11:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I've moved it. Artix (Message wall) 03:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Grammar fix

Could you please fix the grammar per this comment [5] thanks Shrike (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Next Turkish parliamentary election

Hi Could you apply the merge and the move ? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Done. Number 57 18:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
You forgot the talk page as well. Artix (Message wall) 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Artix Kreiger: Talk pages don't get merged. They remain in place as a record of that page's history. Number 57 18:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Artix Kreiger/Stargate Origins

I think it is good enough to be published since it is set to be launched later in the year. Artix (Message wall) 15:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: TBH I don't really know how Wikipedia treats upcoming tv series. Sorry. Number 57 12:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
oh ok. I was wondering if you can delete the redirect at Stargate Origins. i was about to publish it. Artix (Message wall) 12:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Artix Kreiger: There's no need to delete the redirect; you can simply turn it into an article by editing it. Number 57 12:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
ok. I consider it abandoned can you delete the userpage? Thanks. Artix (Message wall) 16:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Re:Mexican general election, 1976

Thanks for your message. I decided to use the same presidential results as they appear on the Spanish-language version of the article, because Nohlen's numbers did not include the "Unregistered" and "Blank or invalid votes", most of which were write-in votes for the Communist candidate Campa. However, at this moment I'm trying to find the official document by "Diario de los Debates del Congreso de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos" or at the Diario Oficial de la Federación (they have a very large archive). If I cannot find an official document to back those numbers, I'll put the Nohlen's numbers on the article again, and will just make a brief mention of the 1,000,000 or so "Unregistered/blank/invalid" votes. Cheers. --CHUI372 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Indirect election

Hi What is your opinion about creating an article about that indirect election? --Panam2014 (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Not sure it's worth it. Number 57 11:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Why ? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Realistically, what more can be said than what's already there. IMO we have far too many articles on indirect elections that could easily be covered within a single article on the post. Number 57 12:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Meir Shfeya

How can you possibly think that this edit to Meir Shfeya is an improvement? Before you could directly check the data, say of the 1922 census, by clicking on one link...now you have to search through until you get to p. 34, same for 1945 data, etc, etc. Again, how is this an improvement? Huldra (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Because (a) I added the village's website, (b) cited the unreferenced fact about it becoming a partnership with the state in 1957 (c) combined the overcomplicated footnotes and bibliography section, (d) condensed the text so every sentence was no longer its own paragraph and (e) corrected several bits of unencylopedic language. There is more to an article than linking directly to the pages of the sources.
I really would implore you to improve the prose you are writing; you are adding a lot of material to articles, but it comes across as a collection of random and unlinked sentences, especially when you leave many sentences as their own paragraphs. Number 57 22:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so you wont mind that I change it back, so you can directly check the information, then? And as for "random and unlinked sentences" I think you know as well as I do, that I cannot add a single piece of info unless it is sourced...Huldra (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra: If by change it back, you mean revert to how the article was before, then of course I mind. If you mean just adding links to the page numbers, I'm not bothered. Regarding the second part of your response, having to reference information doesn't mean you can't write decent prose. Number 57 22:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see that you have changed much of the prose (and when you have, I don't mind. After all, you are, AFAIK, a native English speaker, while I am not). What I mind, is you changing the refs, so that people no longer can check them directly. That I mind...a lot! Huldra (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I haven't changed a single word of the prose, but I have made the sources directly clickable, again, Huldra (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra: When I said adding links to the page numbers, I assumed you were going to do simply that, not separate out the references again. I've combined them into one whilst maintaining the links to the pages. That means readers don't have to reference one section of references against another. Number 57 22:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind having the full sources inline (though I think it looks more messy....and you forgot the full Conder and Kitchener ref). As I said, what I object to, is not having the page numbers directly clickable...now that they are, it is fine with me. (Hm, the Ynetnews link needs to be updated, too, it seems) Huldra (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra: I've fixed the Conder and Kitchener ref, but I missed that because I mixed it up with the Kitchener one, seeing as it includes Conder and Kitchener – another reason why a single section of refs is easier as it means less confusion... Number 57 22:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "mixed it up with the Kitchener", did you mean the Palmer ref? And in this article it doest matter, but in many articles the Conder and Kitchener is references to many different pages, then having a simplified references makes it much easier to read. Huldra (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra: Yes, I meant Palmer. Number 57 22:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Leyton Orient Season

Hi, I received a message about potentially delete this section. I strongly disagree this this because: 1. Leyton orient FC is an historic club in the UK, with a strong link to the community in East London. 2. It has certainly nothing to do at this level, and I belive we should keep League standards reviews for that type of clubs. 3. National league is really badly covered by the media, and it is difficult to find a place that compiles team stats and match reports.

Please consider this position.

best regards Londonjulle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonjulle (talk • contribs) 07:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Londonjulle. I'm afraid it is to do with the level; as you can see from this discussion (and the thirteen others mentioned in the deletion rationale), there is agreement that season articles for National League teams are not considered notable enough for Wikipedia, even for former/current Football League teams (you'll notice that Stevenage, Kidderminster, Torquay, Hereford, Aldershot and Macclesfield are amongst the deletion discussions). If you could restore the prod template, that would be appreciated, otherwise I will be taking it to a full deletion discussion. Cheers, Number 57 07:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Terner

Hi Number, I see you deleted all my changes. I happen to know him personally and know people who work for him. He writes his name "Terner." It should appear correctly in Wikipedia (with a redirect or alternate spelling, if you like). Best--Geewhiz (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gilabrand: The problem is that the naming policy seems to indicate that the common name should be used ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.") and Turner is the common name, both for him and the stadium. Having said that, the policy doesn't seem to explicitly refer to examples where a person is known by one spelling of their name but personally uses another. It might be worth asking at WT:AT what to do regarding his article, although I can't see the stadium being moved to "Terner". Number 57 10:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Constituency PK-77 (Bunair-I), Constituency PK-78 (Bunair-II) and Constituency PK-79 (Bunair-III)

Hi I hope you will be fine. And Thanks now I know how to rename a page but the above pages have incorrect names the correct names are: Constituency PK-77 (Buner-I), Constituency PK-78 (Buner-II) and Constituency PK-79 (Buner-III) wisalahmad523 (talk · contribs)

@Wisalahmad523: On the Provincial Assembly website they are spelt Bunair.
Also, you should sign your posts using ~~~~, not using the {{user}} template. Cheers, Number 57 10:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I know but its incorrect on the website too.

Kenyan presidential election, 2017

Hi Per talk, could you move to Kenyan presidential election, October 2017? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for answering for him but no. There is no need to. They are 2 different things. The first election (August) involved president and parliament.  The October election, as you requested, involved only president. Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Artix Kreiger: Kenyan presidential election, 2017 doesn't refer only to October election. The tile is wrong. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
is there  a need for 2 articles on one election?Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Artix Kreiger: it is not the question. But it is not the same election ? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: I don't think there is need to add October to the title; the current title is precise enough as there is only one standalone "presidential election" this year; the other was part of the general election. This is sort of a case of WP:TWODABs in which a hatnote is all that's required. Number 57 18:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Il don't think this. I will open a RM. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I would like to thank you on all the work you put into every countries elections. JDuggan101 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Current squad for Heybridge Swifts?

I am really sorry but I am extremely annoyed with you right now. I do agree that having one of these on a non-league clubs wiki is usually not needed as it's rarely updated. But as Heybridge are on the up and I'm one of their fans, I felt this was necessary as we had recently signed a new player called Ricky Sappleton. I would like you to undo your change as I WILL make sure it's updated.

Many thanks,

Josh Longman - Heybridge Swifts Ultra and Drummer

@HeybridgeSwiftUltra: It's really not a good idea. We've seen this over and over again – someone gets a brief spurt of enthusiasm for editing a certain Wikipedia article, and then disappears after a few weeks or months. I've come across non-league clubs whose squad lists have been several years out of date. I'd recommend concentrating on articles on Heybridge players (for instance, adding them to Category:Heybridge Swifts F.C. players), as player articles are also rarely updated once they fall out of the Football League. Cheers, Number 57 13:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

BRIEF!! I've supported swifts all my life. I also do a part in our new program and am starting to create our managers new wiki page. I'd be very grateful if you could put it back because, for the sake of the club, it will benefit us in the long run so people can find out about us easily.

As I said I'd be very grateful if you could put it back for the club.

Many thanks,

Josh Longman - Heybridge Swifts Ultra and Drummer

@HeybridgeSwiftUltra: You haven't been editing Wikipedia all your life – that's what I was referring to. I won't be adding the squad back. If you really want it back, then I'd recommend starting a discussion at WT:FOOTY, the football WikiProject, where dozens of other editors will be able to add their comments on this.
With regards to creating an article on Jody Brown, I would strongly advise not doing it, as it will ultimately be a waste of your time. We have some quite clear guidelines on footballer notability, and they need to have played in or managed in a fully-professional league to be eligible for an article. As far as I can see, Brown does not meet this criteria, so any article on him would be quickly deleted. Number 57 14:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I promise you that the current squad thing will be updated every time a new player joins or a current player leaves as am highly involved in the social media of the club so I will know when a player is coming in or leaving for another club. Also putting them into the ) wouldn't work because that is full of ex-swifts players and legends. I do agree with your statement about how these things aren't updated often, but this is an exception as we are moving upwards and are trying to get recognised.

I would be very grateful on behalf of the club,

Many thanks,

Josh Longman - Heybridge Swifts Ultra and Drummer

@HeybridgeSwiftUltra: Unfortunately everyone tries to claim their club is an exception in this sort of situation, so I'm afraid I won't be changing my mind. I'm also a bit concerned about statements like "trying to get recognised" and the article beneffitting the club. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website to promote your organisation – this is specifically prohibited under WP:NOTADVERT. I do recommend that you raise the issue at WT:FOOTY if you still want to press ahead with this. Number 57 14:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Heanor

Hello. Yes and no, really. Both clubs have a long history, and Heanor Athletic is definitely independently notable. The list of leagues on Heanor Town's website history page seems accurate enough in the immediate post-war period: the club closed down during the war and didn't re-form until some time afterwards. When they first reformed, they played at the Sir John Warren Ground in Loscoe, meanwhile Athletic were using the Town Ground. Athletic got into financial difficulties, and there were at least two failed attempts to merge the clubs, in July 1951 (HEANOR FOOTBALL. AMALGAMATION OF CLUBS TURNED DOWN, Ripley and Heanor News, 20 July 1951, p. 4) and October 1952 (HEANOR FOOTBALL MERGER OFF, Ripley and Heanor News, 31 October 1952, p. 3), before they finally did amalgamate in January 1953. Both finished their current season's fixtures playing at the Town Ground, then Town took over Athletic's Central Alliance spot.

As to linking the two clubs at Arthur Groves, I should have redlinked Athletic and created a new category. hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources: news item (Ripley and Heanor News, 16 January 1953, p. 3)

FOOTBALL AT HEANOR. Heanor Urban Council have given permission for the first teams of Heanor Athletic and Heanor Town—who amalgamated last week—to use the Town Ground, Heanor, for their matches. For a number of years the Town Ground has been used by the Athletic and the Town F.C. have been playing on the Sir John Warren Ground, at Loscoe, which will now be used by the reserve teams. Arrangements will be made to ensure that the first teams' home fixtures will not clash.

and: retrospective (Ripley and Heanor News, 10 May 1957, p. 10)

EARLY DAYS. The present Heanor Town Club was re-formed when group of football enthusiasts met to discuss the prospects of the re-formation, and finally came to an agreement with the late Mr. A. Fletcher, of Woodend Road, for the use of his field on Midland Road, pending approval with the Park Street Methodist Football Club to play on dates when they were not requiring the ground. The Town ran a team of amateurs in the Derby and District Amateur League (now disbanded), but the following season they acquired the use of the Sir John Warren Ground, Loscoe, and entered the Notts. Alliance League. During that season, Heanor Athletic F.C. really got up against hard times, and a meeting of the two clubs resulted in an amalgamation, which culminated in the Town taking over from the Athletic.
@Struway2: Thanks, that's very helpful! Where did you source those newspaper articles? Cheers, Number 57 12:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search
A subscription site with which Wikipedia once had a partnership and sadly no longer does. Searching is available free online, but you only get snippet results: sometimes a snippet is enough, depending on what you're after. Many public and academic libraries do have a subscription, usable online if you're lucky or available only on site if not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Struway2: Thanks. I am currently doing an evening course at a local uni and have a login to their library system, so I'll see whether I can get in that way. Cheers, Number 57 12:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Kibbutz Ma'agan

While looking into the background of Palgi I found, in an excellent book (Judith Tydor Baumel-Schwartz, Perfect Heroes: The World War II Parachutists and the Making of Israeli Collective Memory, University of Wisconsin Press, 2010 pp.13-35 basically) covering the Yishuv parachutists in WW2, reference to him as, ostensibly at that time (1943) hailing from Ma'agan. Our article has this as being founded in 1949 by people making aliyah from Transylvania. Baumel-Schwartz may have slipped up with an anachronism (perhaps Palgi went there after it was founded in 1949? But she does add that the village's original denizens were Hungarians: it was she says a stronghold of Hungarian-speakers). Perhaps you might put this on the backburner to sort out eventually but I would think that his name should be ranked among notable residents, and the Transylvania made more specific, on her authority, in the meantime.(p.13) Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Whilst the physical Ma'agan was established in 1949 (as confirmed by the CBS), it was common for groups that established kibbutzim to have formed a few years previously and then spend some years training before founding the physical site (usually known as gar'ins). The kibbutz history states that the founders of Ma'agan had formed in 1941 and did their training in Afikim, which is where Palgi's bio says he was based after immigrating). Number 57 12:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. If I can see my way to getting time to build the Palgi article that will be very useful. From what you tell me, Palgy was quite precisely from Afikim, but trained there while basing himself on what, I assume, his group called Ma'agan. It's the usual problem of source dissonance. By the way, Baumel-Schwartz states that on the tenth anniversary of the 1944 parachuting operation, celebrations to honour the events were conducted at Ma'agan but, as if repeating the tragedy, 20 participants, one bearing a telegram from the President of Israel, died when their light plane crashed en route to the kibbutz (p.33). As a general note, I searched for articles on all the participants in the operation but found several missing, with no bios, and those that exist like the one for extraordinary Enzo Sereni whose exploits are well documented, are understated. They deserve better. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This source unambiguously puts the establishment of Ma'agan (as a gar'in) to around 1942 (I have an indication of that from other sources). She says both Palgi and Peretz Goldstein were from Ma'agan, and Peretz died 1944/5 on mission, four/five years before the official founding of the kibbutz. The problem is therefore probably bureaucratic: if I had to make an WP:OR guess, they set up a kind of kibbutz model in 1942 (Palgi seems to have been a member of the Ha-meuchad faction of the Kibbutz movement) at Ma'agan which didn't receive formal endorsement until 1949.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nishidani: It's not an issue of endorsement. Until 1949 there was no place called Ma'agan. There was a group operating under the name Maagan who were preparing to establish a kibbutz by the same name, but they were based in Afikim. Sometimes these groups existed for many years before establishing an actual village. Also, I can't see where you get the 1942 figure from in that article. Number 57 14:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that, while in her article (2003) Baumel-Schwartz's language can be read either way, as a ref to a group or a place, in her 2010 book she is wholly unambiguous. Historians like the rest of us can screw up, but when she writes:

The movements also branched into ceremonial commemoration. In November 1945 the coordinating Secretariat of Hakibbutz Hameuhad decided to hold memorial ceremonies for the members of three movement affiliated kibbutzim- Giv'at Brenner, Sdot Yam, and Ma'agan - who were among the casualties. They also decided to establish memorial projects at the three kibbutzim, with the one at Ma'agan-the only kibbutz that dispatched three parachutists-to serve as a memorial to all seven who fell.'(p.54)

Read in that light, the passage on p.13 means that for Baumel-Schwartz, Ma'agen was a reality before 1943, and recognized as a kibbutz in archival papers from the Haganah Archives, which apparently have the survivors' families there soon after WW2 (p.52). Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nishidani: A kibbutz can exist as a community and doesn't have to have a physical presence in the form of a village (I recall one I came across recently took over a decade to find a site to settle on); these groups could presumably also have affiliation to the Kibbutz movement. I also assume agreement was to establish a memorial once the kibbutz had a physical site – as the village website says, that permanent site was established in 1949, as confirmed by the CBS. Number 57 16:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I'll have to sit on the edit for a while till this is sorted out. I think Baumel-Schwartz's remarks unambiguously affirm that the village preexisted that date in the villages' official history. You may well be correct in inferring that the reference is to a community of people, but that is not what her language allows me to infer. As you know, I can't go beyond what any strong source says unless another equally persuasive source authority turns up which contradicts that datum. One provisory way round this would be to adapt the page to a footnoting format so that the ostensible contradiction could be remarked on by quoting the relevant passages. Thanks in the meantime for the clarifications, which have been useful.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nishidani: The CBS is an authoritative source, as is the government yearbook. There are numerous other almanacs etc that give the foundation year as 1949 (e.g. this from the 1950s). This book (100 Year of the Kibbutz) actually gives a timeline, saying that the group was formed in Afikim, became independent in Hatzer Kinneret in 1941 and then moved to the Ma'agan site near Samakh in 1949. This one confirms it by saying that Ma'agan was established as a working group in Hatzer Kinneret in 1941, as does this, which states "Ma'agan was founded in 1949, on the lands of Samakh, in the Jordan Valley. Hungarian immigrants. They lived in Hatzer Kinneret from 1941." ("מעגן נוסד ב־1949, על אדמות צמח, בעמק הירדן. יוצאי הונגריה. ישבו ב.חצר כנרת* משנת 1941"). Number 57 18:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks indeed, Number57. I'm in your debt for this meticulous background over what might appear somewhat nugatory issue. You were also dead right in describing them as gar'in, as I have just had independent confirmation of. The Ma'agan 'nucleus' was formed in the late '30s apparently 'in the same general area' by that time and it was they who founded the Ma'agan we know today, in 1949. It deserves a footnote in any case, just in case readers, like myself, get confused by the numerous sources that say he joined up in 1943 from Ma'agan. By the way, a quick look supplied me with 12 excellent book sources which give many details of his life otherwise missing from our page. That certainly assures us of his notability source wise. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User:RhodesAvenue

Hello, I noticed you left a message previously on RhodesAvenue's talk page following a discussion on FOOTY. The user has now created four more problematic articles in the last three days, so I was unsure of what should be done. Three of the articles use an unlicensed image, and all are incorrectly categorised. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: I've blocked them for 72 hours. They can't keep creating crap articles and expect other people to clean up the mess. I might have given them some leeway if they'd taken any of the comments on board, but unfortunately not. Number 57 17:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for this. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Israel regional politics

Hello! I have seen references to regional councils on the pages of Israeli political parties, would it be possible to find a list of the political composition of those regional councils? I know that they hold elections for regional councils, and national parties participate in them, so would it be fitting to add another composition bar to the page of the political parties which would include the regional seats? I am sure it would be possible to add up the amount of seats in the regional councils, and find out the number that each party has in total. Though this may not be standardized for every council making it hard to find sources. I thought it might be a good idea.

ShimonChai (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@ShimonChai: I don't think it would work. National and local politics is quite different in Israel and the lists for municipal elections are often combinations of different parties, or lists supported by a party but not running under their name (often they go with the mayor's name). Have a look at the 2008 results and you'll not see many normal party names. As a result, I don't think you'd be able to get an accurate figure for the number of local representatives each party has. Number 57 20:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:RhodesAvenue again...

I was hoping that they'd realise the issues in their articles after returning, but not much seems to have changed with the creation of 2017–18 KF Skënderbeu Korçë season. Unfortunately it feels somewhat like they are WP:NOTHERE. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Beechwood Park

Hatnote sounds like a very good idea. Thanks for the message. Crowsus (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

thank you and well checked. Wasn't going to edit war, I just got a wee bit huffy in the first place but you are quite correct about the (lack of) relevance to that ground so that would have been it on may part. I recognise your extra efforts to compromise, and to keep me updated on it, bother of which were not necessary but appreciated. Crowsus (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Leamington F.C.

Sorry, was away for the weekend (forgot to add a note on my talk page...) - looks to have died down but if it continues please let me know. GiantSnowman 10:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: No problem. Thankfully it seems they've given up. Number 57 10:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Mini

My mistake. Sorry for the trouble. I tried to revert it. See Talk:Mini (1959–2000)--Tim Stamper (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

Hi A young contributor does not know that primary sources (WP: PRIMARY) are not eligible to know which person holds a political office. The only admissible sources are secondary sources (WP: SECONDARY) whose purpose is to report facts. Could you give him a reminder?--Panam2014 (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] → Number 57

to

[[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] → Number 57

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Benny Fenton/Eastern Counties book

Hi Number 57, I'm working on an update for the Benny Fenton article at the moment and discovered that there is a pen picture write-up of him in The History of the Eastern Counties League by Mick Blakeman. I see that you've used this quite extensively as a reference for the Eastern Counties League article, so wondered if you still had access to the book? He played for Colchester Town in the ECL, and I'm particularly looking for details about his time there, e.g. signing date (or year) and any appearance stats. If you could help that'd be great. Copies of this book seem to be like gold dust. The only copy I've found is at Ipswich Library. The BL doesn't even have it! Thanks, Nzd (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nzd: Unfortunately I don't – I got it from Suffolk Libraries, probably the one you found in the catalogue. You might be able to request it via the Intra-Library Loan system though. Cheers, Number 57 21:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, no worries. I'll check that out. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I hadn't realized that you were also editing and making corrections- I thought I hadn't saved the changes I had made- so sorry that I made you return to so often to do so. About the bolding, I was only following the format of the UK General election pages. Why is it different for the pages I edited?

Ok. I'll keep all of what you said in mind.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Number 57. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Akiva Nof Article

Dear Number 57, In Akiva Nof article I have removed his political career detail and replaced the section by a short and simple version. I did this since Mr. Nof asked me to do so, as the previous version portrays him as a frivolous politician who changed association with various political parties many times. The truth is that the parties evolved, and he did not "jump" from party to party. So, I fulfilled his request. I think, he is right and the section should be as it was before you restored the old text.

Best regards

David gever_tov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gever tov (talk • contribs) 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

oztumer

Hi. Not sure why the section on Erhun Oztumer has been removed? He is the best player that Dulwich Hamlet have had in the last 20 years and is now playing in League 1. I think he certainly qualifies for notable former players.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclodunc (talk • contribs) 23:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclodunc: Hamlet have had over 100 players that have either gone on to play pro football or have played for the club after a professional career. There is no reason to single out Oztumer, hence why mention of him was removed. The only players that are really set apart from the rest are those that played internationally whilst at the club. Cheers, Number 57 09:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Maps

Hi, by any chance do you know, or think of someone who may know, what program is use to make the maps with the electoral results, like this one? I think a couple of images in Costa Rican and Latin American articles could be improve. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: I have no idea, but you could always ask the editor on Commons (José Chuito) who uploaded that map. Cheers, Number 57 22:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I did already and turns out it was paint :( --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of results table

Hi

You reverted the Nepalese elections article without saving a results table that a user had clearly spent a lot of time creating, and some moron just deleted from the legislative elections article because it "didn't fit in", rather than moving it to a separate article, or saving it on an election project page. In general: Please do not delete relevant and valuable content. Either create the article it fits into or save it somewhere, e.g. on an election projects page. You are generally far too quick to simply revert changes rather than stopping for a moment and trying to figure out why they were made, and then trying to fix the problem.--Batmacumba (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Batmacumba: I'm not really sure what you're talking about. I saw you readded the table after the IP had deleted it, but you cocked it up by (I presume) copying the code from the diff page, so it ended up looking like this. All I did was fix all the formatting errors that you introduced. As you can see, the table is still there and I have not deleted any content. If anyone is being too quick here, it is perhaps you being too quick to make unfounded accusations without properly looking at what other editors have done. Number 57 11:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Batmacumba: I also see here that you have described me as a 'moron' for allegedly deleting the results table (when I didn't). I'd appreciate an apology, the deletion of the insult and incorrect accusation here and you requesting at WP:AN that the edit summary be hidden as a violation of WP:NPA. Thanks, Number 57 11:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Tigers F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Happy Holidays! Artix Kreiger (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Arundel

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and agree that it is not productive to keep changing the same item back and forth. Once more, excuse my ignorance on such issues but imho I believe it to wrong to state that Arundel won the Southern Combination in its days known as the Sussex County League. If you want to be consistent with your viewpoint, why not write the honours as Southern Combination - Premier Division champions? That is the most logical thing to do if you want to write the past honours 100% in today's terms.

I have looked around at numerous other pages and it seems you are in the minority on this point. I can see other Wiki sites on Southern Combination teams that clearly bear your hallmark, e.g. Lancing, where you are consistent with the Arundel page. However, there are many others that list the honours in the way I suggest, e.g. Eastbourne Town. If you look at the sites of Football League and Premier League teams they do explain the differences in the league names, but they would not describe Preston North End as winning the Premier League in 1888-89. They either use: 1. The name of the honour as known at the time it was won. 2. Write the current name of the honour but at least add a 'superscript/identifier' to clarify things. (I know you mention the fact that the Sussex County league was renamed to the Southern Combination in the text). 3. Write the title of the honour as a combined form, e.g. Conference/National League. This is done a lot for League sides.

The main point is that if you visit Wiki sites of South Eastern Counties League pages, their honours prior to the name change in 2013/14 would still be written as 'Kent League' honours. And, as I have mentioned, there is not even consistency between the Wiki pages of the current Southern Combination teams.

Finally, and I ask this without trying to be provocative, you mention blocking me from editing a page if I consistently disagree and change a part of it. Why is your opinion deemed better than mine? Is it simply that you effectively own the Wiki page for Arundel? If you deliberately added obviously incorrect information, e.g. they were formed in 1066, and I kept changing 1066 back to 1899, could you block me then? I hope you see the point I am making. Basically: 1. Is this page yours and you can overrule me whatever I write? 2. If this page is free for editing, and two people genuinely disagree with each other (without trolling of course), what happens next? Why should I be blocked if I genuinely disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.61 (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

My Preston example was a bad one. However, after the Premier League was formed the remaining Football Leagues were called as the Divisions One, Two and Three. They were later rebranded (from 2004/05), and called the Championship, League One and League Two (as you are no doubt aware). Wiki sites for clubs in these divisions would not say a team won in the Championship if they actually won Division One in 1996/97 (say).

Furthermore, if you want to be completely and logically consistent you should write your honours as

Southern Combination Premier League Champions 1957-58, 1958-59, 1986-87 Division One Cup winners 1976-77

What you have currently written is more confusing, neither one league convention nor the other. One may think that Arundel had won the Sussex County League Division Two championship and the Division Three Cup from what you have currently written, i.e Southern Combination Division One = Sussex County League Division Two. etc.

Thanks for explaining the editing process, I appreciate that. So, from what I understand, the person who wrote the original text is assumed correct. So, I could set up a page for another football club, with a clear error, and my error will stand as I wrote it first. I am not saying you have made a deliberate and clear error, but it seems that the first writer supersedes any others on Wikipedia. I appreciate that Wikipedia must have clear rules and it sounds like I have understood them correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.61 (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Professor Uriel Reichman's entry

Hello number 57, My name is Keren and I am writing you in regards to Professor Uriel Reichman's entry on Wikipedia. I work with Prof. Reichman at IDC Herzliya and towards its 25 years of activity, I was tasked by him to update his Wikipedia with both his academic and professional achievements which we thought it is important to add. Prof. Reichman sees huge importance in this towards the quarter century celebrations to the foundation of IDC and has put this task in top priority. Since I'm new to Wikipedia and never edited on the website, I am sorry for any unintentional violations of the rules. Do you wish to see the updates and changes beforehand in order for us to cooperate on this? Thanks, Keren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerenmr (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping me out with the Costa Rican election pages! You've been of great help for someone like me who's just starting with all this editing (especially when it comes to my over-complicated tables) :)

Maho713 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Rename page

Hi,

I hope you're well.

Thanks for your guidance regarding my recently created article. I have followed your advice and have updated the text however I seem to be getting a bit lost in regards to which bit I need to copy and where I need to paste it in order to request a page move. If that makes sense.

Please can you help as I don't want to do it incorrectly.

Thanks

Pbarnes1969 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Page Move

Hi,

Thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it.

I'm trying to get the hang of things.

Having looked through the tutorials it said that if you don't have a 'Move' button then request via talk page etc.

Hence my previous actions. However a few moments after I messaged you, the move box appeared. So I thought I was now able to do it.

However now I have seen you're messages.

Have I done something wrong? I'm worried now.

Thanks

Pbarnes1969 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Page move

Hi,

Is there a way to undo the move if I've made an error as I don't want to get into trouble?

Thanks

Pbarnes1969 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Page Move

Hi,

Thanks. I am confident that Chord Melodic is the correct name to use and uncontroversial. I will continue to add references etc going forward to support this.

Thank you so very much for your time and patience. It means a lot to be able to learn with guidance. It's nice to have the support and the peace of mind to know that you're there to help. You're a credit to Wikipedia.

Merry Christmas I hope you have a great time and I'm sure we'll be speaking in the new year throughout many more contributions:-)

Pbarnes1969 (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Zimbabwe election 2008

HI I think that was an error I found the source I should have not have cited from it was not a reliable source I should have deleted it, my apologies for any disruption. Amy foster (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Israeli parties on MK - Jewish Home and Joint List

I thought I'd discuss this with you (as you're maintaining/created many of these) here - before moving to a more appropriate venue (if at all!) - this is wider than Bezalel Smotrich. This is an issue with:

  1. Joint List (who is composed of 3(4) distinct sub-parties who are completely separate with the exception of having one candidate list - Hadash, Balad (political party), United Arab List-Ta'al)
  2. United Torah Judaism - composed of Degel HaTorah and Agudat Yisrael
  3. The Jewish Home - composed of itself, and a separate sub-list - Tkuma (political party)

In the Hebrew wiki - the MKs from these parties have both the list they ran under and the party membership. This is since they do not vote as one block in the Knesset, operated in terms of party budget separately, and their MK selection process (a primary, rabbai selection, whatever) is separate for each party (with the joint list location being allocated based on an ad-hoc negotiation between the list components before the election). It is also far from certain (for Joint List and The Jewish Home.... United Torah Judaism is longstanding) that they will run in this constellation next elections. The party and list memberships can be sourced - that's not an issue. I do think that we should mention these in the infobox.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The infobox on en.wiki isn't the same as on he.wiki. On en.wiki we only list the Knesset faction that the person was a member of (hence the wording "Faction represented in Knesset"), which is identified on their Knesset profile. It's clear in the text what party he is a member of. Adding this additional detail to hundreds of infoboxes (to be consistent you'd have to go through and do it for all factions, including the Alignment, Likud (in its early days), One Israel etc etc) would be unnecessary and unhelpful in terms of making the infobox overly complex IMO (e.g. adding "(Labor Party)" under One Israel in Dalia Itzik's infobox would not be an improvement). If Smotrich gets elected to the Knesset on the Tkuma list next time round, that will appear in his infobox. Number 57 20:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This isn't entirely consistent on enwiki) - e.g. Rafael Eitan is listed as representing Tzomet for 1987-1999, but in 1996-99 he was part of a joint-list with the Likud (I'll note that I think this is a better representation - as the joint list really was an ad-hoc affair for that single election). Ditto Avigdor Lieberman - in Israeli legislative election, 2013 this was a joint list with the Likud. "One Israel" (and some of the Likud list names) was a fairly "fake" brand name (to have a nicer byline on the ballot and to show some unity) - it wasn't much different from Labour (Gesher (political party) and Meimad weren't really viable by themselves in 1999) - I think Dalia Itzik being shown as Labour 1992-2006 (without a supposed "One Israel" stint - or at least in addition to one) would be an improvement - the current infobox makes it seem like she switched parties back and forth - while all that happened is that Labour ran under a combined by-line in 1999 (in 2006 - she did make a major switch to Kadima).Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
In both cases that you mention the lists were simply the names of the parties (Likud-Gesher-Tzomet and Likud Yisrael Beiteinu). Removing One Israel from Itzik's infobox would not be acceptable IMO. Number 57 12:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy

Thank you again for protecting this page. A few minutes after you protected the page, several IPs and new users started spamming similar vandalizing edit requests on the article's Talk page. Would it be possible to protect the Talk page as well? Thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: Done. Number 57 22:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Beat me to the punch ;) -- ferret (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Niger

Hi, see here: Cour constitutionelle, official results: page 19, circonscription electorale ordinaire de Zinder, UDFP Sawaba, 5.820 votes (and not 5.280, as indicated by the unofficial source comparing in the article); pag. 17, circonscription electorale ordinaire de Tillaberi, MURNA, 13.579 votes (and not 13.759). That source, so, made a mistake. And the number of "total valid votes" is calculated by that source: it's not an official result. --151 cp (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@151 cp: Many thanks for the explanation. I have added the CC as the source to the table when I corrected it. Cheers, Number 57 00:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Scofield Wikipedia page

Why are you editing this page? What business do you have altering information that has been added or removed?

Thank you, Gregory Scofield MarkOpolO (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@MarkOpolO: I have not edited the page. I put it under protection following a request at WP:RFPP due to disruptive editing. If you are Gregory, then please familiarise yourself with our Wikipedia:Autobiography guideline, which in a nutshell states that you shouldn't be editing your own article unless it is to fix vandalism or a violation of the WP:BLP policy. If there are any inaccuracies in it, you are welcome to bring them up on the talk page. As far as I can see, the material you have been removing is referenced, so you would need to provide evidence that the information is incorrect.
Having seen your comments on your talk page, you should be aware that no consent is required for anyone to add material to your article as long as it is WP:Verifiable and from a reliable source. You do not have a right to editorial control of the article. Number 57 00:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
In addition, if you are operating the Rockkky45 account (or encouraging someone else to), please be aware that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is not allowed and editors using sock or meatpuppets are likely to be blocked. Cheers, Number 57 01:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've raised concerns over Mr. Scofield using social media as a form of canvassing [6], which I noticed only because he or a surrogate added the Facebook link to the article as a source. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Latvian Association of Regions/meta/color

Template:Latvian Association of Regions/meta/color has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

1874 Northwich F.C.

 Done GiantSnowman 15:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Stub Editing

Hey there, Number 57!

I see you recently edited a few of my stubs and wrote for one of the first revisions, "(Should go below template)"

Is that the general rule? Is there a general rule I should follow that you can link to?

Either way, I really appreciate your fixes. It means a lot to me. Thank you. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 03:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: Yes, the stub tag should be the very last thing on a page – under any templates. Cheers, Number 57 16:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

07:31:16, 12 January 2018 review of submission by Greyblum


Because It is not about me. I just do it for money. And if i have some mistakes please tell me and i will check and fix it.

Grey Blum 07:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Amy foster

Hello Number 57. I see you're one of the many who have left warnings on this user's talk page. Yours was specifically about their edits at Zimbabwean general election, 2008. On a related topic, I've just reverted several edits they made at Human rights in Zimbabwe that were very substantive but had no edit summaries and were marked as minor. I've fallen behind on my watchlist this week and don't time to delve into this more deeply today, but I'm unsure about the current state of content at various Zimbabwe-related articles this person has been involved with. They've had a ton of warnings going back 18 months—most blanked, rarely acknowledged—but their block log is clean. I'm not sure if there's a COMPETENCY issue or what, and I don't want to waste my time at ANI but I am concerned. Any advice? RivertorchFIREWATER 05:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: I think there's a competency issue here, and the issue is that they are using offline sources which are harder to double check. Part of me thinks it's probably best to rollback all her additions. However, I think this needs to go to ANI for further examination. Number 57 12:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. They've now posted on my talk page. We shall see if they listen to my advice. If not, I guess it's ANI. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

London Moncarchs

I am confused why they are added as a Tenant on stadiums, as far as I remember they played exhibition games at White Hart Lane, it seems strange to call them Tenants at all, they never paid to use the stadium, they were invited to use the stadium. Govvy (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the text in both the White Hart Lane article and the London Monarchs article, they played league games there. Number 57 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Playing a couple of league games at another ground doesn't always make one a Tenant of that ground, it just means they played a few games there, how does having a guest make them a tenant? I've had a friend stay at my place after his flat had fire damage, that didn't make him a tenant, as one, I didn't collect any rent. The same goes back to the Monarchs, if they didn't pay any rent, then they couldn't be classed as a Tenant! Govvy (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
They played there for two seasons. Your comments on the tenancy status are getting rather pedantic. Number 57 17:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought they only played a few games of one season before they moved across to Chelsea. Govvy (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Met Police

Just a quick heads-up - you've left an incomplete sentence in the lead. I would finish it off but I'm not sure what it was intended to say..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Cheers. I think I was trying to construct a sentence about few/none of their players being officers but forgot to delete it when I'd failed to find a source. Now fixed. Number 57 21:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

I am re-posting an old message that was ignored and deleted. Please be aware that the Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links is a High Priority lint error.

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] → Number 57

to

[[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] → Number 57

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Will you please take care of this? —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

AfC reviews

Please be careful when reviewing AfC submissions relating to Cambodian football. A few that you accepted recently, Electricite du Cambodge FC, Visakha FC, Soltilo Angkor FC, and 2018 Cambodian League, are almost certainly the result of block-evasion by 089baby (talk · contribs). You'll notice quite a few G5 deletions in the logs for the three club articles. 089baby has also previously used the IP range that submitted the drafts. I'll leave it to your discretion whether or not these articles should be WP:G5'ed. Just keep this in mind in future. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Republic of China Mayoral & Magistrates Election, 2018

I took the reference from the Chinese wiki, they separate both of it, since the past local election is only showing the election result, I think it will be better to show the primaries of the race, each county and city background together with the election prediction and results.

I will request for the change in the title,changing the magistrates to county mayor. thanks for pointing it!

- Ramone122 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramone122 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Robin Turner

On 31 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robin Turner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the footballer Robin Turner scored twice on his home debut for Swansea City, equalling the number of league goals he scored for former club Ipswich Town in nine seasons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robin Turner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Robin Turner), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Finnish presidential election

Stop trying to change the correct election table to your own stripped-down version which is lacking in many ways. Use the election table template as it is created just for that reason. --URunICon (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@URunICon: You've broken WP:3RR. Please self revert or you'll be reported and probably blocked. Number 57 08:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, you were the first to revert this edit. --URunICon (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not a revert - nothing was undone. Number 57 12:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure it was. You removed the original results table and replaced it with a crappy watered-down version. That's a revert. --URunICon (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Either your feigning ignorance, or you don't actually understand the concept of a revert. Both possibilities are troubling. Number 57 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bolding

When removing bolding from election articles, you point to this four-year-old discussion, which you yourself started, and which featured only five other editors. Bolding is used in just about every election article on Wikipedia – not bolding is the exception, not the rule. There is no consensus or policy whatsoever that bolding the winners should be avoided, and I don't understand how you could generate a consensus from such a discussion. MB298 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Having edited thousands of election articles, bolding is far from universal (and this is noted by others in that discussion). If there was consensus for bolding winners, it would be hardcoded into the template. As it isn't, the conclusion has to be that there isn't any consensus for bolding. The discussion in question came out as four editors against bolding, one possibly in favour of doing it for single candidate elections and one for it in all cases – this is a decent consensus in my experience. Number 57 12:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It's definitely not valid to cite that particular discussion. I agree that not bolding is an exception and we should keep bolding like we've done so far. --URunICon (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you help with something?

I noticed a user who keeps deleting A LOT of content without a reason, even being offensive using reasons as fuck you for editing my work and hahaha. As I can see, other users reverted him multiple times sand he also recently in january alone got lots of warnings, but he keeps going. He also changes nationality of a player in the 2016–17 Real Madrid C.F. season article. I am really confused and don't know what to do exactly. I'm talking about this user: [[7]]. The reason why I contact you is because I know you are very active in football articles and consistently revert vandalism, I hope you have the time to answer me on this one, have a wonderful day! Csknowitall (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Csknowitall: I've blocked that editor for 72 hours. Depending on the answer to my question, it might become an indefinite block. --NeilN talk to me 13:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Yes thank you so much! :) what about all the content he deleted and his rather confusing edits? Csknowitall (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Csknowitall: You can revert those as disruptive edits. I assume the info is coming from one of the links in the external links section? --NeilN talk to me 13:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Yes that's correct. I will revert them, but I'm almost certain that he will return and do the same, so I assume you're keeping an eye out for him? Surely will contact you if any further problems should pop up. Thank you, Neil! great help :)) Csknowitall (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

1RR

Your most recent revert violates 1RR. Diff 1 and Diff 2. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Number 57 20:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

class rating in a category

Hiya, I just wanted to ask, is there a way to see what the class ratings of all the articles in the Tottenham Hotspur category? Govvy (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Not that I know of, although I am not too au fait with that sort of thing. Maybe have a look at WP:Tools/WP:Categories and see if there's anything. Cheers, Number 57 12:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Finnish European Union membership referendum, 1994 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
--URunICon (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@URunICon: I assume you'll be respecting your own advice – "please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted"? Number 57 19:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --URunICon (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Uzbekistani elections

Hey Number 57,

Regarding this template, the adjective is Uzbek, so wouldn't this template be better moved to {{Uzbek elections}}?? This would apply to Template:Turkmenistani elections, Template:Tajikistani elections, and Template:Kazakhstani elections Artix Kreiger (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: Seeing as it's a template, the title isn't really that important. Move it if it really bothers you. Number 57 22:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
no no, I thought it would benefit by harmonizing things. But ok I won't. Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate elections, 1914

Closed it as everything already moved Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Crouch End Vampires

Hi Number 57, would you mind userfying Crouch End Vampires F.C. for me please? Per our recent conversation, the club participated in FA Cup qualifying rounds between 1900 to 1903. They were also founder members of the London League and have a fair bit of early history. I came to you as I think you prod'ed it. If possible, could I also get Vampires F.C. (if it's any different), which was incorrectly speedied as a hoax. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nzd: Done at User:Nzd/Crouch End Vampires. The Vampires F.C. link was just a redirect. I prodded it as the article made no mention of their FA Cup run (nor is it listed on their FCHD page), so happy to see it restored. Number 57 13:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give it a cleanup and add the FA Cup stuff before moving it back to mainspace. Nzd (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I've moved this into mainspace now. However, I also accidently moved it to User:Crouch End Vampires F.C. (forgot to change the drop-down). Would you mind cleaning up my mess for me please? Sorry. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Nzd: Sorted. Number 57 22:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Cheers. I actually ended up rewriting practically all of the article anyway.. Nzd (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Pnina Tamano-Shata rejoins the knesset instead of Peri

[8]--Midrashah (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Midrashah: Cheers for that; I had seen an IP adding it a bit too early. I'm just waiting for this to appear on the Knesset website before updating everything. Number 57 13:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Midrashah: Seeing as the IP appeared again and the Hebrew version of that page was updated, Tamano-Shata article is now up-to-date and I've also created an article on the new Arab MK Wael Younis. Number 57 15:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. --Midrashah (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Why only the second round in two-round voting articles?, and examples in Infobox election documentation

Yes, I still want to talk about this.

  • There's an established idea of how a both-rounds'-candidates-in-2RV election wikibox will look like (the London mayoral election, 2016 box, which still has Sian Berry even though you only want Khan and Goldsmith), and it does not require a new wikibox.
  • There's an established precedent on which candidates will be included (everyone who won 5% or more - you said so yourself).
  • Eliminating all but the first- and second- placed candidates is a holdover from US elections policy, just like putting "States carried" outside US elections is.
  • French wikipedia already does it, differing wikibox structure notwithstanding.
  • Rhadow and Mélencron are in favor of including it.

Why do you still insist that it requires an entirely new wikibox or that there'll be edit-warring over which first-round candidates go in the Wikibox?, even though it's not?

Just look at this example and tell me it still can't be done:

Czech presidential election, 2018
← 2013 12–13 January 2018 (first round)
26–27 January 2018 (second round)		 2023 →
Opinion polls
Turnout61.92% (first round) Increase0.61 pp
66.60% (second round) Increase7.49 pp
 
Candidate Miloš Zeman Jiří Drahoš Pavel Fischer
Party SPO Independent Independent
1st Round vote 1,985,547 1,369,601 526,694
Percentage 38.6% 26.6% 10.2%
2nd Round vote 2,853,390 2,701,206 Did not advance
Percentage 51.4% 48.6% Did not advance
 
Candidate Michal Horáček Marek Hilšer
Party Independent Independent
1st Round vote 472,643 454,949
Percentage 9.2% 8.9%
2nd Round vote Did not advance Did not advance
Percentage Did not advance Did not advance
2018 Czech presidential election, second round results by district
Results of the second round by district
  Miloš Zeman   Jiří Drahoš
President before election

Miloš Zeman
SPO

Elected President

Miloš Zeman
SPO

Candidate Party First round Second round
Votes % Votes %
Miloš Zeman Party of Civic Rights 1,985,547 38.57 2,853,390 51.37
Jiří Drahoš Independent, with KDU–ČSL and STAN support 1,369,601 26.60 2,701,206 48.63
Pavel Fischer Independent 526,694 10.23
Michal Horáček Independent 472,643 9.18
Marek Hilšer Independent 454,949 8.84
NOT INCLUDED IN THE WIKIBOX
Mirek Topolánek Independent, with ODS support 221,689 4.31
Jiří Hynek Realists 63,348 1.23
Petr Hannig Party of Common Sense 29,228 0.57
Vratislav Kulhánek Civic Democratic Alliance 24,442 0.47
Invalid/blank votes 29,097 – 13,031 –
Total 5,177,238 100 5,567,627 100
Registered voters/turnout 8,366,433 61.92 8,362,987 66.60
Source: Volby

Plus, the examples in the documentation for Infobox election are horribly anglocentric.

Glide08 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Azmi Bishara Article

Hi Number 57, hope this finds u well, I'm still waiting your review for my modification for the mentioned article, can u plz do that?--Zeidan87 (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zeidan87: I've made a start. However, one thing that I'm finding particularly troubling is the referencing. In several cases you've cited a particular sentence to a source, and the source doesn't contain the facts being cited. For example, you cited the claim that "This committee has been advocating against the Judaization and discrimination programs that the Israeli Ministry of Education has pursued with Arab schools, according to their point of view." to this source, which says nothing of the sort. As a result I've had to remove numerous references and replace them with "citation needed" tags. You may want to help fill these in. Number 57 16:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Number 57, and Thank u for ur help. I have added the needed references where u added the "fact" template. Some of them I didn't find the correct reference, so I have modified it or remove it. Please review and let me know for any further comments.--Zeidan87 (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Number 57:, any updates?--Zeidan87 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zeidan87: I'll keep looking at it when I can. Number 57 21:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Indirect elections

Quick question: If indirect elections aren't included in the template, why is the template included in the article about the indirect elections? Surely it shouldn't be there? This is Paul (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@This is Paul: I assume whoever added it to the articles wasn't aware of the convention. I've just created {{South African presidential elections}} to link the articles. Cheers, Number 57 21:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
That kind of makes sense. Good thinking on the presidential template btw, I was just debating whether to create it. This is Paul (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Haitian general election, 1988

Hi, I made a mistake in that case. Sorry about that! --Sfs90 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2018

Hi Could you review the article ? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Done. None of the sources supported the claim that the elections would be in 2018 though (they mostly stated it wouldn't) so I've moved it. Cheers, Number 57 21:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I think there is a misunderstanding. The electoral authorities refused to allow the elections to take place on 22 April 2018 for technical reasons and said they will soon announce a date. Since they will be fixed, it shows that they will take place before the scheduled date.--Panam2014 (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: None of the sources stated that, as far as I could see. Number 57 23:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
"“The National Elections Council will evaluate a later date for the parliamentary elections.” " --Panam2014 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: This shows they are considering bringing the elections forwards, not that it has been agreed. Once a date is actually agreed, then the article can be moved. Number 57 23:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

But it shows that they plan to organize them before 2020. I think it should be added that an anticipation of the elections is always planned, and that it is not the principle to advance them that poses a problem, but rather the fact to organize them on the day of the presidential elections. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Panam2014: It shows they are considering moving them, not that they are definitely planning to. I would advise finding another source if you want something to say they will definitely be held earlier than planned. Number 57 23:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
the date will be announced next week. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina general election 2018

Hi, Number 57. Please, what was exactly wrong in moving Bosnian general election, 2018 to Bosnia and Herzegovina general election, 2018, if Bosnia and Herzegovina is the correct name of the country? Thanks! MaeseLeon (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

According to the naming guideline WP:NC-GAL, election articles are supposed to use the demonym, not the country name in the title (For elections and referendums, use the format "Demonym type election/referendum, date). Hence why we have, for example, "German federal election, 2017" not "Germany federal election, 2017" or "Italian general election, 2018" not "Italy general election, 2018". Number 57 10:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that the demonym is both Bosnian and Herzegovinian (see also List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations), and I don't think they love to be confused with one another very much... Not that I mind a lot, I'm Spanish, but they had a war because of that kind of stuff, you know... MaeseLeon (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
"Bosnian" is used 99.99% of the time as the demonym of the country, so I don't think anyone would be pedantic enough to see its use as a problem. Also, the war was between Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs. Number 57

Userboxes

How can i add user boxes to my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginsal (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Higginsal: Just find the userbox you want to add and then edit your user page. You add it using the code {{Userbox name}}. Number 57 22:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

About mi editions in many articles of Republic Dominican

Greetings Number57, if according to you, the editions of me in several articles you reverted them because The red links must be left to note that these articles have not yet been, and need to be, created. , Then you will create yourself those items very soon? Because apart from you and me, I do not see any other Dominican user in this encyclopedia wanting to create those articles. By the way, I also ask you, are you going to revert more editions of mine that I have done in other articles about Dominican Republic for the same reason?--OliverDF (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC at elections and results project talk page

Hello, you commented in a thread at one talk page and I have moved the question to the project talk page. Please consider adding new comments there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks for the invite, but I think it's a very confusingly laid out RfC. I don't think the explanations need separating. Number 57 12:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
You're probably right. I mirrored the earlier one, but that one probably didn't need separate sections either. I'll try to redo that aspect of it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: I think it would be better to have separate response sections for the two questions, as they're quite distinct. Number 57 12:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion and I took it further.... there are now two distinct RFCs. Thank you for your most excellent suggestion!! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southern Rhodesian general election, 1980, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Cartwright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Glossop North End History

I refer you to the Man United History. they have a new paragraph "every time their is a new manager" its the HISTORY section. it lists the history of the club. I removed the journalistic bits which was the reason you got rid of it last time, and now it can be there because "we don't need a new paragraph every time there is a change" .... well whats the point in the history section then. I'm sorry we have had so many managers in a short space of time. this is for far future people to read and see what happened. yes they can look on the website, but in that case why does Wiki exist???? its for showing the history of the club,

"On 8 May 2013, Ferguson announced that he was to retire as manager at the end of the football season, but would remain at the club as a director and club ambassador.[58][59] The club announced the next day that Everton manager David Moyes would replace him from 1 July, having signed a six-year contract.[60][61][62] Ryan Giggs took over as interim player-manager 10 months later, on 22 April 2014, when Moyes was sacked after a poor season in which the club failed to defend their Premier League title and failed to qualify for the UEFA Champions League for the first time since 1995–96.[63] They also failed to qualify for the Europa League, meaning that it was the first time Manchester United hadn't qualified for a European competition since 1990.[64] On 19 May 2014, it was confirmed that Louis van Gaal would replace Moyes as Manchester United manager on a three-year deal, with Giggs as his assistant.[65] Malcolm Glazer, the patriarch of the Glazer family that owns the club, died on 28 May 2014.[66]

Although Van Gaal's first season saw United once again qualify for the Champions League through a fourth-place finish in the Premier League, his second season saw United go out of the same tournament in the group stage.[67] United also fell behind in the title race for the third consecutive season, finishing in 5th place, in spite of several expensive signings during Van Gaal's tenure. However, that same season, Manchester United won the FA Cup for a 12th time.[68] Despite this victory, Van Gaal was sacked as manager just two days later,[69] with José Mourinho appointed in his place on 27 May, signing a three-year contract.[70] That season, United finished in sixth place while winning the EFL Cup for the fifth time and the Europa League for the first time, as well as the FA Community Shield for a record 21st time. Wayne Rooney scored his 250th goal with United, surpassing Sir Bobby Charlton as United's all-time top scorer, before leaving the club at the end of the season to return to Everton."

the managers bit is a relevant bit of info for the club. now waffle, citations added. it must stay!

GNEBandit

@GNEbandit: As I've tried explaining to you a few times before, the problem is that you focus only on recent changes of manager. This is WP:RECENTISM, hence why I am going to keep removing it. I think I've also previously commented on the unsuitable language being used, yet you keep reinserting tabloid phrases like "in a shock move". Please remember this is an encyclopedia.
I am more than happy to open a WP:RfC to bring this to the attention of the wider Wikipedia community if you still have issues with the text being removed. Number 57 08:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

RECENTISM..... well I'd love to have a time machine and be able to go back and get the details of the older managers, but as I don't really know much before the 2000's of course this will be more recent info.

first you delete it all because you say it doesn't have citations.... so I added them. then you say its journalistic.... so I cut it to 1 liners with just the info. then you say it cant have a new paragraph for each manager change so I put it in 1 paragraph. and now you say its all about recent managers....hence back to the time machine.

in 100 years, a 1 liner about each manager arrival and departure will be ok, and I do try to keep all the language neutral....or more in the past tense so that it will make more sense in the future.

instead of deleting the info, which I think is relevant to the team, show me how/what to write. an example of this is seen on Southampton fc page "During the summer, Puel was replaced as manager by Argentine coach Mauricio Pellegrino, previously of Deportivo Alavés. In mid-season, the club sold Dutch defender Virgil van Dijk to Liverpool for an estimated £75 million, Southampton's record sale and a world record for his position.[33]

In March 2018, Southampton announced the sacking of Mauricio Pellegrino.[34][35]"

that's almost exactly like what I wrote.... maybe i'll just leave out the shock move

@GNEbandit

@GNEbandit: It's not "almost exactly what I wrote" – in fact, it's a very good example of the point I've been trying to make to you again and again. If you read it properly, you'll see that every manager Southampton have had since 1955 is mentioned in the history section – Bates, McMenemy, Nicholl, Branfoot, Souness, Jones, Hoddle, Gray, Strachan, Stuffock, Wigley, Redknapp, Burley, Pearson, Poortvliet, Wotte, Pardew, Adkins, Pochettino, Koeman, Puel and Pellegrino. This is exactly what I've been asking you to do to the Glossop article. You have the list of all the managers going back to the 1960s, so start from there.
Also, you need to sign your comments on talk pages properly (i.e. using four tildes – ~~~~). Number 57 07:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

right. now we are getting somewhere :) . i know you said it was a recency thing but you know made it clearer. the only issue now is that i am not going to be able to do citations for most if not all previous managers as the source is the GNE website.... which is the same info as what i wrote on here..... is that going to be an issue? i will look online to see if there is any news stuff about previous managers but, as you know, small non league teams don't often hit the papers back then.

i will add the other managers in over the next few days and see what i can drag up. User:GNEbandit 13:05 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@GNEbandit: I don't see how it wasn't clear already given that I said "the problem is that you focus only on recent changes of manager". Anyway, the GNE website is fine as a source. Number 57 22:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Technical Question Relating to Eretz Yisrael Shelanu

Do they still exist? To my understanding they just died out, but it is still *technically* a party, though since I don't know the technicalities of Israeli legal code when it comes to parties, at least to this extent, my question is, should we edit in that the party was dissolved, or is it still *technically* active? ShimonChai (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

S.League

can you open a RM discussion instead of direct move? Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and I see no need to waste people's time with an RM for something as obvious as this. Cheers, Number 57 10:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
OK! I will request category renaming from WP:CFDS to WP:CFD. Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Eitan Ginsburg the first openly gay mayor in Israel

[9]--Midrashah (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:El-Ahly Squad listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:El-Ahly Squad. Since you had some involvement with the Template:El-Ahly Squad redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ben5218 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Electoral results

Re: your question about separate pages for historical election results. It predates my involvement and activity in the area, but it seems to be a convention in the Australian project dating back to around 2007. As such, it would have been applied to up to 1,400 current and historical constituency pages at the federal, state and territory level. Maybe ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics, some of the older hands than me might have a memory of the history of this. --Canley (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Information Minister of Israel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Information Minister of Israel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Minister of Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A loose noose (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

2018 Land day protests

Are there was never consensus to any of the names please restore it to original name and then have a proper move discussion.--Shrike (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

Can you tell this 1 user to knock it off, as well as undo the changes they made? They keep adding unnecessary fluff to the article, as well as their speculation that the Van Pelt character in each of the movies is the same (just a different incarnation). There has been nothing in the films, or from the film crew, to suggest as such for the latter issue - solely their shared surname, which could easily mean they're family members instead. --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Atherton Collieries

I am just trying to find a balance for what is written in the section on that page. Yes, they havent been in the Football League, but casual readers might not know that, and some form of status acknowledgment should be made to not confuse their awards with pro football trophies. I think its a fair compromise, especially since by our policy the entire section below the North West Counties Leagues honours should be deleted as there are no links, no sources and no real traces of the other awards listed, so we dont even know if they were competitive, and the club itself doesnt have an honours page. Davefelmer (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a compromise at all – it's plainly unnecessary IMO. There is also no policy that unsourced text needs to be deleted – only material likely to be challenged needs referencing. Number 57 19:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean? Wikipedia is a source-based encyclopedia. You cannot have entire sections unsourced with no links or references, unless it is well known information that would not need attributing, which this is not. Besides, the vast majority of readers will have absolutely no idea what the Bolton Combination is or was. Without any links or sources, some supplementary info about its status would be a good improvement imo. Davefelmer (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it's completely unnecessary. Rather than keep adding it again and again, please take this to a wider audience at WT:FOOTY. Thanks, Number 57 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
In all fairness the discussion should be about whether totally unsourced, obscure awards with no links to them even deserve to be listed. After all, the club doesnt have an official honours page and no outside medium covers the awards of such a small side, so how did the information even come about? Thats what I'll ask on the wiki football page. Davefelmer (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Presumably it was added by someone who has access to offline information on the subject. For example, I have copies of old league tables from various non-League divisions that are not published online or in recent books. I was a bit puzzled by your addition of the club's history page as a reference for the honours section as it doesn't add anything to the references used in the history section (which include the club website).
On a separate note, please don't add bare URLs as references - you need to format them. Cheers, Number 57 09:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of constituencies of Nepal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bhojpur District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

development towns

Hello, sorry for having deleted the links yesterday, I thought they were faulty.

I am trying to learn about the theme of your article. I have never heard that Jerusalem got the development town status, is it sure ? In the first reference about Teddy Kollek, the search "development" gives only 1 result : "Tourism development Corporation".

As you read Hebrew, maybe you are Israeli. What is a development town is obvious for you ; may I suggest you to name the page "Development towns in Israël", because the word is not common out of Israël. Thank you--86.249.197.221 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post article includes the sentence "In addition, Kollek won Jerusalem the status of a development town, which increased the budget and government assistance." (when I searched the page there were seven hits for the term "development"). The article makes it clear that the topic is towns in Israel, so there is no need to change the article title IMO. Number 57 13:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, you are right. Actually, the immigrants quarters in Jerusalem got the status, not all the city : "In 1966 Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek called on the Israeli governement to grant Jersualem's ma'abarot development town status", Raphael Israeli, Jerusalem Divided: The Armistice Regime, 1947-1967; p.1-2,https://books.google.fr/books?id=6FmhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=jerusalem+development+town+status&source=bl&ots=HsovRcbMv5&sig=6t2Bf0gELhhIGbQiZjMcDv8nlhU&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio9dT9_b7aAhVFKlAKHSG6B7YQ6AEIXDAF#v=onepage&q=jerusalem%20development%20town%20status&f=false .
About the article title, what I said is just an advice in order to have more readers / views : it is only in Hebrew that "Development town" makes sense. All academic papers in English say "Dev towns in Israel" :

Anyway, thank you for your work.--86.249.139.221 (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Zambian MPs

Hi Number 57; I'd be interested to hear about the info you've amasssed on Zambian politicians, from a wikidata perspective. There's a project afoot, Wikidata:WikiProject every politician for which I put together data for the current legislative term. It'd be interesting to start working backwards to cover the previous terms. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: To date, the only full data I have (for the politicians I have identified - there are still some by-election winners that I haven't found and I am unsure if the 1988–91 set is complete as I only have a list of those in office in 1991) is just full names. I have some biographical data on a couple of dozen, but it is fairly sketchy and random. I also have ministerial positions for many of the years, but not start/end dates. The National Assembly website appears to have birth dates and education levels for the past 2–3 parliamentary terms but very little beyond that. Number 57 09:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. So it's sounding as if I should maybe just use the info on pages like List of members of the National Assembly of Zambia (1969–73). We have Cabinet of Zambia ... are you planning articles on prior cabinets? thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Probably for the best for now. I have been considering doing cabinet articles, but there seem to be endless reshuffles, particularly under Kaunda, which means an article like Kaunda's second government (1964–1968) would probably have at least 2–3 people listed in each role (the provincial ministers seem to change at least once a year). Also, I don't have complete records from most parliamentary terms so I'm a bit reluctant to start articles until I do. When I did Israeli politician articles I was lucky enough to have a complete record of all MPs and ministers on the Knesset website with exact dates. This is somewhat more challenging!! Number 57 15:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Understood. Good luck with your digging ... I wonder if it's worth reaching out to the likes of http://libraryassociationofzambia.org/ to see if you can find someone with access to the info you're after. Long shot, I know, but shy bairns get nothing! --15:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox DS note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the template (they are really annoying), but since I'm alerting the others in the Montenegrin presidential election, 2018 dispute, I didn't want to be seen as using it as anymore than just information and somehow skipping you because you were an admin. I'm sure you already know it is just informational and doesn't imply wrongdoing, but I did want to leave a note. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: No problem. Although I was aware of the sanctions, for some reason I was under the impression that it only applied to biographies (seeing as that's where all the trouble was being caused). Number 57 13:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I figured you already knew, which is another reason I didn't like using it . The remedy applies to all discussions and edits involving verifiable information on infoboxes, at least in the way it is written. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: One thing I wonder though – what happens when an editor violates the existing consensus that candidates with less than 5% should be excluded from infoboxes – would an editor removing such candidates in line with WikiProject consensus be up for sanctions. That would be quite worrying. Number 57 13:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
They'd probably be liable under the sanctions. The committee rejected 1RR for all infoboxes, so if there is a consensus and you were reverting in line with it, I don't think you're at fault. If someone is edit warring against consensus in a discretionary sanction area, then that is an issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Cheers for the confirmation. Whilst you're about, is there any chance you could also fully-protect {{Estonian elections}} for a while? Given my experience of the editor who has just attempted to remove Soviet-era elections from the template (they have a long history of denying Estonia was part of the USSR), I unfortunately foresee that they will continue trying to do so and it would be good to stop it before it starts turning into a bigger conflict (which will result in walls of text and other editors with the same editing history magically appearing), especially as I'm currently on holiday and could do without the stress. Number 57 14:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with it or the editor in question. If the dispute continues, let me know and I'll take another look. Hope your holiday goes well :) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Elections in Azerbaijan

I have seen your edit. Report of OSCE ODIHR does not necessarily uses exact phrase such as "election was severely flawed and grossly undemocratic" First of all, WP reg. requires neutrality and ewording of it should be neutral as well. Using "severly" or "grossly" adjectives seems over exaggerated.

Secondly, added information only presents negative parts of report. Conduct part should contain both negative, positive sides of monitoring report and as well as reactions to it. What do you think about that? Heisenbergs (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Your edit to the article was reverted as it appeared to be purely pro-Azerbaijan POV, for example playing down the negative elements of the OCSE report. The inclusion of the text "Mr. Stefan Krause is anti-azerbaijan person whom congratulated Armenian officials" was particularly troubling. You were welcome to remove the terms "grossly" and "severely" from the text though. Number 57 11:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear Number 57, thank you very much for your reply, i agree with your point. that information on stefan krause was added from media coverage. What do you think about also adding some positive info from OSCE report with ciation? Do you think we should both have negative and positive side, or we should leave like that to show only negative part? Heisenbergs (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

History merge

Hi Could you made an history merge for Next Turkish parliamentary election and Turkish parliamentary election, 2018 ? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I don't think a history merge is appropriate as this was not a cut & paste move – it was a merge then a split six months apart, so there is no continuous history. However, I have changed the target to the parliamentary election article. Number 57 12:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Elections in Estonia

Why are you intent on including Estonian Supreme Soviet elections in the "Parliamentary elections" section of the Estonian election template. Do you not understand the difference between a Parliament and a Supreme Soviet, or even the difference between the political systems? --Nug (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it was the parliament/legislature of the Estonian SSR. Number 57 09:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
But all the links in the template go to the current institutions of post-Soviet Estonia. What is your objection to a specific template tailored to the specific institutions of the former Soviet republic? --Nug (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Having a separate template is unnecessary and unhelpful for readers (as if they're on a recent election article, the Soviet-era ones won't show up), hence why we don't do it for other countries in the same situation. Number 57 09:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
However listing elections of a different state and political system in a template tailored to a another state with a totally different political system is counter factual and misleading to the reader. Other stuff exists isn't a valid reason either. --Nug (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Other stuff exists is a valid reason when it is about consistency of information being presented ("When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes"). With regards to the first point, I was in the middle of expanding my previous response to give an example of {{South African elections}} – current elections are to the National Assembly, but prior to 1994 they were to the House of Assembly. {{French elections}} covers parliamentary elections under more than five different political systems (the five republics and constitutional monarchy). This situation is repeated in many countries (possibly the majority). Number 57 09:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
South Africa and France were independent sovereign states for the period of those templates. There are not any elections listed in the template for pre-1910 South Africa, nor are there any elections listed for {{East Timorese elections}} between 1975 and 2000 when East Timor was a part of Indonesia for 25 years, so why list elections for the 50 years when Estonia was a part of the Soviet Union? --Nug (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The East Timorese template is incomplete because no editor has researched and added the dates of elections during the Indonesian period. They are not deliberately being excluded. The Portuguese-era elections are included where known, as are elections in South Sudan whilst it was part of Sudan ({{South Sudanese elections}}). South Africa didn't exist as a unified entity until 1910, so it's not a useful comparator, but other former colonies that were have their colonial-era elections included (e.g. {{Ghanaian elections}}, {{Kenyan elections}}, {{Maltese elections}} etc). Number 57 10:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
There isn't any real utility for readers of recent election articles in being able to link to past elections when they are inconsistent with the articles piped in the heading and section links of the template. For example the heading "Elections and referendums in Estonia" pipes to Elections_in_Estonia which states "Estonia elects a legislature on the national level. The Riigikogu has 101 members, elected for a four-year term by proportional representation." Readers will be misled into thinking that Soviet era elections also elected 101 members for a four-year term by proportional representation. It is the same with the other templates, which ought to group like for like for real consistency, not just lump it in all together for some imagined reader utility. --Nug (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with both points you make; the second is particularly faulty as numerous countries have changed their electoral systems or the number of MPs over time whilst keeping the same legislature – the Riigikogu itself has not always had 101 seats, so by your logic all the articles on elections when it did not would also have to be removed from the template, as would the 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1936 elections, which were also not to the Riigikogu. If this were really a problem (and I am not in the slightest bit convinced that it is), a more reasonable solution would be simply to remove the link to Riigikogu and rewrite the Elections in Estonia article to actually cover the entire electoral history (which should be done regardless of our discussion). Number 57 10:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Even better solution would be to reflect reliables sources rather than a belief on what constitutes "reader utility". The Riigikogu and the Supreme Soviet isn't the "same legislature" by any stretch of the imagination. As for a criteria on what to include in the template, this source would be a good start. --Nug (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The articles on the Supreme Soviet elections are sourced. I can see this is just going to continue going round in circles, so I've removed the links to the Riigikogu and the "Elections in" page from the template, which will prevent the reader confusion you claim they would cause. I hope this is the end of the matter as I'd rather concentrate on doing something productive. Number 57 12:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we are going around in circles, but I don't think removing links to the Riigikogu and the "Elections in" page is the solution either. I've made a proposal below. --Nug (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Taiwanese independence referendum

Sorry, I couldn't find a page like this and I thought that the proposal wasn't properly made. Daduxing (talk)

@Daduxing: If an article has a template at the top saying "It is proposed that this article be deleted because...", it means it will be deleted within seven days unless there are any objections. Usually you wait until someone has objected before taking it to AfD. Cheers, Number 57 10:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Elections in Ireland

I see that the template {{Irish elections}} focuses on the elections of the Republic of Ireland (1918 to present), while at the bottom of the template are "See also" links to the elections of the Kingdom of Ireland {{Irish (Pre-1801) elections}} and elections in Ireland as part of the UK (1801-1918) {{Irish (UK) elections}}. That solves the "reader utility" issue in terms of navigating to past elections. Given that you yourself added these "See also" links[10] and moved elections to those templates[11], I assume you have no objection to a similar treatment for the Baltic states, a template for the current republics (1918 to present) with links to templates for the Soviet period (1940-1990) and the pre-1918 period (as a part of the Russian empire)? --Nug (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am completely opposed to the idea. The Republic of Ireland is a different entity covering a different geographical area to the Ireland in the other templates. An appropriate comparator to Estonia would be {{Lithuanian elections}}. Number 57 09:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense, the Kingdom of ireland geographically identical to Ireland in the UK. Note that Soviet reppublics were different in geographical area to the respective republics. --Nug (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't it wasn't – please read what I said again. Number 57 10:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
How is the Republic of Estonia the same entity as Soviet Estonia, when they cover slightly different areas? --Nug (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Based on this text, it would appear that the Estonian SSR and modern Estonia have the same borders – pre-WWII they were different. And borders were also slightly different at the time of the 1917 and 1918 elections. But anyway, this is minor compared to the ROI/Ireland issue, so let's not descend into this level of wikilawyering please. Number 57 10:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Your claims of "wikilawyering" seems to be an attempt to kill a legitimate discussion on how to improve the template. The change in area is reasonably significant in terms of percentage, and you still link Northern Ireland elections in that template. And the border hasn't been resolved as a new treaty remains to be finalised. So by your logic the template should start at 1940? I don't think that is a good solution. --Nug (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't add Northern Ireland to the Irish template and I am not sure why it's there (nothing similar is done for any other country as far as I'm aware), so I've removed it. Number 57 10:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
We shall see if there is consensus to remove it. Not all countries are the same, they all have different histories and systems, what is the point of trying to shoe horn everything into the same simplistic pattern? --Nug (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Fb cl hth

Can you resolve please also this template as you did yesterday with the "noinclude tags"?...2016–17 Liga II League table does not look too good. Rhinen

@Rhinen:  Fixed Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Hhhhhkohhhhh: Thank you!!! Rhinen

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

About Indonesian indirect elections

Which note says that the indirect elections should not be included here? And why? The Indian President and VP are always elected indirectly and there are no template says it should not be written because they were indirect. – Flix11 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The note in the template code states that the indirect elections should not be added. See, for example, {{Czech elections}}, {{German elections}} or {{Turkish elections}} where only the direct elections are included. Countries that have only indirect elections, or a mix of direct and indirect, have a separate template for the presidential elections, in which the indirect ones are listed ({{Indian presidential elections}}, {{Czech presidential elections}}, {{German presidential elections}} or {{Turkish presidential elections}}) Cheers, Number 57 16:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Party shortnames

One thing is a shortname, another thing is an acronym . Sandinista Front is still a shorname for example. And in other cases like the Colombian Liberal Party you actually made the name longes, so I really don't get your position on it other than maybe revert me. Where can I bring this into discussiob because I want to insist in some of this changes. In fact, based on your assestmen at the very least I will keep the changes that actually shorten the names for coherence. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: I wouldn't say Sandinista Front is a shortname – it's a shorter name, but a shortname is meant to be one that fits into a single row on an election infobox, hence why FLSN is used (simply "Sandinista" may also work). The problem with you lengthening the names was that in virtually all cases, it meant that they split over two rows (regarding the Liberal Party, I was in the middle of a a large number of reverts but quickly realised my mistake and self-reverted). Where parties have recognisable acronyms, they have been used as shortnames for pretty much as long as election infoboxes have existed (see, e.g. this one from 2005). If you want to start a discussion on this, I'd recommend doing so at WP:E&R, but you should probably also notify the Politics WikiProject and all the national politics WikiProjects (e.g. WP:UK Politics) as changing the form of shortname generally used could potentially impact thousands of articles (acronyms are used as the shortnames for parties in the vast majority of countries – see, for example, French presidential election, 2017, German federal election, 2017 etc). Cheers, Number 57 14:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no interest in changing the shortnames on Uk or any of those countries, but I do think that in the case of Latin America using words is better than using letters because their acronyms are not that recognisable. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Newent

Currently creating a page for Newent Town A.F.C. Just need to know if there's no issue with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RouteOne (talk • contribs) 13:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@RouteOne: I'd wait until they've definitely been placed in a step 6 league before doing so. Number 57 12:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/852

I'm disabling Special:AbuseFilter/852 due to inactivity (we've been having issues with too many filters running). If you see the disruption pop up again feel free to poke me and we'll re-enable it. Regards, — MusikAnimal talk 16:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: No problem, thanks for letting me know. Out of interest, how do the filters work exactly? Does it automatically block the edit from being made, or does it flag it up somewhere? Cheers, Number 57 15:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This one "disallows" edits, yes, so it automatically blocks the edit from being saved. You can also set filters to log-only (no action), or to tag the edit. The issue here again is lately we've been hitting the "condition limit", which basically means there are too many filters running :( So I've been trying to go around disabling unused or stale filters. — MusikAnimal talk 17:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Basic Wikipedia editing competency

Having looked at your recent election-related edits and seen the numerous basic errors, I was very surprised to find out that you have been editing for so long. You really need to learn to format references – external links do not have two square brackets ([[ ]]), they only require one. Also, online forums are not acceptable references for articles on Wikipedia. Please ensure that you no longer continue to make these basic errors. Thanks, Number 57 22:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that these issues were raised with you five years ago. This is concerning. Number 57 22:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia has changed in terms of coding many times over the decade I've worked on pages. So no need to point that out. We have other people who have different cause, and clean up any miscoding that I make. Regarding your enquiry about ankawa.com - this is a problem that I do not know how to solve. The website is the number one (and the only one) trusted Assyrian news website..however since it's so old (2000), it has not changed its format of starting as a forum. However, it is NOT a forum page, as it is a certified news agency in the KRG. Chaldean (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Venezuela elections

Hi! I have a doubt. Seeing other elections article, I understood that the Conduct section was only limited to the election day? Or does this extend to all the electoral process since the announcement? Is there a guideline similar to WP:NCGAL I can consult regarding this? --Jamez42 (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Conduct sections cover the entire election process, not just polling day (see e.g. Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015#Conduct). There's no guideline that sets this out. Cheers, Number 57 20:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo

I know we're not going to agree here, and that's fine, but I could really use your help. I think there are too many discussions in too many spaces about different versions of this article/draft, and I don't know how to go about getting the community to reassess notability without being accused of forum shopping. I would like to have a new discussion about whether or not the topic is notable, from a clean slate, in one space, but I don't know how or where to make this happen. I take full responsibility for the topic being discussed in too many spaces, but I'm frustrated by my lack of options to get a wider community discussion now that the subject has received another wave of press coverage.

Is Request for comment an option? Can we archive some discussions and start a new one? Would you be interested in starting a new discussion, instead of me? I'm not refusing to acknowledge the editor feedback I've received thus far, and perhaps I've failed to follow procedure properly, but I am acting in good faith. Do you have any suggestions other than 'there's not consensus on the airport article' for a standalone article? Thanks, truly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Yes, a WP:RfC is an option, but seeing as the most recent discussion is only a month old, it would not generally be considered appropriate to start yet another one. You'd normally be expected to wait at least six months until starting a new discussion to see whether consensus has changed. Number 57 16:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you be ok with me archiving past discussions and starting a fresh one, with or without the RfC template? I'd like a fresh discussion, but I want procedural support at this point. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Another Believer: No; please respect the (lack of) consensus in the month-old discussion and temporarily drop the stick for a while please. Number 57 16:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to give up, so can you please let me know what I can do to get more editors to review the article and consider whether or not the topic is notable? If you have no suggestions or interest in helping to facilitate a fresh discussion (which I get, since you believe the subject is not notable), I'll submit a RfC. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to ping you in a couple spaces to see how we can go about reducing the number of spaces where this topic is discussed. I'd really appreciate your help here. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Another Believer: I'm not telling you to give up. I'm telling you to give it a rest until there's a chance consensus may have changed. Repeatedly starting discussions soon after one another because you haven't got the result you wanted is considered problematic behavious and could potentially lead to topic bans or blocks. Seriously, give it a rest for a while and revisit it in a few months to see if consensus has changed. I have nothing more to say to you here. Number 57 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand. Right now, I'm just trying to close tangential discussions to keep things focused. Right now, if I were to invite editors to give feedback, I don't even know where to direct them. I'm just trying to do cleanup. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Paraguayan general election, 2018

Hey there! I was just making it equal to the spanish version of the article (first of all). Second, read through the given source and you'll see that all 9 "Alianza GANAR" deputies are actually from PLRA (Carlos Portillo of Alto Paraná, for example). Greetings!--RH10 (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way: why did you add the votes of parties without representation in Parliament? It's just unnecessary waste of code (many other wikipedians will agree with me on that haha). Just that, I didn't want to make "arbitrary" changes: just wanted to make it simple for the casual reader. If you think it's necessary to add such information, you can do that in a separate table (for example). Greetings again!--RH10 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@RH10: (edit conflict) We list all parties when the results are known – see the 2008 or 2013 articles for example; it would be unhelpful to omit them, particularly parties like PEN that had seats previously but were reduced to zero.
Regarding GANAR/PLRA, we would usually have parties/lists that ran under different names listed separately (for example, see Salvadoran legislative election, 2018, where numerous alliances of the main parties ran). However, it would be worth adding a footnote stating that all of the GANAR elected members were from the PLRA. Number 57 14:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The given source says: "A diferencia de la ANR, el Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico (PLRA) de tener 28 diputados, en el próximo periodo llega a 30 mediante las alianzas trazadas en el interior"ABC Color. Meaning "unlike the Colorado Party, the PLRA went from 28 deputies to 30 in the next term, through alliances made in the interior (meaning outside of Asunción) of the country". Greetings!--RH10 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@RH10: Yes, I realised when I saw your edit summary. It seems it doesn't go through a translator well. However, the point stands that these nine party members were elected under the GANAR banner and should be listed in the table as such (with a footnote). Number 57 14:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know the proper way of doing that (don't want to spoil the source code haha), but I agree! It's important to state that all 9 of them are from PLRA (since the GANAR Alliance can fall apart anytime in the future, politics in here are rather volatile). Well just that, greetings mate! Sorry if I disturbed you in any way haha --RH10 (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@RH10: No problem; I've added a note, so hopefully we're both happy now? Cheers, Number 57 14:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Perfect! Leaves no room for doubt. Cheers, mate!--RH10 (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Govvy/2018–19 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

Hiya, Can you put a move block it for me to make sure no one moves it out of my userspace. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Done. Cheers, Number 57 21:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

South Midlands league

Should the South Midlands and Spartan South Midlands be classed as separate leagues when listing honours? I was trying to improve WGC FC the other editor changed it, but I thought it was the same league. Govvy (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Yes; the South Midlands League and Spartan Leagues merged to form the SSML, so they're separate competitions. Cheers, Number 57 15:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Lebanese general election, 2018

Hi, if you have time, please keep an eye on the article whilst it is on the main page. Several anon ips/new users keep changing the results tally without explanation/references. I know party affiliation in Lebanese politics is a complex issue (having tried to source the party labels for 597 candidates...) but if people want to change the tally they need to explain why. --Soman (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Turkish football updater

Hi Number 57, I created Turkish football updater template but it isn't success on Darıca Gençlerbirliği. Can you check this please. Regards and thanks, Sakhalinio (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sakhalinio: I've fixed it. The problem was the dashes you used in the league name sections (it should have been - not –). I've fixed it and it should work now. Cheers, Number 57 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sakhalinio: One other thing that needs sorting out is the position. "14." is not correct in English – it should be "14th". Can I also recommend that you change it to (e.g.) 14th of 20 for context (as is used in the English updater)? Cheers, Number 57 19:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Number 57, I updated all table on Turkish Wikipedia, and copied to here. We can fix in English. Regards Sakhalinio (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ipswich Town F.C. Hall of Fame

Hi Number 57. The entries you added weren't missing, per se, they were recipients of the "merit" award. Now I'm happy to see them included, but they all need to be tagged with a footnote accordingly, to distinguish them from the other members. Plus I'm not sure if TWTD would be considered a RS.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The 'source' is a copy of the club's list of inductees that was published on TWTD, so wasn't sure who to attribute it to. In terms of the merit award, several of those already listed were receipients of it (e.g. John Lyall, Bobby Ferguson, David Rose), so I assumed it didn't need any specific highlighting. How do you suggest doing it? Could it go in the notes column rather than a footnote to make it clearer? Number 57 11:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps the sources I used didn't make it clear they were "merit" award recipients. I'm not even sure I know what that means, but it's worth adding something, yes, notes might be the place to do it. An IP has done some adjusting today and added Laurie Sivell (TWTD backs that up), are you aware of who else was inducted a couple of weeks ago? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Not aware of anyone else. Cheers, Number 57 11:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: All noted now. It looks as if the merit award is for non-playing staff. Number 57 18:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

>Don't mix English/Spanish in the name. "Junta" is generally used in English to refer to a military group ruling a country.

Ok, you have more complaints, sermons, and criticisms about my editions, Lord Number 57? Because I'm sure you have a long and detailed list for me.--Oli (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Ripley Town badge.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Premature inclusion of information in 2018–19 North West Counties Football League

Many thanks for your amendment to this article last Saturday, removing all details of 2018–19 placements, and giving
(All of this is guesses and it demeans Wikipedia's integrity to include it at this stage. Wait till lineups are confirmed before adding the info)
as your reason.

I fully support the amendment, and almost all of the reason you gave for making it. When seeing the item discussed on a football forum, I felt it had been premature, and straight away went to hide the info, but then saw you had already done that – so thanks! You are quite correct in saying that it demeans Wikipedia's integrity. The only bit of the reason you gave which was wrong was suggesting that all of it was guesses; I'd got the information about the borderline between North and South divisions from what I had understood to be a very reliable source. (Had I left it to guesswork, it would have been accurate!)

Nevertheless, even if I'd had the info from the FA itself, you are quite correct in saying that publication on Wiki should await verifiable sources, and I'll endeavour to remember in future. Drawoh46 (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: No problem. I guess you got it from Tony's Non-League Forum? I'm a regular there too. Number 57 10:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Women's Championship / WSL 2

Hey N57. Just wanted to point out that I had just initiated a quick debate on the identity of the Women's Championship here on the talk page of the same. I will let you read my comments there for my actual argument, but in short they are that I do not consider WSL 2 and the Championship to be the same competition, and I personally believe that they should have different articles. My attempt to initiate a dialogue was then somewhat devalued by your slightly arbitrary action, but all the same I just thought I'd come here to ask for your thoughts, and to see if I could appeal and convince you that they should not be merged into the same article. Falastur2 Talk 15:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

2018–19 Eastern Counties Football League

Hullo again. With the exception of creating the league templates, I believe I have almost finished the work needed for an article on the 2018–19 Eastern Counties Football League to be published. Notably, I have attempted to incorporate maps showcasing where the teams are located. I admit that I am no expert in this field, so I would appreciate it if you could have a look and rectify any errors I may have made. The draft can be found here. Thanks. Good888 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Good888: Good work. Just one comment – on the map for the North Division, perhaps add "Reserves" to the reserve teams, otherwise it looks like it's first teams. Regarding the South Division, Fire United have come from "Division One Central and East" as opposed to simply Division One. I also wonder whether it might be worth just using a map of Essex for the South division (even the ones outside are not that far from the border)?
Also, a couple of questions that I still haven't got to the bottom of:
  1. The actual names of the divisions. I've seen the old Division Ones renamed "Eastern Senior League North" and "Eastern Senior League South", but also "Eastern Counties League North"/"Eastern Counties League Division One North" and "Eastern Senior League" South. Do you have any idea what they actually are? I was hoping the AGM would clear this up.
  2. Whether the divisions are part of the ECL, jointly administered with the Essex Senior League, or an entirely separate league (again, I guess the AGMs might help).
Cheers, Number 57 19:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Good888: Echo User:Number 57's remarks about the naming of the two Division One's. Many different styles seem to be floating around. What seems to be the most official listing I've seen so far is where the new constitutions were first announced to the world, in nonleaguedaily.com, in which one of the new divisions has the name Eastern Senior League. Surely that cannot be right. I look forward to something more official, either at the league's AGM, or when the FA publishes its handbook for the new season (update of page 189 in the 17–18 handbook). Echo also Number 57's "well done"! Drawoh46 (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Drawoh46:Thanks to both of you. Anyhow, I have updated the South/Eastern Senior League/Step 6 League with the Essex map. Let me know what you think. Good888 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The BBC is simply calling the new league Eastern Senior League. Hopefully that clears things up. Good888 (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Good888: Unfortunatley I don't think that really helps. Does it mean the entire league (both divisions) is called the Eastern Senior League, or only the South Division (which is where I presume they've been moved)? Number 57 12:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hailsham Town F.C.

Thanks :-). I missed seeing the URL in the edit summary like a bone head... I appreciate you for fixing that. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: No problem :) Number 57 09:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Green Endorsement question

In 2016 you spoke on the talk page for the Green Leadership article about Endorsement listing. I thought you would like to know I have asked the same question on the talk page for the 2018 version of the article. Thanks, Digestive Biscuit (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Govvy/2018–19 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

Hiya, I think it's a good enough start for the season article, I forgot I had it moved locked was wondering if you could move it into mainspace for me cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Unfortunately someone's created an article there in the meantime, so you'll just have to copy over your text. Cheers, Number 57 11:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
hiya, thought you were away for the weekend there or something and posted in the footy project, GS went and merged my article with the one already there. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank You note

Just want to thank you so much for helping me with the edits you made on the South Vietnamese elections, I am a new editor, so please do correct any mistakes I make. Thank You! :) Kevin9217 (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Valid citations

Hello, sorry if you aren't the right person to ask, but is counterpunch considered a valid citation? I saw an article use it and was curious if it is actually considered a valid citation.ShimonChai (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@ShimonChai: No idea I'm afraid. Number 57 08:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

How do you do one click archive?

Talk:Portsmouth F.C. has some comments that don't seem to have been picked up by the archive bot at all, I was wondering if I should move them manually or should it be done differently? Govvy (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: All done. I suspect it was because at least one post in each section wasn't signed properly, as the archive bot uses signature dates to work out whether to archive a thread or not. Cheers, Number 57 18:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, cheers for that. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect figures into infoboxes

Hi, i saw that message that you left me about the infoboxes, and i can say my sources are all valid:

http://valtor.valasztas.hu/valtort/jsp/ma1.jsp?EA=3 http://valtor.valasztas.hu/valtort/jsp/orszjkv.jsp?EA=3&W=2 http://valtor.valasztas.hu/valtort/jsp/orszjkv.jsp?EA=8&W=2 http://valtor.valasztas.hu/valtort/jsp/ma1.jsp?EA=8

I were worked on this for hours and you distracted me, please don't do that again, thanks. Thank you for your care, but i can assure you i am certainly not favor vandalism. However, if you continue to harass me, i will report you, thanks for your kindness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kammajom (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


Hi! The sourced figures in the results table aren't valid for several elections, fix that problem if you want, i began with the infobox because it's more understandable for visitors, then my whole afternoon of work worth nothing and got deleted, even if i assured my sources. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kammajom (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Cobham Football Club - Response to Number57

Firstly thank you for your comments. the reason whyI am a direct sponsor of Wikipedia is because I recognise its great resource and the incredible effort of volunteers or contributors such as yourself.

It is absolutely vital that entries on here can be relied upon and quite rightly refererenced. The copy and paste your referred to was not from any website but our progrramme notes but by our Head of Communications, who has been a member of Cobham for over 15 years. He was clearly given wrong information from " Mr.Cobham" himself, the late Ken Reed. So thank you for correcting us on that and I have insisted that our programme notes are altered accordingly.

However to receive a note, whilst helpful in its essence, was threatening and legal nonsense. That i find completely unacceptable and you are advised in the strongest possible terms not to threaten me again. Indeed the guidelines of Wikipeda for Talk page users are as clear as could be that you are being out of order. Being an active volunteer of Wikipedia does not give you the right to threaten users in such terms without finding out what had happened. To talk about a conflict of interest when I am an active and legtimate member of Cobham Football Club is complete and utter legal tosh and if i am wrong show me evidence to the contrary. You will not , cannot and so proceed with caution in future. I do not and will never tolerate being threatened by anybody and I hope I have made myself very clear I am a volunteer too and instead of threatening each other and approaching me in a demeaning manner, let's work together to ensure Wikkpedia continues to be an effective and incredible resource.

On this ocassion , I will not raise the matter with Wikipedia directly but like I must and will act better in the future, you are advised to read the guidelines before writing to anybody in future.

File:BradfordPA.PNG

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hendon FC - Response to Number57

Re your comments, the comment is not unsourced within the squad list there is a reference to the official website with players updated. If you had checked link you would see it is updated as of 1 day ago. Dylan Kearney signed on Sunday 17th June and was added to the official website within 24 hours. If you wish to rectify the place/formatting issue please go ahead, i like to put information but i am not great with formatting and i am still learning. let's work together to ensure Wikkpedia continues to be an effective and incredible resource.

Craigw87 (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Craigw87: There are numerous issues here:
  1. The squad list is not visibly sourced. You should not be hiding a source in comments.
  2. The date format is wrong (please read WP:MOSDATE)
  3. You have added it to the wrong part of the article (a squad section should be below the ground section)
  4. The formatting of the heading is wrong ("Team" and "Squad" should not be capitalised)
  5. The list is completely unbalanced
  6. The "out on loan" section is empty
  7. Having a couple of hundred non-league club articles on my watchlist, I can say with confidence that having a squad list is generally a really bad idea. They are rarely updated and I have seen several that are four or five years out of date.
Many of these issues were pointed out in my edit summary, yet you simply hit undo without correcting any of them. This is known as a "blind revert" and is regarded as extremely poor conduct because you're clearly ignoring any of the reasons for the edit you're undoing.
When an edit of yours is reverted, you're expected to follow the WP:BRD cycle – i.e. start a discussion on the talk page and gain consensus for your proposed changes, not keep reinstating it. I look forward to continuing this discussion at Talk:Hendon F.C.. Thanks, Number 57 20:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi [[User talk:Number 57| Nice to see you have ingored the points It is sourced with a link to hendon's website which lists, player postion etc. Date format is not wrong. Please see previous edits. How is unbalanced? It is listed as GK,DF,MF,FW as per normal clubs? The out on loan section is empty as per normal for most clubs as per this time this season. Please see Ebbsfleet page as refrence yet this has not been changed or noted. Having edited quite a lot, i can see with cofidence that you are wrong with your point which is made with reference. You mention discussing the matter, yet instead have just listed points which are incorrect.I made a refrence to many points which you just chose to ignore. 

Please change and accept you are wrong so we can progress on this matter.

Craigw87 (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Craigw87: If you're unwilling to accept something as clear as the date format being wrong, this doesn't bode well. In response to your points:
  1. The date format is very clearly wrong. You wrote it as "18th June 2018". You cannot use ordinal numbers. Please read MOS:BADDATE.
  2. The source was hidden in the code, not visible to editors unless they started editing the list. This is not good practice.
  3. The list was unbalanced because it had 13 players on one side and 6 on the other.
Again, if you really want the squad list in the article, please start a discussion on the talk page and gain consensus for as per the WP:BRD cycle. As I said above, I strongly advise against it due to the lack of updates that non-League squads normally have. 19:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi [[User talk:Number 57|

@Number 57:

You have ignored the facts on 3 occasions here, i think it is infact you who is unwilling to accept anyone else's point of views or facts. Your points are invalid or incorrect in terms of the non league sqaud updates. I will however not revert the Hendon page as you seem to be a human incapable of reasoning with to achieve a common goal. Craigw87 (talk) 08:51, 20th June 2018 (UTC)


Final Response from VC Cobham

Thank you for your latest reply .

I can see you are a well educated man with TWO degrees to boot but I am prepared to guarantee that only one of us is practiced in Law and knows complete legal tosh when he see its. Especially so when someone cherry picks from Wikipediaa guidelines to Editors. It is impossible to copyright what you already own and you embarass yourself and no one else by making assumptions without checking any facts. Wikpedia advised you how to deal with innocent errors and you ignored it.

And SHOULD is indeed sensible and useful advice but if you try and take that to a court of law to rely on it, the Judge would laugh at you as MUST is definitive and SHOULD is indicative -basic for someone with two degrees.

Whilst you may not have better things to do then to bully innocent volunteers and prefer to dance around the head of a pin and pretend threats and warnings are discrete in these circumstances, I certainly do not.

As such your reply will not be read, noted or commented on in any shape or form except to conclude with thanks for pointing out the information that WAS incorrect as it saved me some money having to reprint some Club history. For that I remain grateful VCCobham (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oleksandr Gvozdyk edit-warring (continued)

IP 46.211.xx is at it again by adding content which has no consensus at WikiProject Boxing. Our previous interaction was at EWN, but he's not content to wait around at the Project for opinions to form. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Turkish election tables

As the reverting user, it is your job to explain on the talk page when I request it. I changed the original table format, yes, but you are reverting for the reason that your version is "vastly superior", with no further explanation. Reverts are unconstructive, as opposed to the changes I made, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. You are talking about BRD, but when I ask you to discuss on the talk page, you ignore it. Come on, get a grip. Argue for your view there, and leave the article alone in the meantime. Μαρκος Δ 20:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Read the rules. Discuss with me before making more edits. Do not start an edit war, and just leave the section blank for now. EDIT: Do not come here and lecture me on disruption. The former table was out for a long time; you are the one coming and making last-minute changes and reverts. If there is now a disruption, it's on you. Besides, full results are not out, so we do not have to even have a table at this point. Μαρκος Δ 20:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Orange County election

Hi! While reviewing new pages, I found the article Orange County, California District Attorney election, 2018. As far as I know, county elections do not meet the notability for an article, but I wanted to know your opinion regarding this before. Cheers! --Jamez42 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: It seems to be an election that over 500,000 people can vote in, so I'd say it's notable enough. However, I personally think that all elections within a jurisdiction on a certain date should be detailed in a single article, rather than having articles on the elections for each individual position/body. So, for example, an Orange County elections, 2018 article could cover the Board of Supervisors, County assessor, District Attorney etc etc. I'd also like to see this done for state-level elections. Cheers, Number 57 22:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Austrian constitutional assembly

Hi Number 57, I happened to see that title moves of this article. I think that the user was right to move the article name as per WP:BOLD as perceived uncontroversial move. Sources 3 and 4 of the article call it "constituent" assembly, so there should be no controversy expected. Page 601 of this source, as well as this call it "constituent". Furthermore, the direct translation of "konstituierend", which is the German key word is "constituent". "Constitutional" has other implications and secondary meanings which may be confusing. "Constituent" also appears to be the common name, see List of constituent assemblies and related articles.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The Assembly was elected to draft a constitution – therefore it's a constitutional assembly. I'm pretty sure the Nohlen book calls it a constitutional assembly, as do these sources, as well as Encyclopaedia Britannica. Not sure how it's a confusing term – "constitutional assembly" has only one main use – an assembly elected to write or amend a constitution. is The German term is relevant to what it's called on de.wiki, but not for en.wiki – what's relevant is what it's called in English. Number 57 13:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup statistics

Hi, can you semi-protect this page one month, thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: Done. Number 57 15:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional to international football tournament templates

Can you consider adding things like these to the template?

| most wins against higher-ranked team = 2 | most wins against higher-ranked team = Russia | most ranking places between winning and losing team = 56 | most ranking places between winning and losing team = Korea Republic 2–0 Germany

And perhaps of corners etc? I think there are a lot of club statisticians out there and sweepstake organisers that would appreciate the extra data.

Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjhiyi (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Banjhiyi: I don't really understand what you're asking for here. Number 57 20:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, don’t worry. Banjhiyi (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Sequential proportional approval voting

An article that you have been involved in editing—Sequential proportional approval voting—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Dhalsim2 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Fire United FC logo.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of White Ensign F.C.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on White Ensign F.C., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of White Ensign F.C. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White Ensign F.C. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Ensign F.C. (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

White Ensign

My bad, I was a little quick of the gun yesterday, I really hate speedy deletion of articles. But this morning I realised that White Ensign have yet to play in any FA cup competitions, I wrote down a bit in the AfD anyway. Maybe it needs to go back to your sandbox until they actually play in a cup, cheers, Govvy (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: As I've just pinged you about at the AfD, there are two parts of the criteria – playing in a step 6 league and the cup history. Currently Ensign meet the former as they're now at step 6. Cheers, Number 57 09:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Didn't know about step 6 part of the criteria, I really don't know why we don't have something like WP:NFOOTBALLCLUB. It would be helpful to have something. Govvy (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@Govvy: You're possibly right, although I guess it's not been done up until now because it's very rarely been an issue (there have only been a handful of attempts at deleting step 6 (and above) clubs since 2010). Number 57 09:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Andy Cook

Have just seen your message regarding Andy Cook's page. I've recreated the page again before I saw your message. I apologise and will wait to recreate the page until he meets the relevant criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregclayo (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

File:AFcEmley.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Luka Modrić

Maybe you can double check that it's been archived right, cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Question

Would it be appropriate for me to express my encouragement of the innocence of SuperJew on his TP with a "I second that" underneath what you wrote, or should I stay out of the matter until ArbCom decides? Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it'll be of any use, so maybe just wait till ArbCom? Number 57 21:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I will.Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Indian Election

Hello,thanks for making Category:Indian general election, 2019,but my 2 pages has moved into draft Draft:Indian general election, 2019 (Bihar), and Draft:Indian general election, 2019 (Chhattisgarh),But someone says that this articles are not necessary can you discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics & help me regarding this(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

Can we also move this two articles into mainspace?? Draft:Indian general election, 2019 (Bihar), and Draft:Indian general election, 2019 (Chhattisgarh)) (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

Schleswig Plebiscites

Hi Number 57

I've reverted your recent edit to the template concerning Danish elections.

The Schleswig sovereignty referenda of Feb 14 and Mar 20 1920 were a monumental event in Danish history, and I see no reason to exclude them from the template.

The headline of the template doesn't mention the Danish government, and the similar template for Poland also includes the similar referenda in East Prussia and Upper Silesia. The file name is simply "Danish elections", not "elections by the Danish government".

Feel free to create a template regarding all referenda held due to the Versailles Treaty and to add the article to templates regarding Weimar Germany or Prussia as well.

But trying to exclude a sovereignty referendum where in some cases 90%+ of the populace voted for Danish sovereignty - and was awarded it by the Allied powers - is erasing history for no apparent purpose.

When the referendum was conducted the region was under international control, the C.I.S., but formal sovereignty of Zone I was of course not transferred until after the vote. It was a referendum, not Alsace-Lorraine.

As I remember them, at least four referenda took place because of the Versailles Treaty: Schleswig, East Prussia, Carinthia and Upper Silesia. So some kind of template linking them might make sense as well.

Best regards. Valentinian T / C 08:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: My last sentence was unclear. The referendum concerning Carinthia was of course because of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, since the Allies chose individual peace treaties with the defeated central powers. Nevertheless a template linking the sovereignty referenda held due to the end of World War I seems logical. At the time, these referenda were seen as linked due to the spirit of Wilson's Fourteen Points. Valentinian T / C 08:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I've restored the status quo per WP:BRD – please don't revert until consensus is reached. With regards to the inclusion of these, the national election template series is for national-level votes only, rather than regional or local votes. However, I think new template created covering all the post-WWI plebiscites would be a good solution; I've created it at {{Post-WWI plebiscites}} and added it to all the articles in question. Cheers, Number 57 08:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
You completely ignored my main objection. Why is a referendum concerning Danes and Germans different from exactly similar referenda concerning Poles and Germans.(w:Template:Polish_elections)? Those referenda were integral to the history of Poland, eventhough East Prussia voted overwhelmingly German. See e.g. Norman Davies' "God's Playground" volume 2. Similarly, the Schleswig referendums not only changed Denmark's borders and solved a vicious and toxic border dispute but were integral in starting a constitutional crisis that almost sparked a revolution. For more on that topic, I can recommend Professor Tage Kaarsted's dissertation: "Påskekrisen 1920".
On the wiki policy level: Last time I checked, WP:OWN and WP:BOLD still apply and I see no others disputing the inclusion of one of Denmark's two most important referendums in the table bar you. I also don't see a wikipolicy describing why such material is banned from the templates. Per definition, sovereignty referenda are normally not nation wide, but that doesn't make them less important in a nation's electoral history. I hold a university degree in history specialising in Danish foreign policy in the 1920s and the referendum is integral in my country's history. Fortunately, that fact cannot be erased, and in 2 years, the referendum will be celebrated in Denmark nomatter foreigners' opinions on the matter. Valentinian T / C 20:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I've removed them from the Polish template as they shouldn't be there either (apologies, I somehow missed that part of your original comment). Number 57 20:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank You - Holbrook Sports

Thank you for updating the wiki - holbrook page. could i ask a favour, i am trying to add to the management team but doesnt work always puts a light grey box around it.

ideally i would like it to say.

Chairman - Daniel Troop Manager - Daniel Troop Asst Manager - Danny Cooper Coach - Adam Lillie 

       Jack Repton

Physio - Jessica Beaver

Thank you ever so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.127.4 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The infobox is only supposed to have the Chairman and Manager listed (the reason "Coach" is a separate option is so that it can used on American articles where they call the manager the coach; however, it shouldn't be used for British articles). Cheers. Number 57 13:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Knesset

You said this is the replacement for Isaac Herzog, please read this article. His seat will remain vacant, replacement has to be chosen. His replacement has left the party. [12] - Social Studies Rules (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Read these articles as well, carefully, [13] [14] Social Studies Rules (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Knesset

About that, I left a message on the user's talk page, and asked him not to edit-war. If he continues I can protect the article, or prevent the edit-warring some other way. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 08:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Keeping the -c templates

I stumbled across {{Yes-c}}, {{No-c}}, and style="background-color:#E4E4E4;text-align:center;"|Unknown the other day, and wondered whether you still felt they were useful? As far as I can tell, they've only been used to fill in Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Election results, but despite being linked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Election_and_referendum_results, it's only been edited by you, and has been untouched since 2016. Not a big deal, but seemed like good G7 candidates! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If possible, it would be good to keep them. Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Election results is still on my long-term to-do list, and there's a chance someone else could pick it up at some point. Cheers, Number 57 16:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, figured I'd check. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

SuperJew and Eranrabl

Hey, any way to unblock those two editors? I have read the talk pages and, like you, don't see a problem with them. Kante4 (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a CU block. So.... Hhkohh (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kante4: The only way to unblock them is to go to Arbcom Hhkohh (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
So, they have to mail them? Hmmm... It just not feels right, as others have said aswell. Kante4 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
See WP:UNBLOCK Hhkohh (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kante4: See Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Blocking#When to unblock Hhkohh (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. ;) I have hoped that Number57 knows something. ;) Kante4 (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kante4: Personally, I also agree with you. Good luck to them Hhkohh (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I can't do anything except offer support if and when this goes to Arbcom. I've let both editors know where I stand on the issue. It's a shame that Wikipedia is being denied their additions for so long. Number 57 14:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Can't agree more. Kante4 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I see you restored the links to categories which I had removed from some club navboxes. My interpretation of WP:CLNT and WP:NAV has always been that they should be used for linking to and between articles only, and that the inclusion of links to categories is unsatisfactory... but I can't find anything that explicitly states that (or indeed the opposite). I was wondering if you were aware of any guideline etc. that backs up your interpretation. Genuinely interested to know! --Jellyman (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • There's no prohibition on using them, so my interpretation of that is that they're fine to use. They are undoubtedly helpful to some readers (I certainly find them useful) and I can't see any problem being caused by their use; in many cases (i.e. when clubs don't have player or manager lists) a category is all there is,and directing readers to this is better than nothing, particularly as people who are readers rather than editors may not be aware of the existence of categories (the concept of categories certainly took some explaining when I was setting up a Wiki for a work project a year or two ago) and therefore not be able to find any grouping of players/managers for club X. Cheers, Number 57 22:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for you response, although I don't personally like the navbox / category mix very much, I can see the logic in what you say and I'm not going to fight it at the moment! --Jellyman (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Zouheir Bahloul has resigneded the Knesset

and Moshe Mizrahi will rejoin the Knesset. --Midrashah (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Help review articles

Hello user:Number 57, can you kindly help me review these articles Mangamu Primary School, Northrise and Chifubu High School best regards. Ohmy45 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Bloxwich

I saw that too, but like you I've not been able to find anything more. I live in the area, but I stopped taking the local paper last year so I have no idea if anything went into that....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW the official MFL website lists Lane Head's date of formation as 2016, which matches the date when this incarnation of Bloxwich Town emerged, although that was (seemingly) just a name change, not the formation of a whole new club....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

2018–19 UEFA Champions League

Can you semi-protect this article at least two months? Since IPs repeatedly added false/unsourced information [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20], thanks Hhkohh (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hashtag United F.C.

 Done GiantSnowman 07:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Agent 57! I tagged that season page G4 speedy. Govvy (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wael Younis has handed his resignation from the Knesset and ניבין אבו רחמון is expected to replace him

[21]. --Midrashah (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Welling Town FC logo.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

F.C. and A.F.C. in article names for football teams

Hi Number 57, On the Talk page for A.F.C. Bournemouth you suggest a centralised discussion on the question of full-stops (dots) in F.C. and A.F.C. article titles. I opened just such a discussion a week ago at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)#F.C. and A.F.C. in article names for football teams. I hope that is a good place for the discussion and I have linked to it twice already in the A.F.C. Bournemouth move request discussion, but so far it hasn't attracted much attention. If you think it worthwhile and if you know a Project Talk or other page where people "meet" who might be interested, perhaps you could add a heads-up there. I'm just a WikiGnome without a particular interest articles about football clubs, but I'm sure there are other editors who, like you, have a considered and informed opinion on the convention you mention. Cheers, Frans Fowler (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Frans Fowler: To answer the question you raised there (and I'm not sure it was really much more than a question?), generally there is a convention for each country; for England and Italy dots are used; for Spanish clubs they aren't; this is probably based on common usage in each country. It will be obvious from looking at each country's category (e.g. Category:Association football clubs by country) what convention is used, so I am not sure there is any benefit to writing it down anywhere – these sorts of move requests as a result of unfamiliarity with the conventions are extremely rare and I cannot remember the last time an editor attempted to remove the dots from an English club's article title.
With regards to other sports, I'm afraid I have no idea how other sports do it. Number 57 23:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Iraqi parliamentary election, 2018

Hi Number57, I saw you undid my edit to the Iraqi elections results table, removing the column for "leader" on the grounds that "Unnecessary in the results table; could be listed somewhere else in the article though".

Unlike many other countries, electoral lists in Iraq are quite volatile - they change from election to election and it is often difficult for readers to follow, when you simply list a coalition list by the name it had for that election, who it actually relates to. By contrast, many of the leading politicians themselves are familiar faces, many of whom have been around since the fall of Saddam.

Therefore, it's useful and common to list the leaders against the political parties when presenting the results from Iraq. See, for instance, the following:

  1. Iraqi_parliamentary_election,_2014#Results_by_governorate
  2. Iraqi_parliamentary_election,_January_2005#Results_and_turnout
  3. Iraqi_Kurdistan_governorate_elections,_2014#Result

Looking at the column width on a typical screen, there is plenty of "white space" here to use and I think it is a useful addition to the table.

On that basis I propose to revert your roll back and put the column back in.AndrewRT(Talk) 22:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@AndrewRT: I still don't think it's a good idea to have it listed in the results table and would rather it be done in the article text. Cheers, Number 57 22:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Advice

Incidentally, I know you have significant experience in election articles on Wikipedia, but I don't know if you have come across a similar situation before and I would appreciate your advice: you may be aware that Iraq announced the results of the elections based on an electronic vote tally; the courts ordered a manual recount and have just announced the (slightly amended) results based on this. The dilemma we have is that the wikipedia article currently shows the unamended, originally announced results. Clearly the final article should reflect the final results, but what do we do with the interim results? Summarise them in the narrative, with the final results in the amended tables? Or have two separate sections, with their own templates etc, one for the original results and one for the revised ones?

Have you come across anything similar in any other countries? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@AndrewRT: Yes, I'd say mention the original results in the prose, but have the final results in the table. Number 57 22:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit war on Cheddar A.F.C.

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Cheddar A.F.C..

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Cheddar A.F.C. or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Number_57/Archive_11&oldid=1065789776"