User talk:JackWilfred/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JackWilfred. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello, JackWilfred, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! JackWilfred (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

JackWilfred, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi JackWilfred! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Revert on parliament diagram

If the diagram I created isn't popularly accepted then that's fine I have no problem with that (when you are bold on wikipedia things usually get reverted). However, the last thing any wikipedian wants is to put a rather notable amount of work into something and then have it trashed with a snarky remark (i.e. eyesore). That kind of discourse is common in the world of politics but it's not necessary on a project where we volunteer our free time. --Shabidoo | Talk 14:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Incredibly sorry, I regretted that as soon as I submitted it, won't happen again. JackWilfred (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Nice colour box on Gib Parliament. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! JackWilfred (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Thank you, it's nice to know that you appreciate my work! --Slashme (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

David Cretney MHK

Hi. Thanks for adding the composition diagram to the House of Keys article, Jack. I've just spotted that according to the Manx Labour Party's facebook page David Cretney was elected chairman of the MLP yesterday -- so I guess that he is still a party member after all.. :) -- Picapica (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Kezia Dugdale MSP Scottish Parliament.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kezia Dugdale MSP Scottish Parliament.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Free images

Hey Jack - glad to see the uploads of free images to Wikipedia! Just a heads up that the Wikimedia Commons is Wikimedia's free image repository, hosting free images for all Wikimedia projects to share and use. If you'd like to upload a free image to Wikipedia, it's almost always best to upload it to the Commons instead (so that you may use it both on the English Wikipedia, and all other Wikimedia Projects). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JackWilfred. You have new messages at Slashme's talk page.
Message added 20:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Slashme (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Replied again - thanks for the bug report! --Slashme (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey

I was wondering how you made this image. Thanks, · | (talk - contributions) 17:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I made it with Slashme's Westminster Diagram tool. It is currently in beta, but you can find it by going to his Talk page. JackWilfred (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JackWilfred. You have new messages at Slashme's talk page.
Message added 20:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Slashme (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 UK General Election Results Page and 2010 Scotland Map

Hi there, I am in need some serious help on two fronts, it's regarding the Results breakdown of the United Kingdom general election, 2015 page, it's in a very bad way and is in desperate need of some TLC as well as much more information adding to it, please can you help and also ask your friends to make this a serious priority, if possible could the page be kept roughly in line to the 2010 page but instead of having the results on a county wide with regards to England I was wondering if it could be done on a regional basis as it would look a lot better and easier to follow also if we could have a look at this potentially for the 2010 pages well and even the 2005 page of the same than that would be a much much better way forward. Also whilst still on the graphics topic we need to modify this following map.

This as you can tell is the electoral map of Scotland for both the 2005 and 2010 UK General Elections however there is a major problem as it's been taken from another file and cropped and as a result you can't see the Outer Hebrides nor can you see Orkney and Shetland so please can that be corrected. Many Thanks (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, JackWilfred. You have new messages at Slashme's talk page.
Message added 22:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Slashme (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Party Colours

I have reverted your edits to party colours because there is no need or consensus to change them. They are fine as they are. Andreas11213 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The need is inconsistency. If you compare the election pages to other pages about Australian politics, you will see that most of them use different colours. By putting one template in another, like I have done, the colours will be the same across Wikipedia. JackWilfred (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

But you have completely changed the widely accepted colour of the parties. If you wish to make these changes, bring it up in the Politics Portal and gain consensus first, because to be perfectly honest, I don't have a clue what you are takling about. Andreas11213 (talk)

I'm not really sure where to seek consensus, so I have put a word in the Australian Politics WikiProject, I imagine editors with an interest in party colour templates will be there. JackWilfred (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir Jens Stoltenberg Jan 2011.jpg

Has been deleted as a duplicate of File:Prime Minister of Iceland & Prime Minister of Norway (5373101676).jpg. Had you uploaded at commons first, it would have told you at upload time. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I'll try to upload to the Commons in future. JackWilfred (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please Vote

I invite you to vote here for whether or not Ralph Nader should be included in the info-box, @JackWilfred:. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The Left (Germany) template color

Hi! Just to comment on your latest edit on Template:The Left (Germany)/meta/color:

First, your statement that "This red has been used for a long time in templates and such" seems wrong, seeing how the actual red used before change was #AA0000 and not the one you added, which was #800000 (which is nigh to brown, actually, not red).
Purple is indeed used to represent the party in German media, so another statement of yours ("purple is never really associated with the party") that is not correct. Check these: [1] [2], just for the latest German federal election, but it's widely used for state elections too. Also, maps and charts in Wikipedia do actually use purple/pink over dark red, indeed: File:Bundestagswahl2009 Zweitstimmen.svg, File:German Federal Election - Party list vote results by state - 2009.png, File:Germany Federal Election 2013 Map.svg.
Then, the only official "red" color for the party is just red (#FF0000, would be), not dark red. Dark red is, thus, not "more accurate". It would be as accurate as purple, with purple's advantage that it's more easily distinguishable from SPD's color in charts, maps and such. This would be the same case as CDU's color. It's not black (its official party color is orange, and maybe blue), but black is the one customarily used to represent it, as well as the most common. Impru20 (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
That "it would be a very large and unnecessary task to change it" doesn't seem a valid argument. Specially seeing how purple is the color actually used in charts, maps and such (as I've shown to you earlier in this comment). Wikipedia is a work in progress. Changes may be eventually done where needed, so that's not really that much of an issue.

Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. Firstly, I put #800000 by accident, I should have put #AA0000 as you pointed out. I still think dark red would be better, but you've convinced me on purple. I'll have a look over parliamentary diagrams and other things to see what needs changing. JackWilfred (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JackWilfred. You have new messages at Slashme's talk page.
Message added 15:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Slashme (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on 5% threshold

You may want to participate in this RfC regarding to the inclusion of candidates in election infoboxes. MB298 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Parliamentary diagrams

You're welcome. And thanks for explaining the cases of the reversions in Ireland and Turkey. I personally think that when the diagram shows the literal seat location it will be better for them to not use the arc but to use the shape of their plenary, like with the Westmister systems or like in the Congress of Mexico. Otherwise it get confusing, but is another matter. It could be a good idea still to have a separated diagram with the spectrum composition even if is not use in the actual article for educational purposes or to use in elections articles before they are seated. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jack, a question; don't you think the Westmister style diagram would be more fitting for the Irish Parliament? Is the system they use. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Is just me or is there a pattern on some diagram to place the far-right in the center? Third position as some call it, maybe? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

But how about Denmark? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Interference in Norway 2017 election articles.

I'd appreciate if you'd avoid changing party colors without providing any reason, and replacing an image file that is used across Wikis in several languages with an identical one, again with no explanation provided. If you want to make a uniform change to an image that is used on several articles and versions of Wikipedia, just update that image; don't post another one and replace the original manually. The original file that you just replaced has to be updated, as the final result gives the SP party 1 extra seat at the expense of the FRP. That update can be made easily if all the parliament diagrams are the same file, but if you've gone and put your own, identical and erroneous diagram in (and in only some articles), then there's confusion. — Μαρκος Δ 15:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't agree with anything you have pulled me up on here. I accept that I didn't provide a reason for updating the Norwegian Labour Party's colour, I reverted it back providing a reason, to which you disagreed with no basis and rudely demanded that I don't revert again. I ask that you go to the Labour Party's website, and use a colour picker on the logo, you'll find that the colour I updated it with is correct.

The reason why I didn't update your parliamentary diagram is because yours has, for some reason, been rastorised into a PNG file. Parliamentary diagrams should be SVG vector files. That's why I had to make a new one. If the diagram is incorrect, all you have to do is change it yourself, or, if you have some issue working with SVG files, ask me to change it.

In future I ask that you look closer before making changes, and think about the tone in which you're speaking to other editors. JackWilfred (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

On Labor's color code, you are wrong. I gave you a clear reason as to why your change was out of place: the code you insist on including does not match the actual logo as displayed in the article. They are, undeniably, two distinct colors. Notably though, all parties naturally print their logos in different color variations over time. Perhaps a different logo is displayed on their current website, than the one in the article. But unless Labor come up with a major logo update, we should stick with the version actually used here. And unilaterally changing party colors like you did, especially without any reasoning, is not okay.

On the matter on replacing the use of a PNG file with an SVG file, that's perfectly fine. A conflict would have been avoided, however, had you provided an edit summary. However, as my file has already been taken into use in other articles and WPs, I have to ask you since I don't know myself — is there no way to simply "update" my original file as your file? That is, to effectively convert the original PNG file into your SVG one, without actually having two separate files? That way, we avoid having two distinct files, and avoid further confusion.

Finally, I apologize for the rude tone; your contributions are of course as valid and valuable as any. — Μαρκος Δ 16:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Labour's logo and overall branding has been notably updated. The only reason I haven't changed the logo on Wikipedia myself is that on Labour's website the 'Arbeiderpartiet' isn't part of the logo image file, it's seperate text, and the logo itself isn't an SVG file, it's a path script. The next best option in my view is to keep the old logo (which I recognise has the same rose) but to change the colour template to #E01220, a colour which now features all over the website and on the website's logo. I am very rarely asked to seek consensus for template changes, as usually my edits are based on seeking accuracy, although I admit that an edit summary would have been helpful.

I apologise for not providing an edit summary. There is no way to edit files of one format and replace them with files of another format. I respectfully request that you request deletion for your PNG file, and use my SVG file instead.

Apology accepted. I totally get that people put some time into Wikipedia edits and are miffed to see it reverted or messed with. It's cool. I'll try to ensure I provide edit summaries in future to avoid misunderstandings. JackWilfred (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, then I understand your reasoning. And I have now nominated the PNG file for deletion. Thanks for the discussion, and your edits :) — Μαρκος Δ 17:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Help

Maybe you can help. I'm trying to update the 26th Parliament of Turkey file with this one which I think suits better as the file is suppose to show the seating (I personally think that, if the file is suppose to show the seating then instead of an arc is better to use a similar looking images of the parliament's plenarium) but no matter what I do it's always invisible. I don't know if is matter of size or a technical problem or what. The original is in svg of course, I ad this in jpg because in svg happened the same even as a new file. What do you think? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The file that I was trying to use was svg, that's the strange part. I fact the new version was uploaded and replace the current one but it could not be seen. That's the part of the issue that I don't get the reason. The other parts (color, background, etc) can be arrenge. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)