Jump to content

User talk:Number 57/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

hashtag FC

They have an official website (which redirects to their youtube). The intro of our article states 'Founded in 2016, they gained notability due to recording their matches, making videos around them, and posting them on YouTube to the Spencer FC Channel. They later moved to the Hashtag United YouTube channel.' - which is completely in line with that. Their official website (the youtube) links to all of their other online presences. It is therefore obviously their official website. That you get more information from the twitter (which is your personal choice) is not relevant in any form to Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: I never said anything about getting more information from Twitter, I simply said that I thought it was a better EL. The tone of your last sentence pretty much sums up why every interaction I've ever had with you on here has been negative – please reconsider your attitude and way of dealing with other editors. Thanks, Number 57 12:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You are right, you said that the twitter is a better external link. AS external links are supposed to be helpful, I wrongly assumed that it contained more or better information. My apologies.
I am sorry that you feel that way, but I guess that it is because we keep disagreeing on the same topics. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
As I have been reverted again, I have brought this to ELN here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Bromley F.C.

Sorry, it was caught up in the mass reversion of an editor's edits - I've self-reverted. GiantSnowman 19:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Haitian presidential election, February 2016

Since this election is an indirect election.

So , the template of Haitian presidential elections is needed.

What say you ? -- Comrade John (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Off topic , the Vietnamese presidential election have indirect and direct elections also , should we do the same , like the Haitian one ? -- Comrade John (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Comrade John: Agree with the idea of creating one for Vietnam, but if there's only one indirect election in Haiti, I'm not sure it's worth it. Cheers, Number 57 15:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Comrade John: Actually, having said that, I don't think the Vietnamese articles are worthwhile as standalone articles; I will merge them into the parliamentary election articles. Number 57 15:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Although there's only one indirect election in Haiti , but without the proposed template , the Haitian presidential election, February 2016 article won't have any template to link to other article presidential election article. The current template put in Haitian presidential election, February 2016 article is not suitable. Also , you mean Vietnamese presidential election, 2007 and 2011 are not worthwhile as standalone articles ? --Comrade John (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Comrade John: Yes; the Vietnamese presidential elections are simply a vote after the newly elected National Assembly convenes, similar to how heads of government or speakers are elected in many other countries. As such, I don't think these warrant a standalone article.
As far as I can see, Haitian presidential election, February 2016 has links to all the other presidential elections via the template. It can also be accessed via the articles on elections directly before and after it. Number 57 15:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You're right. As for the Vietnamese , after the merge , there won't be any need of making of template for presidential election right ? -- Comrade John (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Comrade John: Yes. And I've already merged them, so hopefully one less thing to have to do! Number 57 15:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Cheddar AFC

Why are you still removing the squad? Lower leagues clubs can't have a team? -DiPierro- (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:1990 establishments in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for discussion

Category:1990 establishments in the Palestinian territories, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GreyShark (dibra) 16:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Bradford Town FC

Hi there, Hope you don't mind me asking but just wondered why you re-edited the extra information I had put up on the Bradford Town FC page? This was all information from the updated official history of the club so not sure why it was deleted.

Thanks, Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timboboa (talk • contribs) 09:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I removed much of the content because it was written in an inappropriate way for an encyclopedia – for instance using phrases like "former fans favourite", "An impressive 5th place finish", "A boisterous crowd", "illustrious neighbours", "After 25 tireless years as Chairman", "This thrilling campaign", "a weekend that will live long in the memory of the 100 or so travelling supporters", "the temptation of Southern League football", "The swift appointment of ambitious young manager", " has provided new optimism amongst the Blue Army" etc. It was also highly unbalanced towards recent seasons (over a third of the history section was about the last two seasons), thus failiing WP:RECENTISM. Number 57 11:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Zimbabwean general election, 2018

Hi There are a problem with seats won by MDC-T. The leadership of MDC-T is disputed between Chamisa and Khupe. So some members of the MDC Alliance are members of the pro-Chamisa MDC-T and the party have not lost this number of seats. Also, we could add in parenthesis (Khupe Group).--Panam2014 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Panam2014: The results table is based purely on what the party was listed as on the ballot paper, and there were no "MDC (Khupe Group)" candidates, only MDC Alliance or MDC–T. Perhaps it would be best just to not have a figure for seat change for the two as it's too difficult to analyse who was what beforehand (I've just applied this). Number 57 09:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about reintroducing the seat change for the MDC factions, when editing the article I was a bit dubious of their inclusion as well. However, like I said within my revision summary, the icons are not unnecessary; there are clearer, more distinguishable and very similar to the characters used already. JDuggan101 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The icons are not used in other articles on Zimbabwean parliamentary elections (e.g. Zimbabwean general election, 1990, Zimbabwean general election, 2008 etc) and I personally don't think they add anything to the tables, particularly if you're colour blind. Number 57 10:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand now, when writing the previous comment I believed other pages included them but I looked at other election pages, like the United Kingdom general election, 2017 and found out I was only thinking about the infoboxes, I didn't think about colorblind people and that makes sense not to include them. JDuggan101 (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@JDuggan101: There are a difference between the ballot and the reality. A party could also use an alternative name in the ballot. But until now the court have not yet said if the Chamisa or Khupe faction is the legitimate MDC-T. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

SuperJew and Eranrabl

I agree with you that SuperJew and Eranrabl are likely separate people, but do you have any evidence or experience of this? It seems to me that there must be people aside from SuperJew and Eranrabl who know this to be true, but nobody has come forward. The whole saga makes me question the Sockpuppet investigation process, because I haven't seen any evidence from the edits that they or the other accounts have been disruptive. The edit examples provided by Harambe Walks seem trivial, particularly as HW admits the so-called "socks" proved to be correct! I find it troubling... Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, you've answered this elsewhere. Thanks. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Newhaven

Eastbourne writer called Invictus calls Newhaven The Dusters in his section of Sports and Pasttimes in the Eastbourne Gazette when reporting on an Eastbourne side playing them in the Sussex Senior Cup in November 1905. I am just too shattered from finishing my History Masters to look it up again. Its 100% true and that section and paper and month and year are true, I just do not want to learn another referencing style at the moment, if you can understand aha I left it as goodwill. In regard to referencin Newhaven their reference for their foundation shows no information that it was 'established by the Towners', thats just one of their ancestors writing a panegyric with no evidential proof. I hope that you are okay, sorry if I seem a little annoyed. Sorofin (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Football club leads

Aw, trying to take a long wikibreak is a bit like trying to stop drinking alcohol - sometimes the willpower simply isn't there. (I've been teetotal all my life, mind.)

Anyway, now that I'm here...

You clearly feel that there's nothing wrong with, for instance (I know I'm using a fictional club with a fictional ground in a fictional location, playing in a fictional league, but that's beside the point):

"Crinkley Bottom Football Club is a football club based in Crinkley Bottom, England. They are currently members of the Light Entertainment League Division One and play at Blobby Park."

Whereas I don't. It simply doesn't look right to me that the first sentence refers to the club in the singular and the second sentence refers to the club in the plural. Obviously, football clubs tend to be referred to in the plural anyway, like on TV - but when a written article has a short sentence referring to a club in the plural, immediately after another short sentence referring to the same club in the singular (and vice versa), it *is* a tad jarring, not to mention a tad inconsistent (to me, at least).

On the other hand, I presume you feel that there's at least one thing wrong with:

"Crinkley Bottom Football Club is a football club based in Crinkley Bottom, England. The club currently competes in the Light Entertainment League Division One and plays its home matches at Blobby Park."

Whereas I don't. The second sentence *is* longer, but (to me anyway) it still gets straight to the point regarding the club's current league and ground. There are no Americanisms that I can perceive, either ("association football club" *does* look rather American, I'll admit, compared to just "football club"). And, of course, both sentences refer to the club in the singular - which I don't believe anyone should find jarring (the club will almost certainly be referred to in the plural in a later paragraph, anyway).

So what do we do here? Can a compromise be reached - or will we just have to agree to disagree?

(Not that I'm saying that I disrespect your views - you are, of course, absolutely entitled to them. And apologies, too, for losing my cool a bit and forgetting WP:BRD.)

Bluebird207 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. Using the singular in the second sentence sounds very wrong to my ear. For British sports teams, plural usage is much more common than singular, and omitting it in entirely in the introduction doesn't seem right (if you read Arsenal F.C., the plural is used on the vast majority of occasions, and the occasional use of singular is sometimes quite jarring – for example at the start of the second paragraph).
The way I see it, the first sentence is introducing to the club as an unexplained entity to the reader, so the singular works better; pretty much everything after that is about the club as a team or organisation, at which point it is preferable to use the plural. Number 57 17:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems perfectly fair.
Using my fictional example again, would this be an acceptable alternative for the second sentence?
"They currently compete in the Light Entertainment League Division One and play at Blobby Park."
Or is "They are currently members of..." more desirable?
Apologies for taking three days to reply, BTW - I've changed my mind about taking a long wikibreak, but in any case I'm not *quite* as active on Wikipedia as I once was. Bluebird207 (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
No problem about the delay. As I've been slowly going through non-League club articles and cleaning them up, including standardising their opening text to "currently members of" (and have done nearly 500 so far), it would probably be preferable to keep this format for consistency's sake. Number 57 14:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990) ==

Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990) is a return of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990), isn't it. Does it merit re-deletion? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: He passed WP:NFOOTBALL now so he's article worthy. Cheers, Number 57 09:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
The other question is whether it's a copy-paste of the previous article, which would require undeletion and history merger for proper attribution. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jacknstock: It does appear to be a copy-paste as there are several identical sentences. I can simply undelete the previous versions, if that would do the trick. Number 57 18:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think so, because they are in the same namespace. Thanks! Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jacknstock: Done. Number 57 18:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraud Resistant Electronic Voting

You remarked on my article (currently marked 3 times for deletion). This is my first attempt at a wikipedia article and really want it to become part of the encyclopedia. Having been a software developer for many years, I believe this article will be useful to ongoing efforts by computer companies to develop voting machines that will resist fraud, currently a poorly understood topic. I don't have a lot a references though I could add hundreds but many basically repeat descriptions of the same problems. I picked the references that were most influential on the narrative. The narrative is much like high level requirements documents I have often used in system software development projects. I make a reference to the best engineering requirements document on this topic I could find .. but my article is an attempt to detail the requirements such that a layperson could get a feel for the concepts involved.

I removed the use of "We" throughout as there is no need to be "folksy".

Can you give me some tips on how I can conform to the policies of this online encyclopedia. Thank you. Steve76429 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Did

you receive my ping at this AFD? Given my clarification that almost all the news is centered around their CFL performances and about player-sign-up(s), does that change your !vote in any form or manner? Best,∯WBGconverse 13:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Sorry, I didn't for some reason. Thanks for looking into the coverage. However, I think I would have still leaned towards keeping the article as from what I can work out, this is the third tier of Indian football and it would seem bizarre not to include clubs playing at this level, particularly when they're regularly competing against big clubs like East Bengal and Mohun Bagan. Cheers, Number 57 15:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Swedish general election

I am wondering why you reverted my edits on the Swedish general election pages, as you gave no reason why. The page focuses on a singular election for the Riksdag, the national legislature of Sweden. Therefore this should not be a plural. Every page is titled Swedish general election, not Swedish general elections, as there is only one general election taking place, not multiple. This is in line with virtually every other general election page, which is titled to as a general election, not general elections. Helper201 (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Helper201. In my experience the term "elections" is commonly used to describe a single election. This wording (General elections/Presidential elections/Parliamentary elections) is widely used on Wikipedia (probably on a slight majority of national election articles). Election article titles are a slightly awkward formulaic arrangement (no-one would ever say "Swedish general election, 2018"), so it isn't an issue that the text doesn't match. Cheers, Number 57 08:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Only the matter of the date inclusion in the article's title is what one would not usually say in the spoken word. The title is still specifically called a general election, rather than elections as a plural, which is consistent on virtually every general election page title. It makes no sense to use a plural when, as you say, this is a singular general election. It is for the appointment of representatives to a singular legislature. These are not state elections, it is one singular national general election being held for the appointment of representatives to one body. I do not see any advantage to using a plural term where it should not be just because it has been used on other pages. Repetition of an error does not make it correct. The vast majority of reliable sources also refer to it as an election, not elections. As seen here:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
It's not an error, it's common English usage to refer to a single event as "elections". I had a similar discussion with another editor about this at Talk:Lesotho general election, 2012#Changes and you can see the evidence put forward there (although unfortunately it was completely ignored). Cheers, Number 57 11:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/jews-sami-antisemitism-sweden-democrats-far-right-swedish-general-election
  2. ^ https://www.politico.eu/tag/swedish-election-2018/
  3. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-general-election-sweden-democrats-social-democrats-polls-latest-updates-second-a8529841.html
  4. ^ https://www.swedenabroad.se/en/embassies/usa-washington/current/news/swedens-general-election-2018/
  5. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-election-government/deadlock-looms-as-swedish-election-nears-idUSKCN1LM0LZ
  6. ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/new-era-dawns-as-far-right-makes-gains-in-swedish-election-1.3623570
  7. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45458012
  8. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-15/trump-calls-research-behind-maria-deaths-magic-in-fresh-attack

Other stuff exists

Your point about people commonly quoting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is pretty valid, the page itself does advise not using it as an argument in and of itself without expounding upon why you are quoting it (something I am sure I have been guilty of myself in the past). That being said, the majority of the time when I see it being used, it is to counter someone's comment of "but what about X other topic" (essentially Whataboutism; a logical fallacy), or else to counter a claim of inherent notability "we keep all articles like this for consistency" (which is against WP:5P). Both of these are, in my opinion, bad reasons to keep an article. However, in future I will be careful to discuss reasons why rather than say that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

would you be intrested in expanding this article?

Government Naming Committee--Midrashah (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Midrashah: It's not a body I'm familiar with. However, if you want to work on it, I'd be happy to proof read etc. Cheers, Number 57 21:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Mauritanian parliamentary election, 2018

Hi,

Please update the results of Mauritanian parliamentary election, 2018.— Bukhari (Talk!) 16:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@BukhariSaeed: Sorry, I forgot to respond to your message. It's on my to-do list, but will need a bit of time as I'd like to do it all in one go. Might have time this evening. Cheers, Number 57 09:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Tredegar Park, Newport

While I understand that there was a lack of consensus on where this should be per WP:THREEOUTCOMES (see the bit after #3, "There are rare circumstances where multiple names...") I believe that there was clear consensus that it should not be left as is. The only opposition was based on that it should instead be moved to "Tredegar Park". Wouldn't moving as proposed be the best result and then moving to just "Tredegar Park" can be discussed in a new RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. There was definitely a consensus that the situation was unsatisfactory, and furthermore the oppose !votes seemed to rely on the fact that the other article is named Tredegar House Country Park, whereas the main source and almost everything on Google related to that entity calle it simply "Tredegar Park". The "Tredegar House Country Park" is virtually unheard of. Moving as proposed would have reflected the discussion better than a status-quo close.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Although looking at it again, it seems that perhaps Tredegar Park and Tredegar House Country Park are different entities on opposite sides of the A48,[1] the former being a municipal park and the latter a National Trust park attached to the house. I wouldn't think the country park needs its own article though, that material can be summarised at Tredegar House. So the question boils down to whether the municipal park is notable or not. What do you think, Crouch, Swale?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this map that calls "Tredegar House Country Park" just "Tredegar House Park", I agree looking at it there appears to be 3 different entities, maybe as you suggest the Tredegar House Country Park could be summarized in the Tredegar House article, or maybe both parks could summarized in 1 article titled "Tredegar Park". Looking at the community (which covers the same area as the ward) it doesn't appear to include either of the parks and parks and administrative units normally require 2 articles, so maybe have 1 article titled "Tredegar Park" for both parks and 1 article titled "Tredegar Park (community)" for the community and ward. The park article could also include info on "Tredegar Park Recreation Ground". However I would be happy with you're suggestion of merging "Tredegar House Country Park" into "Tredegar House" and then creating a new article on the park north of the A48. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: There wasn't any consensus for the proposed move, and I didn't see consensus for any of the alternatives proposed . However, I agree with Amakuru's comments above that there did seem to be general agreement that the current title was unsatisfactory. Although there's generally meant to be a moratorium of a few months after an RM is closed before another discussion is started, in this case I don't see any problem with you starting another RM with a different proposal (perhaps simply moving it to Tredegar Park, which in my view was probably the most sensible of the alternative solutions proposed given that the park has a natural formal name (Tredegar House Country Park) which clearly disambiguates it from the ward). Number 57 10:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: What do you think? should we start a RM to put Tredegar House Country Park at Tredegar Park and then re start one for Tredegar Park, Newport or just start a RM to put Tredegar Park, Newport at the base name? I'd prefer the former. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: or, a third option, we merge the content from Tredegar House Country Park into Tredegar House, change that to being a redirect, and then start a new article for the park itself. The mention of the municipal park in the current THCP article is minimal and entirely due to my initial error in thinking it was the same thing. (It appears that which one the article refers to has been confused for years though).[2]  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
That probably makes most sense. A new article at "Tredegar Park" could then link to the "Tredegar House Country Park" title and the community article in a hatnote. The Tredegar House Country Park is a sub topic of the house its self but it might still merit an article if it also was to contain info on the lake. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Now at Talk:Tredegar House Country Park#Tredegar Park v Tredegar House Country Park. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Indonesian 2019 election

Hey, regarding the split discussion - I decided to do some writing for the 2019 presidential election here since as you might've noticed I prefer to have them split later. Since you significantly contributed to the 2014 one, do you have any feedback on what to add? My experience with election articles are predominantly start-class ones as you might notice. Juxlos (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Juxlos: I'd recommend changing the "Arrangements" section to "Electoral system" and add some detail about it being a two round contest etc. If there have been any issues (violence, vote rigging etc), you could create a "Conduct" system to cover that. Cheers, Number 57 19:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Maldives

Hi Electoral commission issued results. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

East Riding Senior Cup

It should be marked as amateur/semi pro or really likely not listed at all as its a comp with invitational criteria, better suited as a friendly by the looks of it. Random academy sides take part as well as several reserve teams alongside non league teams. And on top of everything else, it is unsourced. Davefelmer (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not necessary. They're a non-league club; most of the competitions they play in are entirely semi-professional. Please stop adding these pointless headings to non-league club articles. Thanks, Number 57 08:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
This is barely semi-pro, when academy teams and reserve sides are competing, a distinction should be made as it is markedly different from a regular semi pro competition. Davefelmer (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
No, a distinction doesn't need to be made. Number 57 15:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
why not, taking into account the teams of entry? Davefelmer (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

 Done GiantSnowman 13:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips with the infoboxes, useful info to have!--Joseon Empire (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Nohlen et al.

Hi there! Do you still have access to: Dieter Nohlen, Florian Grotz & Christof Hartmann (2001) Elections in Asia: A data handbook, Volume II, ISBN 0-19-924959-8? I'm hunting for results broken up by number of seats per party for North Korean parliamentary election, 1977, 1982 and 1986. Alas, 2003 was after publication. I'd also appreciate a list of all parties that have contested any election in North Korea. I've tried all other sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Yes, I do. However, it states that the number of seats by party isn't available for 1977, 1982 and 1986. Ping me an email and I'll help answer the second query. Number 57 17:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
You've got mail! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

1921–22 Hong Kong First Division League

That prod was also for GNG, I was testing the waters a bit there to see what happens. I thought WP:NSEASONS covered league seasons also, guess it doesn't. Are league seasons covered only by GNG and SportBasic? Govvy (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Govvy. I did see that it was for GNG, hence why I added an additional reference and made the note about GNG in my edit summary. With regards to league season articles, GNG is the only notability rule that applies as far as I'm aware. However, I would be amazed if any top flight season didn't meet it – it is a challenge to find coverage of older seasons in a foreign language, but it's almost certainly there. Cheers, Number 57 12:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Well there are a lot of Hong Kong First Division League stub articles, they contain very little information, I don't know if it would be better to combined those into some list article or not. But I do see an issue with regards to GNG across the whole lot. Govvy (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it should be redirect Hhkohh (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Govvy and Hhkohh: If they really bother you, I'd suggest just spending a bit of time expanding them. League tables for most seasons are available on the RSSSF and the Eleven Strokes source seems to have detailed articles on most seasons (e.g. 1922–23). Being a stub isn't usually a good enough reason for deletion/merging when there's obvious potential to expand. I can't see any issues with GNG, which is almost certainly met regardless of the current state of the articles (the 1922–23 season article on the Eleven Strokes site is referenced to coverage in several newspapers, so there's obviously sufficient coverage – that not being easily available doesn't mean it's a GNG failure). Number 57 14:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 Republika Srpska election

Hello, Number 57. Having in mind your huge expertise on the matter, would you be interested to create Republika Srpska general election, 2018? --Sundostund (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sundostund: I'll have a go tomorrow. Cheers, Number 57 21:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, for the Cisleithanian Election, the party vote results totals were in fact divided by Nationality, so I think it still makes sense to divide it that way. I'll have another look today, to make sure it’s accurate

Ah great, yeah I think the Italian Autonomists must have been another party running under that name in Dalmatia in that case! Thanks for the help

Indef IP Block

I've been pointed to 5.209.3.39, an IP you blocked as a vandalism only account indefinitely. Would you mind fixing that up please? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: I've unblocked the IP (presumably this is what you wanted)? Cheers, Number 57 11:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Or a time limited block, but that works. Thanks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the Swedish general election, 2022

While I do not agree with the way this user has tried to enforce the issue on referencing, I do think they may have a point on their overall reasoning. It is not the first time that I have seen restrictions on external linking to become an issue in opinion polling articles, and indeed, the fact that most opinion polling articles have become accostumed to it does not mean it is a correct use. For example, it is already commonplace for Spanish or Irish elections to use references in polling rather than external linking.

Further, the use of proper references has some benefits, such as allowing the addition of more than once source per poll, which is specially helpful in those cases where information is scattered throughout several sources.

I would not mind my edit being reverted, but I think this should be given some thought. Some opinion polling articles are massive, and a change from external links to references for those would be tricky in the short term. However, this one is still a relatively small article, so it is still easier for a change to be done there. Impru20talk 11:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: I'm not too bothered... Anyway, on a more important note, it seems that there is clear consensus from the discussion at WP:NC-GAL for the change. I've requested a formal close at WP:AN, but it seems unlikely there will be one anytime soon. Given the clarity of the consensus, do you think we should implement it? Cheers, Number 57 21:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Just spotted this, I was a bit busy with some sandbox edits yesterday.
I've just seen the discussion has now been closed with consensus for the change, so I see no reason for not implementing it. More concerning for me would be how to do it, given the large amount of articles. Impru20talk 12:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Impru20: I've compiled a list of election articles and the new titles and will then requesting a bot run to move them all. I just need to make a few tweaks to it to account for recent article creations and moves (I made the list a couple of weeks ago). It amounts to something like 33,000 articles. Number 57 12:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Impru20: Sounds like the bot run is imminent. My watchlist is going to be awful as I have several thousand election articles on it and there are 35,226 articles on the move list... There may be some created between mid-September and 1 October that won't move, so possibly worth checking some categories afterwards. Cheers, Number 57 21:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Number 57. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSandDoctor Talk 05:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Another email sent. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

BOTREQ

Hi Number 57, there are some questions you may be able to help with at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/TheSandBot, please stop by when you have a moment. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 04:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I've tried to answer all the queries that I saw being raised. Let me know if there's anything I missed. Cheers, Number 57 09:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Why D. italia exists and LLPP cannot exists?

I have renamed the article as Lavori Pubblici (1947-1990), because the club was officially closed in 1990.....as has happened with the team from Venezuela named Deportivo Italia (1948-2010). This Venezuela team was renamed Deportivo Petare F.C. , but has a differente article. So, I don't agree with the merger of the article within the actual team article Jeenyo United FC. We are dealing with an HISTORICAL team and an actual team!!!!!--Esauster (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I understand......but for a while I will NOT collaborate with en.wikipedia--Esauster (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. I trust user Galobbter and you. But allow me to pinpoint that when LLPP was recreated, after 22 years of being OFFICIALLY closed, it was united (as the name UNITED indicated) by somalian managers with Geeksa that was in a third level, but soon they had problems (in actual Somalia all seems to be a "fighting") and the Geeksa team was returned to the lower level with his management. But the recreation was OFFICIALLY done between LLPP and Geeksa. Furthermore, I have to add that not all the information I get about LLPP is from the internet (like happens with most of people and also with you, I surmise), but also from a friend who is from Somalia. He is now searching about why there it is the word UNITED in the new name of the actual football team. He thinks that there are more than two former teams that have been united in order to create the actual "Jeenyo United FC". He is well informed: for example, he told me that the word Jeenyo is the translation of the Italian word Genio (and later I have found on the internet that he is right). So I think there it is a high probability that there were at least 3 old football teams "united". --Esauster (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
By all means add this to the Jeenyo United FC article along with sources (per WP:V). Number 57 18:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Lavori Publici

Another admin beat me to it... GiantSnowman 07:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Got you - updated it. GiantSnowman 10:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Cisleithian elections

Oh, that was a bit of a guess really. The Slavic SDP was listed in the constituency voting, but then didn’t appear in the totals list. Since they were listed as not distinct for nationality, I assumed it meant the combination of Croatian and Slovenian SDPs (as they seem to have been voted on by both nationalities in that constituency only...). Maybe we should add a note explaining this in the article?

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Car

As you were the closer of the RM discussion and other editors who have had major/recent involved have been notified, I'm notifying you of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Category:Cars. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Australia's head of state, again

Howdy. An Rfc has opened at Monarchy of Australia concerning head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Beşiktaş JK

Hello

I see that you've moved the page back so it is J.K. with the dots. However, the correct way is in fact "JK" without the dots. You can confirm this through the club's official website or social media presence. The situation is exactly the same for other Turkish clubs - not sure why dots are used on here in the first place.

Also, it is actually incorrect to use dots like this in the Turkish language, as stated by the Turkish Language Institution. This is mentioned here in the fourth paragraph where it says only "T.C." (Turkish Republic) uses dots this way. -Junk2711 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Best to start a centralised discussion at WP:FOOTY so consistency can be achieved rather than engage people/articles individually. However, I would note that
  1. what individual clubs do isn't really relevant; some clubs in England style themselves without dots in the FC; however we have a de facto style guide that requires it (if the FC stands for something).
  2. what the Turkish Language Association says is not relevant if it's referring to usage in Turkish rather than English (there's also a question over whether it's a style guide issue too).
Cheers, Number 57 00:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Junk2711: Turkish FA (TFF) http://www.tff.org had dots in all club items (Despite new problem would be A.Ş. instead of J.K.). Matthew hk (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: I see, but they use A.Ş. which is just the equivalent of société anonyme in Turkish. It wouldn't affect the names on here since the clubs themselves are still called SK (Sports Club) or JK (Gymnastics Club), AŞ just denotes the legal structure of the clubs. And for SK and JK, I referred to the Turkish Language Association to show that the clubs cannot actually be named with the dots so that shouldn't change when using the name in an English encyclopedia. If the club was called Beşiktaş Football Club (Beşiktaş FC) in Turkish then it would make sense to have it as Beşiktaş F.C. on here for style consistency but otherwise it will be incorrect. I can also take this to the "F.C. or FC?" section on WP:FOOTY, or start a new section for SK and JK, whichever makes more sense. Junk2711 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The point is there is the usage of dot in the Turkish Football Federation website. The office club website use full JK spelling, thus it just fine to abb as J.K.. I can list more source that use J.K. as suffix for other Turkish club, thus for consistency, no point to move to JK. Matthew hk (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Actually as you said yourself, the TFF website does not feature the club names with SK or JK. In addition, they are unfortunately not a reliable source for names. Just yesterday this player name was in the news for being ridiculously long. They wrote his name twice but because it is the official FA website people assumed his name was just peculiar. The name was later corrected. Long story short, the TFF site is not reliable for names and other sources using dots are incorrect too. I'll add a section to the WP:FOOTY talk page so this doesn't further clutter Number 57's talk page. Junk2711 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola#Requested move 2 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Paint (software) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Paint (software). Since you had some involvement with the Paint (software) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. wumbolo ^^^ 16:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

ARCA detail

"If a change made to an article is reverted, the original author of..." --- the problem is that "original author" is interpreted differently by different people. For example Icewhiz thinks it means the first editor who ever made that change, even long ago, while Kingsindian thinks it means the editor who just now made that change. Removing the word "original" removes the ambiguity, I think. Zerotalk 01:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of German presidents#Requested move 6 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: Undiscussed move; WP:HEBREW

Doesn't WP:HEBREW clearly instruct to transliterate consonantal י as y? --My another account (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

No, otherwise it would be "Nordya" (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)#Vowels and shva). Number 57 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Which part of it are you referring to? נוֹרְדִיָּה‬ has both a hiriq and a consonantal yudh with dagesh. Once again, compare this with Pardesiya. --My another account (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hashtag United

why did you revert my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvikorn (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Because you incorrectly capitalised squad and removed sourced (and relevant) information. Why did you remove that information? Number 57 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Number 57. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
I award you the barnstar of Diligence for your calm, rational, and patient approach in seeing this through to the end. ~Awilley (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Awilley: Thanks – it certainly wasn't a painless experience! Very glad to see it passed in the end, and hopefully we can get it all sorted out fairly quickly. Cheers, Number 57 13:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Naming of Election Articles

Sorry about moving some of the articles. I didn't know about the change, but it was a good thing you told me since I just moved a presidential election back to its original name and was about to move a couple house articles too. Number 57 15:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Guinean presidential election, 1993

If you look here (CENI), you can see that the party of Siradiou Diallo wasn't "Union for Progress and Renewal", but "Renewal and Progress Party " (fr. Parti du renouveau et du progrès, PRP). And if the "Union for Progress and Renewal" was born in 1998, it couldn't certainly be present in the 1993 election. --151 cp (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@151 cp: Very good point. I've restored your edit. Apologies, Number 57 21:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Election articles.

Howdy. If I understood you correct at the 2021 New Jersey gubernatorial election article, a bot is going to page move all US elections from Election, Year to Year Election'? GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Just checked over the related Rfc. I missed out on participating in it, but am quite content with its result :) GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Yes, that is the case. Well, at least all that were created before mid-September when I drew up the list of all existing election/referendum articles (>35,000); I was manually moving all the ones created after 1 October and then will go back through the September ones after the bot run to pick up any that haven't been done. Cheers, Number 57 20:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I've created 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election, but it's been nominated for deletion, by (IMHO) a grudge holding unregistered mobile editor. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I've removed the speedy as it's clearly inappropriate. Cheers, Number 57 20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

When is the 'bot' suppose to be going around, implementing these page moves? GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Not sure. @TheSandDoctor: may be able to say though. Cheers, Number 57 20:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Whenever the BRFA is approved. --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Does it need just one person (like SQL) to say yes? Not really au fait with how it works. Cheers, Number 57 21:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
So long as none opposed (hasn't happened so far), then I would say the answer is probably yes. --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving election articles

I've seen you have recently moved a couple election articles according to the new WP:NCGAL. Wasn't this expected to be conducted by the bot? I have been on hold before moving any article in order to not interfere with the process, but I see a wide range of articles from the US, UK and other countries are being moved. I can move Spanish articles if required, but I wanted to seek your advice, as the main promoter behind the convention change and the bot run, before doing anything that could conflict with any possible bot run. Impru20talk 18:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: It seems no-one wants to be the person that approves the bot so nothing's happened... In the meantime people have started moving articles here and there, so I just moved all the UK ones to try and to ensure that entire sets are moved at once. By all means start on the Spanish ones if you want to – once it gets going, the bot will just ignore any that have already been moved. Cheers. Number 57 18:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, seems fine for me. Impru20talk 18:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Impru20: If you're going to fix links in templates, I'd recommend using the "Text to columns" feature in Excel – it allows you to slice the links in the same place and then rearrange the parts. Makes changing the links in things like {{United Kingdom elections}} much quicker. Cheers, Number 57 18:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I had not thought of it previously and found it particularly helpful for the Andalusian elections template. I guess it will take a couple days or weeks to finish the cleanup in Spanish election articles, but hopefully the major job (moving the articles) is already done. Impru20talk 08:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: Undiscussed move; WP:HEBREW

Doesn't WP:HEBREW clearly instruct to transliterate consonantal י as y? --My another account (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

No, otherwise it would be "Nordya" (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)#Vowels and shva). Number 57 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Which part of it are you referring to? נוֹרְדִיָּה‬ has both a hiriq and a consonantal yudh with dagesh. Once again, compare this with Pardesiya. --My another account (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Eleven days later, you still haven't referenced a policy supporting your case. May I now ask again: what exactly is your opposition to the move based on? --My another account (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
It's based on the fact that I don't think י‬ה should be transliterated as "iya"; "ia" is sufficient and a more common form in English. I didn't realise that this is a consonantal yud, but it doesn't change my opinion on how it should be transliterated. If you want another policy, WP:COMMONNAME; on Google Books there are 221 hits for "Nordia" moshav and 92 for "Nordiya" moshav. Number 57 22:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Number 57. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

List of endorsements in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014

Thanks for moving List of endorsements in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014, that just made the bot fail again. I really should add a catch/graceful error handling for insufficient move permission, but don't have the time right now. I will probably add it tomorrow, just means I need to restart it so not that big of a deal either way in this case. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Categories, too

Most categories in the category tree under Category:United States presidential elections by date, and presumably comparable categories under category trees for other countries, will also need to be renamed, to keep them consistent with the moved article names. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@BD2412: I was planning on doing a mass category move once the page moves are sorted. Category:English local elections by year is another example. Cheers, Number 57 16:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. Just wanted to be sure all the loose ends get clipped. Glad you're on top of it! bd2412 T 16:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@BD2412: I've collated a full list of categories at User:Number 57/Elections/Categories. I'll take it to WP:CFDS when the moves are done – given the number involved (8,286), hopefully no-one will insist on them all being tagged... You're welcome to take it there in the meantime if you're so inclined. Cheers, Number 57 16:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why CfD is necessary. The RfC was broad enough to cover all uses of these election titles. bd2412 T 16:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@BD2412: I won't take them to a a full CfD, but using the speedy process WP:CFDS, which will then be processed by a bot after 48 hours if unopposed. Cheers, Number 57 16:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds reasonable. bd2412 T 16:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Colombian parliamentary election, 2010, Chamber

Hi, the summary of the Chamber of Representatives election results is based on the Adam Carr archive, but these results don't seem correct. In particular, I haven't found any source that shows these results, as they have been indicated for each departement (so that the same sum of the votes obtained by each list doesn't seem correct); on the countrary, an official source shows other results (see here). I think we should modify the summary, as a consequence; you can see what I wrote here. --151 cp (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@151 cp: Go for it; sometimes the Adam Carr archive is based on preliminary results and then doesn't get updated with the final results. This also gives the formal number of seats for each party. Number 57 18:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@151 cp: I've just calculated it myself, and it seems you've missed out the international votes. I'm going to update the English Wikipedia article with the full results. Cheers, Number 57 19:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't consider in the summery international votes because we should before check if those votes are already included as votes obtained in each department, or they have to be considered as votes given in an autonomous electoral circoscription: in other words, if international votes are used to elect a specific representative (it doesn't seem so), or they are already calculated as departmental votes, considering the respective, registered residence of every voter in the foreign countries. --151 cp (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@151 cp: The Chamber had one seat reserved for overseas voters at the time of the 2010 election, so it would be a separate constituency and the votes would count towards the total. Number 57 19:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Who is the representative who had been elected in the 2010 election by voters in foreign countries? --151 cp (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@151 cp: It was es:Jaime Buenahora. Number 57 20:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
So we should sum the votes. I've seen you updated results... We should modify Colombian presidential election, 2018, with the results I indicated on it.wiki. --151 cp (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
And Colombian parliamentary election, 2014: I think that we should consider this source (pag. 68 PDF), not this source, concerning not official results. --151 cp (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 West Bengal by-elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sultan Ahmed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Election changes

What's the status of the big election article name changing? —GoldRingChip 01:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: Currently awaiting the next bot run. TheSandDoctor might be able to say when it'll happen. Cheers, Number 57 06:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@GoldRingChip: Been busy lately with final projects etc (and sick) so haven't had the time. Will start this back up on a new list today. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Number 57. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Danish local elections, 1900 and so on

I don't know how it works, but isn't it easier for the bot to move old headlined articles to the new headline than me doing it manually?--Bornsommer (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bornsommer: You can ask User:TheSandDoctor if they would consider doing a mini-run of the bot on these articles. You'd need to create a list of the old titles and the new titles in the same format as User:Number 57/Elections/By-elections. I think the issue is that the bot was due to move them from the old 'regional' titles, but you moved them between the list being compiled and the bot run taking place, so the articles were no longer in situ for it to move them. Number 57 19:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bornsommer: I would need a list of what specifically needs moving and to where. From that, I could happily do a run. The only main issue is that I am unavailable to do much more than quickly reply to messages like this until at least Thursday as this is an extremely busy next 2-3 days for me. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Number57 , just to inform you. After you change all the Local to Regional , 1900 - 1989 local election in the template are all changed to red , have to moved them all again.-- Comrade John (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bornsommer, Comrade John, and TheSandDoctor: All sorted thanks to Jon Kolbert! Number 57 22:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Finnish presidental election in Template:Finnish elections

Actually , in 1944 and 1973 , Finland did have presidental election , but it's an exception act , don't know what it means , maybe it didn't through the formal election , you can check them in Suomi wiki.-- Comrade John (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Comrade John: I actually checked the Finnish wiki; the infoxbox for the 1943 election has the 1946 election as the next vote. Same for 1968/1978. Number 57 08:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Did you check the template at the bottom ? it got those two in the template , in presidental election section.-- Comrade John (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but they are explicitly listed as exemptions rather than elections. Election templates are organised differently on en.wiki, so I don't believe we should include them (the 1973 one has never been on there). Number 57 08:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Typo

(Move log); 19:16 . . Number 57 (talk | contribs) moved page Candidates of the South Australian state election, 1993 to Candidates of the 1983 South Australian state election ‎(Per recent change to WP:NC-GAL) (Also its talk page.) Doug butler (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Doug butler: Thanks for letting me know - now fixed. Cheers, Number 57 09:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Odd template

Hi, your changes to Template:Category U.S. State elections by year are creating some very odd categories - see Category:Wyoming elections, 2018 for one example. Any idea why it's producing such weird names? Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: I had to amend it to cope with the new category names (e.g. Category:2020 Alabama elections). The template uses a certain part of the category title to determine the names of categories that it adds to the category (basically the state name and any disambiguation). Based on the new format, it now removes the first five characters of the category title (the year) and the last ten characters (" election") to get the state name.
For the categories still at the old titles, the template now gives some odd character strings, hence what you're seeing. I set Cydebot onto this task this morning, so hopefully it will finish later today and sort this out asap. Cheers, Number 57 17:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
it looks like they have all been fixed, but if not, using | place = {{{place|{{#invoke:string|replace|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|[,%s]*%d%d%d%d[%s]*||plain=false}}}}}| year = {{{year|{{#invoke:string|replace|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|^.*(%d%d%d%d).*$|%1|plain=false}}}}} appears work for both cases. Frietjes (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

About your efforts to delete Me and You - The israeli people's party

Your efforts to delete this article are unjustified and unsupported by evidince and by wikipedia rules. This is an artice about an established and registered party in israel, the likes of which can be found in the following: Or (political party), Pirate Party of Israel, Eretz Hadasha, ect. All those parties are not of yet elected and examples of wikipedia pages of unelected parties are to be found from any country where such parties exist. Wikipedia is not limited by space and there is no reason to deny people from getting such infromation. As for third party refrences - the registration documents of the party from governmental websites should be sufficient evidence for the party's existence, but to answer your request completely, I have also added an interview of the party, during a protest, by an israeli financial newspaper called globes, which is one of the most prominent of those, proving the party's existnece and activity. I therefore remove your deletion request. If you have any more complaints, please send me a messege on a talk page, and I will take measures to cast them aside. --Zeisraeli (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zeisraeli: The deletion is justified and according to policy (Wikipedia rules); this is not a notable party, and the article is going to be deleted. With regards to the other parties, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; you are welcome to nominate them for deletion if you feel they are not sufficiently notable for an article.
Also, please could you declare whether you have any WP:Conflict of interest with regards to this party? Thanks, Number 57 23:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
several points:
who decides whether a party is notable or not - you ? please could you declare whether you have any WP:Conflict of interest with regards to this party?
could you please refrence me to where a rule about notable political parties exist ? I should think that on matters of political notablity Wikipedia should be prudent.
If a party is built upon an academic theory, I think it makes it notable.
I have added a third party source reviewing the party - please make your comment upon that. --Zeisraeli (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Our notability rules are set out at WP:GNG; a subject needs to have significant, third-party coverage to be article worthy. It's clear that this is not the case for this party; the additional source you have added does not even mention the party.
I do not understand why you are asking me why I have a conflict of interest; you are the one who created the article. Could you now please answer that question. Number 57 00:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
this is not about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is about whether your acting on wikipedia policy, or on your own rational. Also, I should like to know who is making the vote on the article. As for the globes, on the clip there is quite a lengthy interview, in which the reporter shows the party clearly. --Zeisraeli (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeisraeli (talk • contribs)
Given that you are continuing to avoid answering the question, I have to assume that you do have a conflict of interest. Please read the guideline closely and cease making any edits related to the article. Thanks, Number 57 00:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I have an interest that a party in Israel, as well as other parties will have an article. I hope you don't have an interest against it. You have not answered my questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeisraeli (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
All Wikipedia editors will be able to have their say on the article. The outcome of the discussion is not decided by how many people think the article should be deleted or kept, but on the strength of the arguments, with those that are policy-based given the most weight. Number 57 00:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Canadian templates

Category:Canadian federal election, 2006 results by riding is one of many populated by a template somewhere. I'm currently trying to finish sorting the sports fans categories so can't attack this one myself. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: Thanks for flagging that up. Does Cydebot not usually move templates, or do you think this is a bug? Cheers, Number 57 13:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It depends how the category is entered in the template - if it's the usual text at the bottom it's not a problem, but too many templates have category entries that the bot can't process. However this looks like one of those diabolical autogenerate the category templates. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Timrollpickering: I think I've fixed it. I guess it will take a while to filter into the system. Cheers, Number 57 14:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Null edits through AWB often sort that one out.
As for the current problems, I think it's Massachusetts that the bot doesn't seem to like. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes - for some reason there is something about first party system era elections in both Maryland and Massachusetts that the bot doesn't like but once it hits the 1820s it doesn't seem to have a problem. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Number 57, can you tell me what is going on with these categories? Last night, I tagged hundreds of empty categories (see here) that have to do with Canadian elections and it's taken until tonight for me to find some reason or person who might know why for this happening.
So, what happened to these categories? Why are they all now empty? Do you expect other waves of empty categories that will need to be deleted? It would be nice to know what is causing this unusual wave of empty categories. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Liz: A recent change to the naming convention for election articles (to move the year from the end to the start) has meant that the names of around 8,000 categories are also being changed via WP:CFDS. Most have been processed already and can be seen at User:Number 57/Election categories to be checked. You're welcome to just delete them without tagging if you have checked they are empty and have no incoming/interwiki links. Cheers, Number 57 12:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Number 57, I appreciate the explanation. There are about 10-20 editors who keep tabs on categories that get created or altered so a change of this size was bound to be noticed. Good luck taking on such an enormous project! Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • While I understand and recognize that the naming convention requires the category names to be changed, it needs to be handled more carefully. Literally hundreds of uncreated redlinked categories are showing up on WantedCategories, at the same time as the existing categories are showing up for speedy deletion as empty categories — that's a lot of unnecessary work. Please take care to ensure that the needed new categories are already in place to catch the name change before changing a template to autogenerate the new names. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Bearcat: I am fixing the templates on categories as I move them, so there shouldn't be a vast number of redlinks that appear for more than a couple of hours (basically as long as it takes Cydebot to trawl through a set of categories using the same template). Can you point me to where I can find these wanted categories so I can double check whether there are any odd outcomes? Cheers, Number 57 19:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I worked out from seeing what you were doing that it was another set of categories (provincial Canadian ones) that I wasn't aware of (they didn't appear when I searched the category tree for categories to be renamed as they're not categorised under the election categories (unlike the federal ones, which were moved). Number 57 20:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Epping Town

Hi, don't know if you noticed this edit. I had a quick look to verify this and the 'new' Epping Town doesn't appear to be a successor club, but rather a rename of a different club, Epping F.C. (which you deleted via prod as non-notable a decade ago):

Boyd, Milo (20 June 2018). "Big changes as football club aims to relive former glories". East London & West Essex Guardian. Retrieved 15 December 2018.

Any thoughts on how this should be presented (if at all)? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nzd: Sorry for the delayed response. The new club isn't notable as far as I can see, so the article should be left referring only to the old club. Number 57 23:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Cameron Highlands election page

Sorry but it should be “re”-election as the election court said that the former election is null, therefore should be re-election. angys (Talk Talk) 03:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@*angys*: It's still called a by-election; see 2011 Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election as an example. Cheers, Number 57 09:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, if you wish to keep you can keep the name. angys (Talk Talk)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Number 57, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Number 57, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Hhkohh (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Danish election articles that have Template:Greenlandic elections and Template:Faroese elections‎ in it

Since you made decision that those two templates don't need Folketing elections in it.

Do we need to move out those templates that placed in Danish election articles ? -- Comrade John (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Comrade John: Probably a good idea. Number 57 12:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Come to think of it , Since Danish Folketing election include Greenland and Faroe Islands , we should include it but these two templates are regional election template so it shouldn't include national election unless Danish Folketing election have results breakdown of Greenland and Faroe Islands , just like Spanish elections. Then , we should include it.-- Comrade John (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that {{Danish elections}} is local too, and should also be removed from the articles where Greenland and Faroese elections where removed. Christian75 (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Benny Gantz has just registered his new party חוסן לישראל

Would you title it in English as "Hosen Leyisrael (see: [3] or Resilience for Israel (see [4])? and how about writing the article about it? (see Hebrew wikipedia article: [5] which titled it "Hosen Yisrael" and not "Hosen Leyisrael") --Midrashah (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Resilience for Israel has 140 google results : [6]
  • hosen leyisrael has aroumd 2,000 results : [7]

--Midrashah (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Midrashah: It already exists at Hosen Yisrael, which is the correct title based on the party regisitration. Number 57 12:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand by-elections, 19c

Re 1862 City of Dunedin by-elections it is now finished (but still a stub) as have worked out that there was no March poll for Dick & Richardson: Called for after a show of hands on Tuesday 18 March (ODT 18 March, OW 22 March) but then scrubbed Wednesday 19 March as Richardson’s nominator was not on the local roll. And Dick had resigned as he did not want to go to the session in Auckland. NB: the OW 22 March article did not have what happened on the 19th when the poll was scrubbed (a local paper but not up to date!). By combining two or three by-elections in one year into one article, it simplifies checking by-election templates (two separate types of template) and articles which can have a redirect to the one article if necessary. Some distinguished the two in one year with “April 1862” and ”July 1862” in the title, some has (1st) and(2nd), but they can all be given a redirect to the one article. And there are sometimes both “City of Dunedin by-election” and “Dunedin by-election”. NB: never thought of removing the last part (after ?) from Papers Past URLs. Hugo999 (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

New Right or The New Right?

The Knesset site says "The New Right", with the "The" being part of the title, in a way that it isn't with the Joint List, or other parties, indicating that it's part of the recognized name. ShimonChai (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@ShimonChai: It seems to be widely referred to without the definite article (Google News search). I guess as it's a new party, it's a case of wait and see. For now I think it has the right title. Number 57 16:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ministry of National Guidance and Religious Affairs

The ministry is an organisation, not a religion, isnt it? Rathfelder (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: I would take the term "religious organisation" to mean an organisation that is religious, such as a church or affiliated charity. The ministry itself is not a religious body. Number 57 16:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe. Perhaps it could be in both categories? In reality I imagine it is actually religious, in the sense that it must understand, adhere to, and believe, the tenets of the state religion. I'm just trying to collect all the organisations concerned with religion in each country, and I think excluding the ministry would be misleading. Rathfelder (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: I think the top level "Religion in" category is sufficient. Many of the equivalent ministries in other countries sit within this category (such as Ministry of Religious Services or Ministry of Awqaf) and they are all also within Category:Religious affairs ministries. Number 57 16:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

About my edits

sorry for my mistake i will be more careful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Player-coaches

Hi, not sure why the CFDS nom hasn't been removed yet. Do you reckon it's OK for me to go ahead and create Category:Association football player-coaches now, and start populating both? Cheers, Nzd (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nzd: I think you can just remove it yourself. And yes to your latter question! Number 57 20:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done both. If I get told off, I'll blame you Nzd (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RIC

I saw you deleted the page about the Citizens' initiative referendum (RIC). I am sympathetic to your concerns but think that the original author (and subsequent authors) should be given the time to distribute the content appropriately between the two articles. Look forward to your participation in the discussion on the matter over the weekend to indicate your thoughts on the best path forward. Best, SashiRolls t · c 09:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ran Ronen (pekker)

Hi, I just created a page on Ran Ronen-Pekker and was hoping you could take a look at it (I’m pinging a few other editors too). There’s a dearth of online English language sources for him, so I pulled a lot of it from books, Hebrew websites, and his Hebrew Wikipedia page. I think the work needed is as follows: 1) Sourcing. I’m pretty sure everything on the page as of now is factual. If there is no ref, I probably got it either from a source which isn’t too reliable, or the Hebrew page. please help find a source as opposed to simply removing it. 2) Restructuring. 3) Clarification of the various bodies and organizations mentioned. I.e., squadrons and officer ranks might have a more correct English term for them. 4) wikilinking. 5) naming. In Hebrew most mention him as Ran Pekker. In English it’s usually Ran Ronen. 6) formatting Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated! Hydromania (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Metropolitan League Amateur Cup

You have completely altered my paragraph about the Amateur Cup and now it is inaccurate. It was competed for with a cup final for those three years mentioned and was thereafter awarded to the highest placed amateur team as there were not enough clubs for a knockout cup.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hertssoccer (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hertssoccer: Sorry, I was trying to correct the formatting of your additions, and misunderstood what you had been trying to convey. Now corrected. Number 57 19:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Haitian elections

Hello, Number57! There two missing articles on elections in Haiti during the rule of the Duvalier dynasty – 1964 Haitian general election and 1967 Haitian parliamentary election. Since you are an expert on the matter, I would really appreciate your help/input on how to create those articles, and where to find sources for it. --Sundostund (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sundostund: I'll have a look. The (very useful) Nohlen books have no figures for either election, only the dates. Cheers, Number 57 11:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do have a look into it. Maybe even the facts we know so far could be useful in making an article – the date of an election, and the fact that the ruling party gained all the seats/made a landslide victory (since it was a single party election in both cases)... Also, please look into 1979 Somali presidential election. It is the only Somali election held during the rule of Siad Barre which doesn't (yet) have its article. --Sundostund (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sundostund: I've created 1964 Haitian parliamentary election (note it wasn't a general one) and 1967 Haitian parliamentary election, and also 1986 Haitian Constitutional Assembly election as a bonus. Almost zero information available though. Regarding the Somali one, Barre was elected President by parliament rather than there being a public vote, so I am not sure an article is worthwhile (for indirect elections, I'd rather see something like List of presidential elections in Fooland created and then the parliamentary votes listed there. Cheers, Number 57 22:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You did a great job on Haitian articles! They contain more than a decent amount of information and references, and can always be expanded anyway. It certainly looks way better than red-line (non-existent) articles... As for the Somali election, I know it was an indirect election but IMHO it still deserves its own article, as already is the case with later indirect presidential election in Somalia (2009, 2012 and 2017). Beside that, presidents of Germany, Italy, Greece etc are elected indirectly as well, and yet those electoral articles are already created (I think that not a single of them is missing). --Sundostund (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The government is called the Republic of China

The government which administrates NOT only Taiwan but also the Chinese coastal islands of Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu is called the Republic of China Government and the President of that government is called the President of the Republic of China. It is a fact. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2019 (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. Lmmnhn (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

PNG

Thanks for that terrific article on the 1972 election - that was a gap that was long-overdue for fixing, and you've done a great job. Any chance you might do some more on the colonial-era PNG elections? I'm about the only editor that's ever shown interest in them so I'd be thrilled to see another! The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Thanks! I'm planning on going through all the editions of Pacific Islands Monthly over the next couple of months, so hopefully will be able to create a bunch of new articles. Shame there wasn't more details on the result in terms of figures, but the magazine was quite clear that party affiliation was extremely fluid. Number 57 22:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Metropolitan League Amateur Cup

That's okay. Two further points, the league handbook calls the team Vickers not Vickers Armstrong. And Tottenham Hotspur "B" won the league cup in 1951-52, not the "A" team. Their "A" team were in the Eastern Counties League then. @hertssoccer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hertssoccer (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hertssoccer: The club was called Vickers Armstrong at the time according to the FCHD and Non League Matters. Both sources also confirm that it was Tottenham 'A' in the league in 1951–52 (see their FCHD page). Number 57 17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes - Non-League matters and FCHD are both wrong about Tottenham A team in 1951-52. I have the programme in front of me for the Metropolitan League Cup Final, April 21st 1952, which says Tottenham Hotspur "B" v Headington United and Tottenham referred to them throughout the season in the programme as the "B" or Metropolitan League team. The "A" team were in the Eastern Counties League. @hertssoccer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hertssoccer (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hertssoccer: I've just checked another source (Gone But Not Forgotten Part 7) and they also have the team down as Spurs 'A'. However, there is another programme from this era marking them as Spurs 'B'. This is a bit odd; I might ask about it on the Non-League Matters forum. Number 57 21:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Russian presidential election

Hi, what exactly do you consider wrong with my version??? Besides, please pay attention to MOS:BOLDTITLE! Regards--Hildeoc (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hildeoc: As repeatedly pointed out to you by myself and Mélencron, the text you're inserting is not gramatically correct. You can't start an article with "Latest". Number 57 22:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
And as I've already tried to verify (obviously in vain): yes, I can!--Hildeoc (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hildeoc: No you can't, and please don't try to tell me how the English language works; the text in that example does not correspond to the text we're discussing here. If you wanted to add "latest" into the opening sentence, it would have to be "The latest Russian presidential elections were held on...". However, although this is correct, it isn't how we open election articles, so please don't change it to this either. Thanks, Number 57 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
"the text in that example does not correspond to the text we're discussing here" – Interesting! Now, why exactly do you think it doesn't?--Hildeoc (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hildeoc: I'm afraid it's reached the point where I can only assume that you're trolling, so I'll say good bye. Number 57 22:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Why is that? I asked you a simple question with respect to your reply – no more and no less.--Hildeoc (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

New Taipei City Constituencies and similar articles

I saw that you have PRODded them (I see at least two, but probably there are more of them). As an administrator, I would have difficultied deleting such a PROD since some special knowledge is required, and you are clearly on the advanced side. I think AfD would suit better, since one can offer more extended arguments there, and also options different from deletion could be discussed (such as merges for example). Would you mind converting these articles from PROD to AfD? (I did not check how many of them are there but I assume this must be a tractable number). Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Similar articles have previously been deleted by prod (e.g. Gilan Province parliamentary districts, Ardabil Province parliamentary districts, Zanjan Province parliamentary districts and several other ones for Iran). Cheers, Number 57 19:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, may be it is just me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to the final vote on the bolding issue

Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election#Final voting. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Admin move request (I think!)

Hey N57. It looks like East Yorkshire (UK Parliament constituency) has been moved to Yorkshire East. This is obviously wrong and needs reverting, something I cannot do without admin rights. Is this something I can get you to look at? Or if not, do you know any other admin who could for me? Thanks :) doktorb wordsdeeds 23:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: Done. Surprised you couldn't do it, as there was only an unedited redirect at the target. Cheers, Number 57 23:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Such quick service! Thank you :) doktorb wordsdeeds 23:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Electoral system

Dear Number 57:

I thank you for reviewing my recent edit of Electoral system Wikipedia article.

I did not know that I got the wrong information. Admittedly, I teach math and economics, not electoral system. Because there is a small economic section called Political economy that briefly involve voting systems, I was doing research on the topic. Since you pointed out that I got the wrong information, I wish to ask for your help to clarify where/which information I got incorrectly about the classification of electoral system, so I do not teach the wrong information to my students.

I think I got the wrong terminology for "each voter casts one vote, for only one candidate/option". It is not the definition for plurality voting. Do you know whether there is a term for that? I am interested in separating the type into whether one voter can only choose one option or multiple options because of the different mathematical analysis involved.

I am not seeking to post that section onto Wikipedia again, or arguing for a subject I only know superficially. I only want to know the proper terminology and definitions to correct what I previously got wrong. Please help me.

Again, my edit was:

\begin quote

Overview There are two broad groups of electoral systems: Plurality voting and Preferential voting:

  • Plurality voting: each voter casts one vote, for only one candidate/option. Two common examples of plurality voting are First-pass-the-post (winner-take-all) used in U.S., U.K, Canada, and Two-round (run-off).

\end quote

I thank you much for your help.

Best regards,

Nam

Hello Nam. The factual issue with the text above is that it ignores proportional representation-based systems, the single most common form of electoral system. Preferential voting is only used in a small number of countries (Australia, Malta, Nauru, Papua New Guinea and the Republic of Ireland). Number 57 12:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Martin Dano

Dear admin Number 57, thank you for your reply and help. Pleae limit user EllsworthSK to update page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2019_Slovak_presidential_election I am the investigave journalist - officialy registered and prooved by the Constitutional court in Slovakia. NOw, I am the presidential candidate in Slovakia and there is many bad intentioned people who are disturbed by my work and its reason why they want to damage my reputation. There not exist any court decision that I have violated any law or that I have published any untrue or disseminated conspiracy. By law, I am a registered presidential candidate and the profession is a "journalist". Millions of voters tickets will be printed with my name and the profession: "journalist". Please, limit the user EllsworthSK - becose His edits are done in bad faith. Thank you. Kind regards. Martin Dano — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martindano (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hashtag United

Please do not change my edit. I talked with another admin and he said because season articles aren’t notable enough one paragraph per seaso was okay. OrnitAvni (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey I’m logged Into an ip user at a library This is zvikorn OrnitAvni (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@OrnitAvni and Zvikorn: You appear to have accidentally outed yourself as using two accounts. This is WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and is blockable, and is especially concerning as your IP was previously blocked by Bbb23 and you had repeated unblock requests rejected.
Also, the discussion you are referring to does not say that you could create separate sections for each season, and this is not how club articles are usually arranged. The content you added about their current positions this season is not acceptable content either. Number 57 12:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Joseph Darnand (bishop).png

Thanks for uploading File:Joseph Darnand (bishop).png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Guinea Conakry elections

It seems the parliamentary elections will be postponed for several months. President Alpha Conde is trying to force the Constitution to seek a third term in 2020 and this is disrupting the political agenda, including the upcoming legislative elections. Stay tuned.

Sussex County Leagues

Hi there,

Thank your for the advice, much appreciated! Also thanks for the link to the league tables, been searching old newspaper records for these. I'd like to put a results table in if you know a link for that, that would be great, will be hours of newspaper research.

2019 Maldivian parliamentary election

Hi

MTD (1 MP) and PNC (2 MP) have seats. Should we add them to the article? --Panam2014 (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Are they new breakaway parties? Number 57 10:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Founded by former members of PPM. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they should probably be listed for now. Number 57 16:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

About 2019 Macedonian presidential election

Since it's now changed to North Macedonia , it makes me wonder three things.

1. Should "2019 Macedonian presidential election" move to "2019 North Macedonian presidential election" ?

2. Should Pre 2019 elections move to North Macedonian ?

3. Should the template title move to "Template:North Macedonian elections" ?

Thank you.

One more off topic , do you know any user that maintain most of the foreign relations template ?-- Comrade John (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Comrade John: To answer your queries one-by-one:
  1. There has been quite a bit of discussion on Talk:North Macedonia (here) about the fact that "Macedonian" is still used as the country's demonym. However, that seems to be specific to the nationality of people. With regards to something specifically linked to the state, I'm not sure; "North Macedonian" might be appropriate for election articles, as the term does not relate to the people of the country. Number 57 16:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Regardless of the above, past elections would remain as "Macedonian" as we used the name of the country at the time of the election (for instance 1961 Bechuanaland general election for Botswana).
  3. See the answer to 1.
Not sure about the foreign relations templates I'm afraid. Cheers, Number 57 16:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply , appreciated. -- Comrade John (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Comrade John: Having read up on it a bit more off-wiki, it looks like "North Macedonian" should be ok for the election article. It seems to be being used for state-related descriptions (see e.g. Google News hits). Number 57 16:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Which means that , the answer of my first question is yes right ? -- Comrade John (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Comrade John: Yes, let's move it. Number 57 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Now , back to the second and third question. Is it suitable to moved them to North Macedonian as well ? For me , second it is not ; third it is. Since about the second , it is history inaccurate if we do so , but the third one for me , the name of election templates and foreign relation templates represent the country name nowadays so I think the template name should move to "Template:North Macedonian elections".-- Comrade John (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Comrade John: My answer to question 2 is the same, and was not dependent on whether North Macedonia is acceptable now or not. Elections are named for the country as it was at the time. For the template, it can be moved, but I don't see any real benefit to doing so; readers do not see the template name. Number 57 17:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Lotem

mango 17:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Hi Number 57,

Why did you delete my addition to the Lotem article? It was accurate and helpful. Please advise.

Nfox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfox (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed the information because it was not suitable for an encyclopedia. You may be better off adding it to an online travel guide somewhere. The terminology used (e.g "The most comfortable pants in the world") was inappropriate and the external links in the middle of prose is not allowed. Number 57 17:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia and rewriting history

Hello! I saw your reverting of two of my edits. I kind of agree on the insurgency. But the elections is a different thing. The country did not change (like Czecoslovakia and Czech Republic. Only the name did. Therefore I think some things will need to change retroactively. What do you think? Best,--Azeryion (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Azeryion: We always use the name of the country as it was at the time of the election. Hence names like 1965 Bechuanaland general election, 1960 Basutoland general election, 1960 Burmese general election or 1984 Zairean presidential election. Number 57 21:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense indeed for the elections. But then what about that insurgency:). For example if something happened in Iran in 1930 you would say Persia would you? --Azeryion (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Azeryion: The name of the country at the time would be used in any article whose title is in the format [Year] [Country] [Event]. See e.g. 1962 Burmese coup d'état, 1963 Dahomeyan coup d'état and (with reference to your final query) 1921 Persian coup d'état. Number 57 22:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
hehe ok:) thanks!--Azeryion (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Azeryion: Also, you shouldn't move categories using the move tab. Please use the speedy move process at WP:CfD. Thanks, Number 57 22:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I will. Going to read right away:)--Azeryion (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

2015 Nigerian presidential election

I was wondering why the above page was moved to 2015 Nigerian general election since I couldn't find any discussions. Would it be appropriate if an article was started at the presidential election page that focuses only on the presidential election, while the General election was expanded to include details of both the legislative elections and also gubernatorial elections. I have in mind the 2016 United States elections which discussed broadly about elections in the US in 2016 while 2016 United States presidential election is essentially focused on the presidential election. Warm regards, Mahveotm (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mahveotm: It's pretty standard to have an article covering presidential and parliamentary elections held on the same day (see e.g. 2015 Burkinabé general election, 2015–16 Central African general election, 2015 Sudanese general election or 2015 Tanzanian general election from the same year). A split is only needed if the recommended articles size is exceeded, and the 2016 Nigerian election article is nowhere close to this. Number 57 13:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, noted. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI

The "bear" is the Capitoline Wolf, a sculpture dated to the 15th century and one of the most important works in Italian cultural history.

And, I have reuploaded both images (but with the "copyrighted work" tags).

And-and, I will never stop posting.

VwM.Mwv

In reference to your recent query of GoldenRing's actions at AE (regarding multiple "extremely anti-Palestinian / pro-Zionist" towards various editors) - could you please look at User talk:VwM.Mwv#Block extended - it seems that after being blocked at AE for a week (see - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#VwM.Mwv) they've had the block extended to an indef for querying in the unblock request about an anti-Semitic label vs. an editor. (It also seems VwM.Mwv retracted their comments). I'm not condoning VwM.Mwv's statements (and they have apologized for them) - but contrasted with a different editor calling multiple editors "extremely anti-Palestinian / pro-Zionist" (and doubling down on it) - and getting off with no action - I'm concerned at the disparity. Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I believe there is a disparity in how pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors are treated, which I suspect is down to the fact that these days there are far more of the latter, who therefore can create more noise at AE.
With regards to your comments on footballer articles, the reason the list at WP:FPL is so big is that football is the world's most popular sport, and many countries have leagues that are watched by thousands of spectators, enabling them to turn full-time. There are a small number of dubious entries on the list, but they are far outweighed by leagues that are fully-pro, but for which we don't have adequate sourcing to prove either way. It's also worth noting that players in a third- or fourth-tier league in some countries are more likely to be notable that people in top tier leagues in other countries due to the popularity of the sport in the respective territories (which in turn is reflected in the leagues' professional status, hence the guideline being the way it is). And with regards to Women in Red, the argument from certain editors in that field has been that the guideline is too restrictive and it should be opened up to semi-pro top-tier leagues too. Number 57 13:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
In regards to I/P - I'm punting this over to you, as I believe you are a fairly neutral party here (being badgered in the past by the pro-Israel crowd). I might have a few other examples to hand over in the future. Being involved in the topic area, anything I say seems suspect.
In regards to NFOOTY -
  1. I agree soccer is immensely popular. And yes - is covered. But so are college sports in the United States - which don't give insta-notability
  2. Looking at some of the AfDs - there is too much of "keep by NFOOTY" and "delete by NFOOTY" (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Perri - seems to possibly pass GNG - and being signed as a goalie for a premier league team with plausible starting prospects,[8] and not insignificant coverage.... It doesn't take too much of a WP:BALL to assume he'll have starts in the premier league and if that doesn't pan out - he would be start-able EFL League Two or better.
  3. I suspect some lower league stars (e.g. below EFL2 in the UK) pass GNG - particularly long-time players.
  4. Conversely - I think that youth player in a club that meets NFOOTY (particularly the lower edges) - who had a start or two - and then left soccer (or ended up in a semi-pro team) - is often non-notable.
  5. Looking at the AfD !votes in football - it's too much along NFOOTY lines. I do WP:SOLDIER quite a bit in the military delsort (and do a bit of NPROF as well) - they are never a straight yes/no by SNG - one always looks around - lt. Colonels may be notable as well.
  6. What I'm trying to say - is that the line of presumed notability (by league / number of appearances) isn't at the right spot - it should be higher. However, GNG should also be assessed, and possibly for lower league players with long careers - a criteria is also maybe appropriate. I think my initial suggestion at NFOOTY was, well, an initial suggestion. But I do think a more refined approach here is needed.
Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: If editors looked solely at GNG, the cut-off would probably be far lower than currently (certainly in England); NFOOTY is mostly used to stop semi-pro or youth players getting articles. You could write a well-referenced article on many players at levels six or seven in the UK, and probably the majority of players at level five. The reality is that we need a clear cut-off point, and playing in a fully-pro league is the most obvious place for it to be. Number 57 14:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The SNG isn't worded that way at present - WP:NFOOTY states a "presumed notable" threshold - which means that subjects that pass the SNG are supposed to be almost always over GNG. If there were a non-"presumed notable" (e.g. WP:NACADEMIC has non-GNG criteria) SNG - then maybe. A league being fully-pro probably isn't an indication of actual coverage.(BTW - Liga Leumit is fully professional, as was Liga Artzit when it existed - the list in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues is off in this regard - but I don't want more entries there). I also suspect there is some bias in that many of the Football project editors are from England and assume what they see in local coverage and popularity extends elsewhere - I daresay it doesn't (England is at the extreme here). A fully-pro team playing players a worker's man salary (average wage) - might not be particularly coverage generating in some countries. Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Atidekhad.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Haitian imperial elections

Hello. I wonder, would you be able to find some data about parliamentary elections held in the Second Empire of Haiti in 1852 and 1857 respectively, and to create those articles. Being the only elections held during one of monarchical periods in Haitian history, I think it would be worthwhile to have those articles here. --Sundostund (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Manual of style

I have discovered that you have created dozens and possibly hundreds of articles which violate the manual of style by using bold face where it is not appropriate to do so. Are you aware of the relevant guidelines? 89.115.226.154 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the guideline's existence. Are you aware that it's widely ignored (to the benefit of Wikipedia IMO)? When I started contributing seriously in 2006 I just copied what was being done already on election/referendum articles with regards to the bolding. I don't recall many objections to this practice beyond a rather aggressive IP a couple of years ago who was blocked for long-term abuse. Number 57 19:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That AE case

In regards to your query at GoldenRing's talk page, please see this related query at User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 26#Query - the closer of that AE, following an indef block for this edit. Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Nigerian general election

Thanks for your cleanup here! As regards WP:ENGVAR( MOS:TIES), I think British English is preferred to American English on Nigeria related articles. (organized vs organised)

P.S You also removed contents that indicated election took place for two days, can you explain the removal?? Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mahveotm: I am familiar with ENGVAR, which is why I changed from the American to the British spelling. I didn't remove the contents about the election taking place over two days; you can see that the first paragraph ends with the sentence "In some places, the vote was delayed until 24 February due to electoral violence." Number 57 19:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Number57, as results are almost impossible to find for the other 70 something contestant's(several who pulled out before the election), and with major newspaper publications focusing on the top 8, I was proposing converting that table to States won among the top contestants as against the several political parties.
P.S Pardon me, you seem to be an expert on electoral issues on Wikipedia, that's why I've been coming around. Mahveotm (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|Mahveotm} We should have the full results – INEC should publish them at some point. Number 57 07:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hartley Wintney F.C. issue

Hello Number 57. I'd like to make it more clear as to why I am replacing that SVG file with a PNG. I hope I am not telling you things that you already know.

  • In regards to quality (which is, in this case, not even the main reason why the image should be replaced), here is the SVG's whitespace, and here is the PNG's whitespace.
  • An SVG file uses vector graphics, while a PNG used raster graphics. Embedding a raster image into an SVG file creates what is known as a wrapper; it is a raster graphic without vector coding. Such misuse of SVG as metafile is undesirable for a few reasons, including the following:
    • You are creating a larger file size than necessary.
    • You create the possibility of hiding high-resolution raster graphics hidden inside a "low-resolution" SVG file. Allowing this possibility could violate WP:NFCC#3.

I hope you'll reconsider your view on this matter. If you would like, I can take the SVG file you like and convert it directly to a PNG, and it would maintain the quality you find more appealing. I look forward to your response. Pbroks13 (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The whitespace isn't an issue as far as I can see, as it doesn't show up when you view the article. The main issue here is that the png file you are trying to replace it with is blurry compared to the svg. If you can upload a better version of the png image (even screenshotting the svg one and then uploading it might work), then I wouldn't have a problem with the change. However, if it's a choice between a higher quality image with a minor (but not practically noticeable) technical issue file type and a lower quality image with blurring, I would go with the former. Number 57 20:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I've extracted the png from the svg an uploaded it over File:Hartley Wintney F.C. logo.png (be sure to clear your cache if it doesn't look different). It is an identical copy of it. Pbroks13 (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Chevington listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chevington. Since you had some involvement with the Chevington redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

my mistake so I am removing it

Lithuanian presidential elections

Would you mind telling why are you restoring the results' tables to your preferred version in all the Lithuanian presidential elections' pages? Simply writing "Clean up code" or "few tweaks" and not giving any better explanation looks like a case of ownership. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I restored the simpler/cleaner coding because it's easier for editors – particularly those unfamiliar with code – to work with. Number 57 13:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

2018 Macedonian referendum controversy

Dear Number 57, I see that you have removed my section on the controversy on the abovementioned referendum. Please note that it is important to cite Article 73 of the Macedonian constitution, which says the decision of any parlament-approved referendum is binding. The referendum has been declared as "non-binding referendum" based on the Law for Referendums, but it is in contradiction with the requirement of the Constitution (which does not distinguish between a "binding" or a "non-binding" referendum). This is the controversy. Sincerely, ObjectiveBoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveBoy (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You didn't provide a reference for this being a controversy, so as it stands, it appears to be WP:Original research. Number 57 17:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia editing rules (in Macedonian): Here is one reference: https://www.novamakedonija.com.mk/makedonija/politika/референдумот-распишан-дилемите-оста/ -ObjectiveBoy (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I will add this to the article. Number 57 21:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your objectivity. -ObjectiveBoy (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

About the Otzma situation..

The guy who is editing the Otzma page is also editing the Netanyahu page, and the Zvi Sukkot page well actively being challenged. ShimonChai (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

EMG close

Hi 57 – did you intend to leave the other sections of that thread open, e.g., for further discussion, or was your intent that the close settled this entire ANI report (at least for now)? I think it's the latter per your closing statement, but I noticed the close was only to the proposal sub-section, and I never know how to interpret that. Thanks.

@Levivich: Yes, I did. However, there's unlikely to be any further discussion, so feel free to archive the thread if you like. Cheers, Number 57 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No, 57, A question. I do a lot of AfDs. This morning I backed away from one that unexpectedly, touched on folks who might or might not be in the U.S. illegally, but I left this note at the AfD [9]. NOw I am looking at the deletion of Emmanuel House. I have access to archive searches like Proquest that most editors do not. So, the question is, can I leave a note at AfD with the title, date of pub., etc., of INDEPTH coverage of this charity, an article about their work resettling refugees in houses, at the AfD? And at similar AfDs going forward. Or is this covered in the ban?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: I would avoid anything immigration related to be on the safe side, as I don't know what you're planning on writing. Number 57 18:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

i like goats

especially ones that look like yer dah like this

OneTeamInBristol (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

election page that needs moving

Hey, I have no idea how to move Iranian legislative election, 2012 (Tehran, Rey, Shemiranat and Eslamshahr), but assumed you'd know the correct page. --Gonnym (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Also Iranian legislative election, 1980 (Tehran, Rey, Shemiranat and Eslamshahr), probably more in this series. --Gonnym (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Really they should just be deleted. Articles on election results for a single election in a single constituency are unwarranted. I've prodded them. Number 57 11:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Jiading City listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jiading City. Since you had some involvement with the Jiading City redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Matthew hk (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand general election by electorate templates

Maybe you have some insight to this. Can Template:1996 New Zealand general election by electorate be placed in 45th New Zealand Parliament#Initial composition of the 45th Parliament or is there a reason why it isn't included? Template:1999 New Zealand general election by electorate is used on 46th New Zealand Parliament#Initial composition of the 46th Parliament. --Gonnym (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I guess the reason is that the 45th parliament article only needs to detail the actual MPs rather. However, I'm not terribly familiar with NZ election-related articles. I encountered some serious WP:OWN issues when I dipped my toes in many years ago, and so have steered well clear since. Number 57 22:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
What would you recommended me do? I have an option either to add it to the page, or nominate it for deletion as it isn't used (there are a few more New Zealand templates like this). --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: It might be useful on the election article, or a results page if there is one. Number 57 12:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Haitian and Somali elections

Hello, Number 57! I must ask you once again, would you be able to find some data about parliamentary elections held in the Second Empire of Haiti in 1852 and 1857 respectively, and about the indirect 1979 Somali presidential election held in the Somali Democratic Republic, and to create those articles? IMHO, I think it would be worthwhile to have those articles here. I would really appreciate your help with this. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sundostund: Sorry, I completely forgot about this. I'll have a look tonight. Number 57 16:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
There's absolutely no problem, I know you have a lot to do here and you can't remember everything. I just wanted to send a reminder. --Sundostund (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sundostund: This source states that Barre was elected 'unanimously' by parliament on 20 January 1980. This one gives the date as 27 January. The Political Handbook of the World 2008 states that the election date was 26 January! However, Somalia: A Chronology of Historical Documents 1827-2000 states that he was sworn in on 26 January, although this date is given as 27 January in several other sources. Hardly conclusive on the dates.... Number 57 13:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it really seems quite conflicting... Still, try to do your best. I know you're an expert on this subject. Also, try to find some data on those Haitian elections. --Sundostund (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Placeholder images

"Should not" does not mean "must not". Placeholder images in the articles you are removing them from serve to stabilize proper proportions in tables and infoboxes, so they have more than a mere stylistic purpose. Further, referenced discussion is from 2008 and it did not rule to remove all placeholder images from Wikipedia. I'm thereby proceeding to revert your removals. Cheers. Impru20talk 22:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, "should not" does not mean "must not". You are not addressing width issues as you are obviously leaving the infoboxes pretty much flawed. Impru20talk 22:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
What?! It's yourself who has gone on a spree to make massive edits into a massive number of articles without any previous consultation, based on a 2008 discussion which doesn't even enforce your own claim. Placeholder images have been in use for election articles for much time without such issues raising, and you are now creating a lot of them by unilaterally choosing to remove the images yourself. I'm sorry, but you'll have to seek consensus for such a massive chain of edits. Impru20talk 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You've not even tried to engage in discussion, but you're rather enforcing your edits and threatening with ANI should we not comply with you. That's not appropiate and I'll raise such an issue if this is brought up there. Cheers. Impru20talk 23:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
This is nonsensical. You're now removing placeholder images to leave empty images instead?? [10] What's the difference so as to make such a mountain out of a molehill and to engage in such a massive edit spree? Seriously, this is very unfortunate. Impru20talk 23:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, this was a content issue, so ANI shouldn't be the place for it. I tried to discuss the issue while reverting some of the edits, as edits were mounting and I wished to put them at hold until a talk could transpire. You did not even allow such time for a discussion to unfold! This was so sudden.
I'm all willing for a talk, but you can't assume that everyone else has to unconditionally accept your unilateral edits throughout such a massive number of articles without any previous discussion and under threats of bringing the issue to ANI. Specially when you yourself have ended up using an empty white placeholder image as a solution for the width issues, so what's the difference?
The 2008 discussion referenced at Wikipedia:Image placeholders is seemingly not an enforcement but a recommendation, which basically covered the male/female placeholder images that were commonplace in the Wikipedia of old. Current placeholders are different in nature and purpose and did not even exist back then; further, such a discussion did not even establish a hard stance and so much time has come to pass so as to motivate such a reaction now.
This would probably require a more relaxed and thorough discussion on the issue. I'll be available whenever you feel ok. Cheers. Impru20talk 23:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

15 March

I see what you say (looks like the guy at the Montenegrin articles has felt it right to copy-paste my own edit summaries when reverting you lol). My apologies as well if it felt like I had been rushed yesterday; as said, I basically saw dozens of changes in my watchlist in a sudden and sought to put the editing to a hold, as I was to contest it (as part of the WP:BRD process) before an even larger number of articles got affected without any actual discussion taking place. I acknowledge that the fact that there is a massive row of elections in Spain within the next two months may not be helping my nerves either.

I think your approach at having a collective discussion is a good one, though of the many issues I've seen throughout the years in my editing of election articles, placeholders constitute probably one of the less disputed ones (factually, if it wasn't for you reminding of the 2008 discussion I would have had probably no idea about this recommendation. It is very little publicized and the matter does not constitute an issue of dispute among a large majority of users editing election articles). Further, given that placeholders may actually serve a purpose at stabilizing the width of tables and infoboxes, coupled with the fact that there are very different types of placeholders, I think that, if a discussion takes place on the issue, the matter should be revised and/or detailed. The result of the 2008 discussion is rather ambiguous on its scope and I don't think it will serve for Wikipedia 2019. Impru20talk 15:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess that could be resolved by having another version of that image with a different height-to-width ratio Here you would have two issues: One, that you would have to significantly de-size the boxes using actual images in order for them to be adjusted to the image-empty boxes (this would also result in a subsidiary issue, which is that you would have to make the adjustment manually for each infobox in each article); and second, that articles whose infoboxes lack some images would look disproportionally smaller compared to article where images are available for all candidates. Using placeholders saves time and effort by being very straightforward to implement (this would be specially useful for newbies) while preserving consistency across articles.
On the discussion lines, these would be the ones overall, though I have doubts on whether the use of such images may actually be "forbidden" at all, as I don't think they would technically be in breach of any Wikipedia policy. Impru20talk 16:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Micronesian Presidential Election

Questions:

  • Does all Micronesian Presidential Election are indirect election ?
  • When is the first Micronesian Presidential Election ?
  • If situation allowed , can you list all the Micronesian Presidential Elections year ?

Thank you.-- Comrade John (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Comrade John: As far as I know, they are indirect elections, and take place after full parliamentary elections (i.e. the ones in which Senators are also elected). There were presidential elections in 2007 and 2011. Presumably they also took place in 2015 and are due in the near future as we've just had a full parliamentary election. Number 57 17:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for reply , I suspect Since 1979 , every four years , Micronesia held a presidential election , cause the first president Tosiwo Nakayama , his article in wikipedia said "In May 1979, statehood was declared for Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae and an elected Congress was seated. From their number, His Excellency Tosiwo Nakayama was once again elected as President ..." But i have no clue about it.-- Comrade John (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your message regarding the Dereham Town F.C. page, please accept my apology on not knowing the proper protocol on editing the Wikipedia page, as I am a fan of the team and just want to expand on the page and don't intend to cause any problems or vandalization for the page or any others.

My first question is what would be defined as notable in the clubs history? I can understand why my season by season analogy in the paragraph isn't necessarily notable, but regarding the managerial change that occurred by looking at other football clubs history sections there has been information regarding managers and managerial changes included in their history section.

My second question is where exactly is the date formatting incorrect on the edits I had made, and what errors are these?

My third question is regarding the rivals section, it being unsourced is understandable, though again other clubs have rival sections, hence unless it is about the description of the rivalries, then why is it inappropriate?

My fourth question is regarding the seasons section in the history section which I added that included a table, as again on other club pages on Wikipedia there are such tables on their seasons history, thus why was that removed?

My fifth and final question is that I would assume this conversation kickstarts the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, what happens here on regarding this phase, assuming this is the cycle, and assuming edits are agreed upon, how will such edits be added onto the page?

I will remove my edits from the page, thank you and have a pleasant evening Krancton21 (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Constituency wise candidate information - You deleted

Constituency wise candidate list is an important information and should be available in the main page of general election wiki. It could be a big table but it provides a clear comparison on which party / alliance is fielding which candidate. Electorate has an easy reference.

Request you not to remove this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukulprasad (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mukulprasad: As I stated in the edit summary, there are already lists of the candidates running (List of National Democratic Alliance candidates in the 2019 Indian general election etc), which are linked to from the article. The last thing the article needs is a massive table duplicating this information (I was thanked by other editors for removing it). Please stop re-adding it. If you really think it's necessary, please follow the WP:BRD process, and start a discussion on the article talk page and gain consensus for its existence. Thanks, Number 57 11:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Greek legislative election, June 2012

Template:Greek legislative election, June 2012 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Kind Request

Hi friend, making mistakes is nature of human. Now I had realized and learned from my mistake. I request you kindly withdraw your block request on me. Thank you. :) Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Election candidates

Do election candidates articles, such as Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates, 1999 Ontario provincial election, fall under the new RfC naming convention? Asking since Category:Canadian political candidates has quite a few and there could possibly be more in the other national categories. --Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: They sort of already comply as the year is at the front, but grammatically it's a mess. I'd advise renaming them Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates in the 1999 Ontario provincial election, etc. Cheers, Number 57 11:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Is that better than 1999 Ontario provincial election Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates? --Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Yes, and it's pretty much the standard format, although there is some interchange between "in" and "for" (see e.g. Indian National Congress campaign for the 2014 Indian general election). I'd probably say "in" is slightly better. Number 57 11:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Korean elections, invalid/blank/abstention votes

--Philip J Kim (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Philip Hello! I noticed that you changed back the information I put in for indirect South Korean presidential elections. Although, like you pointed out, invalid/blank ballots and abstentions do not count in direct elections, they do count in the indirect elections. That is why, if you look at the 2016 Democratic Convention roll call results, you will notice they calculated abstentions as valid votes. This is because some electors might not like any candidate, and express their opinion by casting an invalid ballot. For example, in 1978 presidential election, a vote by an elector named Song Dong-heon was counted as invalid vote, and it was because Song intentionally misspelled the candidate's name to protest the fact the election was uncompetitive.

The 1948 Constitution of Korea stated a candidate must win 2/3 of votes cast. By votes cast, it means percentage must be calculated including invalid/blank ballots, as long as they were cast. If there were 100 ballots cast, no matter how many of those ballots are valid, a candidate must win 67 or more votes to be declared winner. Therefore, percentage must be calculated out of total votes cast.

In the direct presidential election of March 1960, there was only one candidate on the ballot, even though it was a popular election. The Korean Constitution stated that in case there is only one presidential candidate, then the candidate must win 30% of total votes cast. Voters were given the choice of either voting for the only candidate on the ballot or casting an invalid ballot. Invalid ballot in this case is, therefore, just a "against" vote with different name, because that is the only way to express opposition to the candidate. If 10 million people had voted, the candidate must have received 3 million of those votes. If 70% or more of the votes are invalid, it is considered that the voters did that to express opposition to the candidate. Therefore, percentage must be calculated out of total votes cast.

1960 system, which also had the president elected by lawmakers, stated that the candidate must win 2/3 of votes by lawmakers in office. No matter how many lawmakers showed up for the vote and how many stayed home, it didn't matter. If there were 100 lawmakers in office as of election day, no matter how many of the lawmakers show up and vote correctly, a candidate needs 67 or more votes to win. There were 263 lawmakers in office as of election day, so no one could be elected president unless 176 lawmakers voted for him or her. Therefore, no matter how many votes were cast validly, the percentage should be calculated out of 263.

The 1972 system, which applied to 1972, 1978, 1979, and 1980 presidential elections, had the same rules as 1960 system. No matter how many people showed up and voted correctly, the presidential candidate must receive votes from absolute majority of the deputies. If there are, say, 100 deputies in office, the candidate cannot be elected president until 51 deputies have voted for that candidate. If 51 votes are cast invalidly because, say, 51 deputies wrote the name of someone who is not registered as candidate or something like that, then it is considered that the deputies did that intentionally to express they do not want that candidate to win. After all, abstaining or casting invalid ballots was the only way to express opposition, as there was only one candidate. So no matter how many deputies voted and how many votes were cast validly, percentage has to always be calculated out of total deputies in office.

Same with 1981 presidential election. There were 5,277 electors as of election day, and no matter how many of those electors did not show up to vote or voted invalidly, votes had to always be calculated out of 5,277. No presidential candidate was to be declared winner unless 2,639 votes had been cast in his name.

This is also what happens in Korea's referendums. When voting for/against on a certain issue, the proposal cannot pass unless it absolute majority of total votes cast has been "for." Let's say 10 million people voted on a constitutional amendment, and 5 million is for, 4 million is against, and 1 million votes are invalid/blank. If only counting the 9 million valid votes, for wins as it is 55.6% of the votes. However, Korean Constitution requires absolute majority of votes cast. Absolute majority of 10 million is 5 million plus 1. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not pass.

I know it sounds like a weird system, and it is. If it were up to me, I would have required all votes be out of valid votes. But the people who wrote Korean constitution thought it was a good idea, so now we have these weird election results. But please understand that when I included invalid/blank ballots and abstentions as results, I did them because that is the correct way. I will gladly share with you the parts of the Korean Constitution at the respective eras that require these different things for elections, if you want. Thank you.

Philip J Kim (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC) I think I may not have understood what you said last time. Why did you not want me to mess with the tables? If it says the candidate has won 100% of the votes, when he or she has not, is it not right to fix that?

Hashtag United

Adding a Sunday league team or going on tour isn't particularly notable, - I'm pretty sure it is. It is another team based off an Academy series with an amazing export. (Scott Pollock). Also, one sentence about tours shows the publicity of the club and gives some information. Also, and the made-up division's stuff just sounds like nonsense. It's not though. That's what they used. Ping me when u reply thx IsraeliIdan (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: No it isn't notable. Many non-league clubs have Sunday league teams and go on tours. Even my Sunday league team has been on tour (to Denmark). Number 57 13:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you think any of the info I have added should stay? IsraeliIdan (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The Wembley Cup bit is relevant but was already mentioned. Playing GB Deaf and Barawa is worth mentioning and that is currently in the article. I don't believe most of the rest is anything special/noteworthy as it's run-of-the-mill stuff for non-league clubs. The only thing I have a question over is the public trials - was this a one-off to get a squad for their first proper league season, or has it been done a few times? Number 57 14:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocking of Ayeesha Nazeem

I'm rather concerned with your blocking of User:Ayeesha Nazeem, seeing as the block essentially stemmed from a content dispute in which you were WP:involved. I might have missed something, but I don't think there's sufficient evidence of the user disruptively acting in bad faith to warrant a permanent ban without discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The block is indefinite as the master user is a sockpuppeteer. The most recent new account to edit the article almost certainly is another sock, given that it's reinstated the same changes. I am going to be filing an SPI to pick up amy other sleeper accounts they have. Number 57 10:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Both WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCKNO do state that blocking of sock masters should only be done by uninvolved admins. An SPI should make things clearer. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, please consider unprotecting the page. I'm quite sure the four IP edits would hardly warrant protection if requested at WP:RPP. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. I semi-protected it as they switched IPs quickly after one was blocked and semi-protection was easier than having to deal with a string of IP socks. Number 57 20:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Ukraine

Can I add the partial result of the presidential election now? --Panam2014 (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Go for it. But rename the section "Preliminary results". Number 57 23:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Arab al-Na'im

About the edit to Arab al-Na'im which you undid, stating "That source doesn't seem to contain reference to any of the statements in the sentence is was added to," the source does in fact state "Today Arab Al-Na'im will be constructing a modern village in the near future after years of bureaucratic planning. Eshchar and certain Jewish organizations lent a hand but the credit goes to the village leaders." I know this is pretty indirect, but I could not find any other written reference to back up what was already written about the lobbying by Jewish villages etc for recognition of Arab al-Nai'im (which I do not dispute, incidentally, I know it to be true from personal connections), and this I thought was better than nothing. The Hebrew page has no references, and there isn't even an Arabic page! So I was going to ask you, in these circumstances, if you would consider reverting your reversion, but I have just now found (after many years) another, better reference, in a book, on Google Books, which apparently has just been published this year. It's actually a fascinating read and, finally, an independent write-up of the relationship between the village and neighbouring Eshchar. What do you think about my adding that as a better (and more up to date) reference? --Mlevitt1 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mlevitt1: That looks like a much more useful source that actually contains some concrete details. By all means improve the article with it, although I think you'll need to add more details/rewrite the text rather than simply add it to the article as a source for the current info. Cheers, Number 57 21:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mlevitt1: Also, very interesting that the book actually reproduceds the Wikipedia article text on the previous page. Number 57 21:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I will use this to improve the page in the way you suggest, when I have a moment. Also the Eshhar page which I recall has a similar piece about this issue. And yes, I noticed that about the Wiki being reproduced...so people do read this stuff! Ha! Thanks for your help. --Mlevitt1 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hashtag United

Why are you just removing good, well-written prose from the article? Seems like a complete waste to me. I don't appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conaigh (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. If you have an issue with how I have formatted what I have written, or how I referenced what I have written, then sort those issues out. None of the content I have written is incorrect, irrelevant or out of place in the article.

By removing considerable chunks of text you are acting against the sprit of Wikipedia and it is unacceptable. Please sort it out.

Tomorrow I will spend time time properly referencing the text I have included in the article. I don't expect you to remove valid text in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conaigh (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

UK elections are confirmed

UK contest to the EU election is also questioned as government has taken the necessary steps required by law should the UK have to participate, while elections could be canceled if the UK leave the EU with a deal and pass the necessary legislation before 22 May

Nota: UK elections are confirmed; read http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/apr/08/brexit-latest-news-live-theresa-may-union-most-likely-outcome-if-labour-and-government-can-compromise-says-minister-live-news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.61 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"It’s official: the United Kingdom will have elections to the European Parliament, almost three years after the UK voted to leave the European Union and the best part of two months after the UK was supposed to leave under the Article 50 process – assuming, that is, that the 27 other member states of the EU accept the British government’s request for an extension." Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2019/04/european-elections-are-happening-and-they-will-be-most-important-british — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.61 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Farage 'preparing' for MEP elections in May. "The former UKIP leader is getting ready for May's European elections saying it was "pretty much unavoidable" that Brexit will not have happened by then". Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-47562204/2019-european-elections-nigel-farage-on-uk-taking-part — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.61 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"Her spokesman emphasised that once called, Britain could still cancel the polls up until 22 May if it has secured a deal to leave the EU by then. This would cause anger in Brussels, not least because 27 of Britain’s 73 MEPs have already been reallocated to other countries." Source: http://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/on-the-quiet-uk-prepares-for-zombie-european-elections/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.61 (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


"The official starting gun has been fired on a set of UK European elections that are distinct in two particular ways: first, they might never happen; and second, if they do the smaller parties are looking forward to them more than the main ones. On Monday, a “day of poll order” was laid in parliament, putting in place the legal groundwork for voting on 23 May, something that will not happen if Theresa May secures a Brexit deal in the interim." Source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/09/labour-and-tories-reluctantly-prepare-for-european-elections

The elections aren't confirmed and the UK may still leave the EU either before Friday, or before the EU Parliament meets. Preparations are being made in case the elections are required (I've been contacted to work on the elections if they happen), but that's not the same thing. Number 57 20:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Gadeer Mreeh for DYK?

@E.M.Gregory: I agree it's a great candidate, but (a) the article is far too short and (b) last time I looked, DYK is massively delayed due to the sheer number of (usually terrible) entries. I've created several good articles recently, but couldn't be bothered nominating them... Number 57 21:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo

Hello, Number 57. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Email

Hi #57, just wondered if you got my reply to you email? Wasn't necessarily expecting a response, but didn't want you to think I had been ignoring it. As you can see from my contributions recently I have been really busy IRL, so haven't had much time in the last month or so for WP. Let me know if you didn't get it and I will resend. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Cabinet composition bar

Would it be appropriate to add a Ministerial roles composition bar as part of the infobox on Israeli political parties in the government? For situations like the Union of Right-wing Parties, it seems like it would make sense to convey that they have a certain amount of people in government that aren't MKs due to the Norwegian Law. ShimonChai (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@ShimonChai: Not a bad idea. Let's try it out when we get our first resignations under the law. Number 57 14:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

St. Neots Town Fc.

Hello, St. Neots town fc's template is outdated. as during the 18-19 season, they came in 20/22 place in the Southern Football League Premier Division Central League and next season they will be taking part in the Southern Football League Premier Division One Central League. Please Update it. Thanks. Ping me when updated or replied. IsraeliIdan (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: The season hasn't finished yet, and St Neots can still finish anywhere between 19th and 21st. When the season is over, {{English football updater}} will be updated to reflect each divisions' final standings. Number 57 11:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes but at least update the fact that they are in a different league. Or does every stat of the tracker reference the 17-18 season?
@Zvikorn: The infobox template shows them as currently being in the Southern League Premier Division Central (which they are), and that last year they finished 12th of 24 in the Southern League Premier Division (which they did). I don't understand the problem here. Also, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page. Number 57 11:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You are right. Thanks for answering. IsraeliIdan (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. Jeppiz (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tooting Bec F.C..jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me create a page?

Hey, I feel I could use your help in creating a page called Drew Binsky. If you see the page Nuseir Yassin he is also a traveler like him who is very well known. https://drewbinsky.com/ and his youtube channel are great sources. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Archive bot

I tried to add the archive bot to KGRAMR talk page for him but it hasn't archived anything yet, I know you've sorted it out on other pages before and thought maybe you could help. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: I can't see any issues, but I've copied across the format directly from mine in case there was something obvious missing. It might just be that the bot hasn't run since you added it, which was only earlier today. Looking at my talk page history, the bot seems to run at around 4am UK time, so maybe check again tomorrow? Number 57 19:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
k, cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hillel Kook

You are only restoring worse wording. Why twice continued? Can you prove the number of interviews before and after? Alexander Tendler (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

2001 Norwegian parliamentary election

Hi, which source says that County lists for the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2001 had 7,616 votes, and not 4,026? I think that the source you indicated, even if it's more recent, is based on unofficial results (obtained by the statistic institute at the time of the elections and they have never been reviewed), and, in any case, an official act, i.e. the Preparatory Credentials Committee's recommendation (Innstilling fra fullmaktskomiteen om fullmaktene), can't be "repealed" by a publication of a statistic insitute. And Inter-Parliamentary Union considers that source. --151 cp (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@151 cp: I've copied your comments to the article talk page and commented there. Best to keep the discussion in one place. Cheers, Number 57 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Moshe Unna

When Moshe Unna left the cabinet? In 2012 or 1912? Thanks for your answer. --Alexander Tendler (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Judging by the sentence in the article, I'd say 1958 (if date is stated twice in a sentence, there's no need to repeat the year the second time). Are you going to answer the question about commas? Number 57 20:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Number 57, You create useless warring conflicts. You have been warned by Jeppiz on 18 April 2019. --Alexander Tendler (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Deflection isn't answering the question. Number 57 08:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Reflection on manners is more important. The discussion is ended irrevocably. --Alexander Tendler (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Union of Right-Wing Parties

I think he changed the composition bar because of the Likud deal. ShimonChai (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@ShimonChai: I'm pretty sure it was vandalism as they edited a few articles and reduced Likud's seat number to 34 amongst other things. Number 57 12:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion to be had though - this was like a multi-team draft trade - and it involved Likud assigning Eli Ben-Dahan the 28th (turned into 27th due to resignation) place, who supposedly split off Jewish Home into the Ahi (political party) (in 2019 - a dormant party shell) than merged into the Likud. Ben-Dahan is expected (hasn't happened yet - formalities - but RSes reported this will happen when the deal was signed) to split off the Likud and re-join The Jewish Home (in United Right). Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
OK – if/once this move is formally recognised by the Knesset, then the numbers can be changed. However, the number of seats won in the election by each party will remain the same (only the current seat allocation will be different), and that was one thing that the editor in question was changing. Number 57 12:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

CCMCE Libya

Since you may be interested, if you understand some Arabic language rather than only the Arabic script: 2014 Libyan local elections lacks results - and should be interesting, because the removal of one third of the elected councils by the Libyan National Army ("eastern" de facto government) in 2016 would be useful to specify with names/towns/dates. 2019 Libyan local elections, run by the Central Commission of Municipal Council Elections, would also be interesting to develop with details. Boud (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Notts County Relegation

Hi, I edited the Notts County page after their relegation, and you reverted it saying "wait until the season is complete" but their season is over and they are down? 86.2.254.148 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The season isn't over, as there are still play-offs – you can't say they are participating in the National League as the 2018–19 National League season is still going. All the articles on clubs in a division should be updated at the same time. Number 57 19:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Korean elections

Hello! I had actually made the additions to the tables because I saw that the results tables for American elections always had the "votes needed" data at the bottom of the table, like this:

Electoral results
Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote(a), (b) Electoral
vote 		Running mate
Count Percentage Vice-presidential candidate Home state Electoral vote
Thomas Jefferson (incumbent) Democratic-Republican Virginia 104,110 72.8% 162 George Clinton New York 162
Charles C. Pinckney Federalist South Carolina 38,919 27.2% 14 Rufus King New York 14
Total 143,029 100% 176 176
Needed to win 89 89

or this:

Candidate Votes Percent
Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) Green tickY 220 51.17%
Kevin McCarthy (R–CA) 192 44.66%
Jim Jordan (R–OH) 5 1.16%
Cheri Bustos (D–IL) 4 0.93%
Tammy Duckworth[a] (D) 2 0.47%
Stacey Abrams[a] (D) 1 0.23%
Joe Biden[a] (D) 1 0.23%
Marcia Fudge (D–OH) 1 0.23%
Joe Kennedy III (D–MA) 1 0.23%
John Lewis (D–GA) 1 0.23%
Thomas Massie (R–KY) 1 0.23%
Stephanie Murphy (D–FL) 1 0.23%
Total votes: 430 100%
Votes necessary: 216 50.23%
  1. ^ a b c Not a member of the House at the time.

So I thought adding it for Korean elections as well would be actually more standard. If you do not think so, I am completely fine with leaving the table as is! Thank you for always helping me not make a mistake. Philip J Kim (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think as it's already mentioned in text directly above the table, and in the infobox, it's overkill to have it in the table as well. Cheers, Number 57 20:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
True.Philip J Kim (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Gadeer Mreeh

On 5 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gadeer Mreeh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that newly-elected parliamentarian Gadeer Mreeh will be the first Druze woman to serve as a member of the Israeli Knesset? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gadeer Mreeh), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yitzhak Kanev

The correct citation is p.97. Cf. Voltaire

Met Police

My bad. I misinterpreted the draw on Flash Scores. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Yorkshiresky: No problem. I made the same mistake for Warrington yesterday. This year's playoffs are a big mess... Number 57 19:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern Counties Football League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southern League (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) 09:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Commas discussion at MoS talk

I just now looked at the Oxford style manual you cited when opening the current commas discussion on the MoS talk page, and I find this manual unworthy of the deprecation it has received on the page since. I have noted its text:
Do not use a comma after a time-based adverbial phrase.
[...]
In 2010 the most popular game among children was hopscotch.
in conformance with the proscription I found in the other Oxford guide:
Avoid the use of a comma after an introductory adverb, adverbial phrase, or subordinate clause, unless the sentence will be hard to parse without it:
In 2000 the hospital took part in a trial involving alternative therapy for babies
I hope you're continuing to follow this discussion and will contribute to it, as opposition is needed to the attempt to have the comma favored by purported WP policy even in the absence of anything in the MoS about it. You and I feel the right of way should be given to those omitting the comma, rather than to those instrusively inserting it. The latter would be empowered by an uncontested policy implementation in favor of the unnessary comma. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of participating anymore now that SMcCandlish has started producing his usual walls of text. My question was simply whether it was appropriate for an editor to go on a spree where they did little else except inserting punctuation that was unnecessary or optional. As far as I can see from those who addressed the actual issue, it probably isn't appropriate behaviour. Number 57 17:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It isn't, but McCandlish nonetheless approved it. It's okay for you to stay out of it if you prefer – I wouldn't mind not being involved myself – but I hope you will still check for his reply to the two requests I presented to him currently at the end of the thread. If he claims consensus for his opinion (which he imaginably can do, given his belief in the unimpeachability of his reasoning, the lack of necessity of a vote or majority opinion, and two persons' having supported him with only myself opposing – and I'm a "disruptive editor" meriting sanctions), then he can start stating that the obligatory comma is Wikipedia policy or something akin to it, and those who place the comma may then always have priority over those who omit it. I'd like it to be clear that they don't, and that in fact it's the omission that should have the right of way. (This will not be a secret.) Another consideration might be that McCandlish has stated he doesn't want to discuss the matter anymore. If he were to act accordingly and "move on" as he said he was going to do, you might imaginably not have to deal with him. I suppose he'll nonetheless stay in the discussion, though he may try to stifle it and have it closed. Thanks again. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Editing

I will do minor edit the Togolese People's Movement and Union of Forces for Change‎ please don't revert them also sorry for undoing your edits it was a mistake

Editing

Can i at least change Election results to Electoral history

Editing

i recieved your messages i did not know it was forbidden to put links on headings i will fix it on my other edits when you read this please respond i need to ask some questions

Re: MOS

Hello! Re User talk:Jay D. Easy#Montenegrin football seasons. It's technically in MOS:DATERANGE, but to know that there's a sports exception you'd have had to read the closing statement in the 2016 RfC linked there. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Farsley Celtic F.C.

Protected for a week. GiantSnowman 09:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hashtag United part 3

"Not noteworthy. Please stop adding this again and again." why not IsraeliIdan (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Because the information is not really of any level of notability – many non-league clubs operate a Sunday league team (we've been through this before). It's also incredibly poorly written, and some of it ("During the 2019 offseason they are starting more academ trials.") appears to be an attempt to turn the article into a news feed. Number 57 23:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay at least include a sentance that they have one because its good info about the club. IsraeliIdan (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it's unnecessary and doesn't naturally fit anywhere in the article. Number 57 10:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Even if it does not fit (I think it goes in history) other big clubs do have acadmies. Hashtags one is part of the club. Also what a line about their sucesful e sports club. 11:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC) hello...? IsraeliIdan (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't fit in the history section. Hashtag are not a big club, nor is it special that they have an academy – plus I'm not really sure they have a real academy team – certainly not if they're not in a league of some kind. Number 57 23:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
first i agree they are not big but they are notable. Infact they played at old trafford and wemblet like 3 or 4 times. (un relavent tho) They do have an academy whi h tunrned into their sunday league team. It played in the next levelk football league and a sunday league which they won. Also they produced Scott Pollock. and now they are conducting more triaals. Also what about e sports?

you didnt answer me on my question (Hashtag United)

"Not noteworthy. Please stop adding this again and again." why not IsraeliIdan (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Because the information is not really of any level of notability – many non-league clubs operate a Sunday league team (we've been through this before). It's also incredibly poorly written, and some of it ("During the 2019 offseason they are starting more academ trials.") appears to be an attempt to turn the article into a news feed. Number 57 23:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay at least include a sentance that they have one because its good info about the club. IsraeliIdan (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it's unnecessary and doesn't naturally fit anywhere in the article. Number 57 10:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Even if it does not fit (I think it goes in history) other big clubs do have acadmies. Hashtags one is part of the club. Also what a line about their sucesful e sports club. 11:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC) hello...? IsraeliIdan (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't fit in the history section. Hashtag are not a big club, nor is it special that they have an academy – plus I'm not really sure they have a real academy team – certainly not if they're not in a league of some kind. Number 57 23:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
first, i agree they are not big but they are notable. In fact they played at old Trafford and Wembley like 3 or 4 times. (un relevant tho) They do have an academy which turned into their Sunday league team. It played in the next level football league and a Sunday league which they won. Also, they produced Scott Pollock. and now they are conducting more trials. Also what about e-sports? IsraeliIdan (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

references after a split

Hi! Thanks for your work on 2018 Lebanese general election. I just wanted to note that after you split out the article Candidates of the 2018 Lebanese general election several of the references were broken because the reference text ended up in the split article, but were still invoked in the original article. Info on how this works is here, let me know if you have questions. I'm fixing them but just keep an eye out when working with splits! Thanks again for your edits. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Phoebe: Sorry about that. I definitely remember doing the editing to replace all the links, so perhaps it didn't save my edit for whatever reason and I didn't notice. Thanks for starting to sorting it out though – I've done the rest, except the one that was broken before I split the article ("blocs"). I suspect this was meant to refer to the existing reference "2 Blocs Begin to Emerge ahead of Lebanese Parliamentary Elections", but Soman could confirm as it was probably added by them. Cheers, Number 57 18:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
excellent thanks! I had to quit to do something else yesterday before I finished. I did notice that the broken links don't show as broken on the initial view after you edit then save - they only show up after reloading the page after editing. Something odd/buggy about the template error code. Anyway, thanks for fixing! cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Next Indian general election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Next Indian general election 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/Next Indian general election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ST47 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:City of Cardiff Council elections has been nominated for discussion

Category:City of Cardiff Council elections, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sionk (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Meta color templates

I'm so tired of fiddling around with these under the current system. We have to make a separate template for every single party in every single different language Wikipedia. Why on earth don't we do this the following way:

  • Wikidata already has the property "sRGB color hex triplet" to store these (see e.g. d:Q9630)
  • We could make a single template that draws this from Wikidata
  • Without parameters set, it would draw the value for the article it's transcluded in (i.e. when used in Infobox political party and election results section in the party article)
  • With a Q number (or name or abbreviation if that works) parameter set, it would draw the value from that Wikidata entry (i.e. when used in election articles, legislature articles)
  • The template would be easy to import to those 48 Wikipedia editions that allow templates to draw data from Wikidata.

I think I've seen this idea mentioned somewhere, but I haven't seen any serious discussion or momentum, even though it's exactly the sort of thing that would be optimal for Wikidata. Thoughts? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Agree they are a pain and this sounds like a sensible idea. Perhaps suggest it at the Elections WikiProject and ask a template expert like Freitjes for advice on implementation? It would involve several templates having to be recoded to pick up Wikidata info rather than the templates. Number 57 16:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hashtag United Final

As you have not answered for five days I will be re-adding the information. IsraeliIdan (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: I've moved it to a new "Other teams" section. However, you need to provide some references for this.
Also, you somehow managed to copy an entire paragraph of text and add it to the article again without noticing in your latest edit. Please try and be more careful. Number 57 10:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

my hashtag united edits were correct and heres an explanation

The academy did become the Sunday league team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh5WEyQALgA&list=PL0HlIjXDx5ykwcCe0tXuyto4ZOLJmqS0N That is the first season playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UruG-bITf4 This is the Sunday league of this season. You can see that there are multiple players that have transferred over. What was once known as the academy which played in the next level football league doesn't exist. It was replaced by the Sunday League team which started playing in the 17-18 season. the last episode of that was in Jan 2018. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCno_OxtA1RcOfWjWjUPpfQg It had the same players (academy and Sunday s1) maybe it was not clear in the article. I will keep editing the article and trying to make it right. The sources did not contradict. I also need to expand the Esports which is a big part of the club. IsraeliIdan (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Alvechurch F.C. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Stamford Bridge
Laurie Abrahams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Alford

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi Number 57. Just notifying you of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bring back Daz Simpson: NPA and ASPERSIONS as a courtesy since I mentioned you by name in the thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

IP:62.74.25.34

Hello Number 57, You recently blocked the above IP, as a sockpuppet. However, they have immediately resurfaced as 62.103.223.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making exactly the same changes as previous, but calling the correct reversions "vandalism". It is obvious that this WP:LTA abuser does not want to give-up. Can I leave this with you please? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: Usually they only edit for a few hours from the same address, so I assume it's not worth blocking this one as they've stopped already (let me know if they reappear quickly). Also, you can report then at WP:BKFIP. I have to say though, their edits at Stanley Praimnath were a big improvement (the article's tone was completely inappropriate for Wikipedia), so not sure why they were reverted? Number 57 18:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Number_57/Archive_12&oldid=1211811112"