User talk:Number 57/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Number 57. 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 5

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sudanese general election, 2015

added a link pointing to National Congress Party

Vincent Péricard

added a link pointing to Kick It Out

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Name of the joint Arab list

The Arab joint list was named הרשימה המשותפת(The joint list) - both in Hebrew and in Arabic, and have registered as such. Here is the vedio from the actual event - when they are read by their name, while registering: [1] --82.166.116.68 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See also Hebrew wikipedia he:הרשימה המשותפת --82.166.116.68 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You may well be right, but the only news articles in English that I can see giving the name of the alliance are the Haaretz ones, in which it is stated that Wamab is the name. Until there are some English language sources stating what the name is, Wamab is the only option we have. I have no problem moving the article once that is the case. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I watched the Israeli Television yesterday and Ayman Odeh was saying that ומב (Wamab) are the letters on the ballot paper (and indeed he said that it means spark in Arabic). Letters chosen on the ballot paper in Israel are merely for identification and not the name of the party (for example labor has אמת "Emet", lit. truth on their ballot paper). This is different from their party's name (eventually, both the name and the chosen letters apear on the ballot paper). So this is why the your source was not updated, and you got confused. --82.166.116.68 (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am fully aware of what ballot letters are, so no need to patronise me. As I said, as soon as there is an English language source stating the name of the list, we can change it. Number 5 7 12:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Uruguayan general election, 2004

Hi Number 57. Sorry for the inconvenience. The numbers I typed are correct, I will cite the corresponding source. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Premature close

No.57, did you happen to notice in your close of Talk:Shady_Grove_Station#Requested_move_23_December_2014 that the move review that it was on hold for is still open, and that several of the "support" statements either supported lowercase explicitly or supported going with WP:USSTATION, the new guideline? Why not close the open MR instead, so we can move forward in a more orderly way, and take up the needed discussion of whether the word "Station" appearing on a sign makes it part of the official name of a station, overriding the official published station name list? Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Yes, I did see there was an MR, but all the support !votes still came in after you pointed that out, so clearly other editors didn't see it as being relevant. I can't see the MR overturning that specific RM anyway. Premature is a little harsh - they were the longest overdue RMs in the backlog. Cheers, Number 5 7 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ouch, I just noticed you did all the other ones, too. This is quite a mess. Please read the move review linked in all those: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December#Greenbelt_Station, which as concluded that we need to re-open the case question. At this point, however, you can't be the one to close the review. Rather, we should add your closes to it perhaps. Dicklyon (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a "mess" - consensus was fairly clear that the moves were supported. As intimated above, I have read the move review, and it has not concluded anything - it's still open, and looks like it will probably be closed in favour of the original move. Number 5 7 23:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The original closer suggested re-opening to decide the case question. This is what is needed. With your closes, there is more to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of Google Play Movies

Hello. You recent closure of the move request for Google Play Movies was premature. I was not watching the discussion and as a result, I could not reply to User:CookieMonster755's comment, which is obviously invalid. The number of Google Search results is not the appropriate the method to tell the popularity of a name. And of course, in this case, a search for Google Play Movies includes all the results one gets for Google Play Movies & TV!

This was supposed to be an obvious and non-controversial move. Google Play Movies & TV is the official as well as the most used name for the product. The following notable third-party sources that establish this claim: TechCrunch, The Next Web, and Lifehacker. The links to the app pages (Android, iOS, and Chrome) show the official name of the product.

The Google Play Movies & TV redirect (originally created to point to Google Play by User:Y2kcrazyjoker4) should be deleted and this page should be moved there. SD0001 (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not the one who closed the discussion. If you would like to start another one so more people can voice their opinion, than do so. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

@SD0001: No, it wasn't premature – the requested move was already in the backlog section as it had gone over seven days. If it was an obvious move, then there would have been support for it, but there wasn't. As there was one for and one against, there was clearly no consensus to move. If you are adamant that the move is correct, I suggest starting a discussion somewhere more likely to get interested partners involved (e.g. WP:WPGOOGLE), see if there is consensus, then start another RM after leaving it for a couple of months. Number 5 7 21:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Confused

I'm confused as to why you are contesting the result of the RM that you yourself closed in favour of scope expansion. It seems to be quite clear. The participants asked to broaden the scope of the article to all 2014 clashes in Odessa. I provided the information, the sources, and wrote the broadened article, as requested. It only makes sense for the 2 May incident to have its own sub-article, given its significance. I'm drafting the December 2014 article as we speak. I shall hopefully have it up-and-running by the end of the day. You did an excellent job assessing consensus in that discussion. I'm much obliged to you. RGloucester — ☎ 21:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not close the RM in favour of scope expansion, I closed it in favour of a move. You are simply gaming the system to try and get the article back to your preferred title. Number 5 7 21:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? You moved the article to the title "2014 Odessa clashes", referring to all 2014 clashes in Odessa. The old article was only about the 2 May clashes. I've now added in the January, February, March, and December clashes, in line with the new scope. This is exactly what was decided in the RM. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because the title was shortened from 2 May 2014 to 2014 doesn't mean the scope has changed. 2010 Peru bus crash is about a single bus crash on a single day – it doesn't need the exact date mentioning. Number 5 7 21:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The scope has changed. The article scope is determined by the article title. The present title refers to "clashes in 2014 in Odessa". The old title referred to "clashes in Odessa on 2 May 2014". There were many clashes in 2014, and I've documented them. There are more, in fact, that I've not got a chance to add yet. Likewise, your bus crash article is rather poor, as I'm sure there were many bus crashes in Peru in 2010. Sadly, I do not care about such articles, so I shan't be fixing them. I will, however, write as appropriate in areas that I'm interested in. RGloucester — ☎ 21:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Zombie

Please see the lastest Talk:Zombie. This move was not agreed upon, in fact the opposite was in favor leaning towards a complete merge. Thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a very clear consensus in favour of the move in the requested move discussion (which you didn't even bother to comment on, although even if you had, it wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome). However, as I noted in the closing summary, a consensus to merge was also developing, and as Flyer22 pointed out to you, this can still go ahead - the move doesn't prevent that. Number 5 7 08:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the reply. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for moving the page Something New (song) to Something New (Girls Aloud song)! You're a big help! Paul Badillo (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Shawn Christian

Shawn Christian IS British. According to Wiki: "British people, or Britons, archaically known as Britishers, are nationals or natives of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Crown Dependencies; and their descendants." As you can see on the British Overseas Territories Pitcairn Islands is a British Overseas Territory. JanderVK (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@JanderVK: He's not British in the sense that you can put him in that category, which is only intended for citizens/residents of the UK. By all means start a new category for Pitcairners (a significant proportion of the population will be in it!). Number 5 7 23:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Elections in Europe

I went through the list of articles you've created one by one and see if the book is listed in the references. You've created A LOT of articles in the last year and half! :D -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move closing pre-consensus

Please explain why you closed the move request for Walter White (Breaking Bad) when several good arguments in support of it were included, and no consensus has been reached in favor of not moving the page? Thank you. Chunk5Darth (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chunk5Darth: The consensus has to be in favour of the move for it to be made. If there is no consensus, the move does not happen. Number 5 7 09:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, several good arguments have been made in favor of moving the page, and all that was left was for someone to proclaim the word "consensus". Why did you decide that the voices against the move overwhelm those arguments? Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chunk5Darth: I didn't decide that "the voices against the move overwhelm those arguments". If I had, I would have said that the article was not moved because consensus was against it, but what I actually said that there was no consensus either way. As it was, both sides put forward equally strong arguments, and the result was a tie, hence no consensus to move. Number 5 7 12:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well... not exactly. Pretty much all the arguments against the move were well countered by reasoning as for why the move is justified. Therefore, as I said earlier, the closing is premature, as the consensus to move was nearly reached. Please reopen the discussion. Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chunk5Darth: I think we are reading different discussions then. If you don't like my close, you can take it to WP:MR. I see no point in continuing this discussion. Good luck! Number 5 7 22:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish locality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Settlement. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Afghanistan RM which was closed on 29 January 2015

Hello Number 57, I am here become I read the move review which stated that I should speak with yourself first regarding the RM. As you can see here[2] and here[3], there was no consensus and the RM seems to have involved canvassing. Clearly there was no consensus in this issue so please could you advise how to proceed. Regards Mbcap (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mbcap: There was a clear consensus – every single person who commented on the move supported it. As I said in the comments below, yes, there was evidence of !vote stacking, but not all contributors to the debate were canvassed, so even if the canvassed !votes would have been removed, the outcome was still 100% in support. Number 5 7 16:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply. If you remove the canvassed votes, it leave 3 comments in total. Now for an issue such as this which has supposedly been discussed by 23 people, it is not enough engagement to warrant a decision to move based on the comments of 3 editors. The link above also show how there is no clear consensus. Mbcap (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mbcap: Even if only three people commented, it was still 100% in support of the move. One person commenting afterwards that they weren't happy with it doesn't really carry much weight – certainly not enough to have the move reversed. I don't really see how the 23 people comment is relevant – apparently the vast majority of them were in favour of the move. Anyway, I don't really see the point in contesting the move until the merge discussion has run its course - if there is no consensus to merge the two articles, that means the 2001–14 article will have to stay where it is so it doesn't overlap with the 2015–present article. Number 5 7 16:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand and will wait till the merge discussion has run its course. Mbcap (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Names like Ganei Tal, Hof Aza

Hi, "Hof Aza" is Hebrew and has almost no recognition among English speakers. In fact that article doesn't even mention "Hof Aza" (though it could mention the regional council of that name). Simply for the sake of clarity, wouldn't Hof Aza, Gaza Strip be better? Zero^talk 07:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: The article should really mention Hof Aza (I've added it now). I was actually thinking about calling it "Ganei Tal, Gaza Strip", but the standard is to use regional council designations to disambiguate Israeli settlements (e.g. Matityahu, Mateh Binyamin, Migron, Mateh Binyamin, Neria, Mateh Binyamin, Hamra, Bik'at HaYarden etc, hence my choice of wording for these two. (BTW, I assume you meant "Ganei Tal, Gaza Strip"?). Number 5 7 11:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, thanks. Zero^talk 12:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Walter White (Breaking Bad)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Walter White (Breaking Bad). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Not sure if you saw this since the notification from step 3 got missed. PaleAqua (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Move review for War in Afghanistan (2001–14)

An editor has asked for a Move review of War in Afghanistan (2001–14). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Mbcap (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Star Wars (film)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Star Wars (film). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comorian legislative election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sima. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Wong (film presenter)

Hey, there is a consensus to use a full name; one chose "Bak", and other chose "Pak". Nevertheless, that shouldn't prevent using Chinglish name, right? --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: You are correct that there appears to be consensus to use the full name, but no apparent consensus over what that is! Number 5 7 23:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not pick one boldly instead of worrying about 'B' or 'P'? Or shall I move it now and disregard your results per WP:IAR? --George Ho (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: Because there is a difference between the two, and it's not clear which is correct. If you want to ignore the result of the RM, go ahead, but if anyone objects, it'll have to be reverted. Number 5 7 00:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't move it; I created Raymond Wong Bak-ming and Raymond Wong Pak-ming as redirects and then added templates. Can you do it for me please? You can use either "Pak" or "Bak". --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If not, can you just revert closure and then re-relist the discussion? --George Ho (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: I've relisted it again. Number 5 7 13:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you let someone else close the RM. You can vote if you please. --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Republic of China" -> "Taiwanese"

I'm not going to ask for a revert, but you really should have started a discussion before moving so many articles. wctaiwan (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Election project

COuld not keep my promise of "few weeks", but now it should be possible to continue! To make it easier for me to get into the topic again, could you sum up what kind of progresses you made during the almost two years, and where information is still lacking?--Antemister (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Antemister: Sorry, I missed your message somehow.... Difficult to say my progress - I guess you can see what I updated in this diff. I now have access to the British Library (and work nearby it), so can go in quite often. Perhaps we should prioritise certain countries, rather than try and do everything at once? If you want to suggest where to start, I can start reserving books (think I can do 3 or 5 at once).

At the moment I am trying to complete the African ones, but colonial elections are still a problem, especially the early ones (1946/7 and 1952) in French territories. Number 5 7 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ayman Odeh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balad. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1993 Cambodian elections

Hi buddy - noted you made a form of revert to the article. Just hope to clarify some stuff to avoid misunderstandings:

The format that I currently use is closer to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Text.E2.80.93source_integrity. If you take a look at the list of Featured Articles or Good Articles my citation style follows more closely with their format - as a seperate bibliography would make things tidier especially multiple pages are used. You may want to take a look at Sultanate of Singora as an example.
I thought of removing your source as the source that I am refering to also has the election results - my take is that it looks a little sad to quote just one point from one book, if another source has the identical results why not use that as well? That seems to show that utilization of resources is not optimal/maximal, in my opinion. Anyway, lets use the source from your book as the priority for now.

If you have more inputs that can contribute to the content of the article, I will be the most glad to work together :)

Mr Tan (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mr Tan: The link you use above doesn't support what you've done at all (perhaps you've linked to the wrong bit)? If anything, it shows my citation style is correct. Also (and more concerningly), I noticed you made a blind revert to the article, which is really not good practice. In this edit, you removed the registered voters/turnout line from the results table, and restored an incorrect format for it. Please be more careful in future. Number 5 7 17:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Number57. I want to ask you whether you can accept the inclusion of this section to List of Presidents of Israel? User Arminden added it today, so please inform him about your opinion at User talk:Arminden#Main biographical data. --Sundostund (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manuel Trajtenberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cordoba. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Party infoboxes

Hi, I hope you're doing well.'

Do you support what some editors have been doing which is to include "Two-state solution" under ideology in the infoboxes of certain Israeli parties? I don't deny that those parties support it, but I'm wondering if that's the right place for it.

Also, there was recent vandalism on Likud. Not sure if you or someone should give a warning. --Precision123 (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I would argue it's a policy rather than an ideology. Number 5 7 00:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Footy stuff

Thanks for undeleting Derek Foran. I'm amused that you were the original prodder. Can you undelete the talk page as well - or is there nothing of value.

Also I was looking at the recently created Danny Ward (footballer, born 1993). The edit history is a complete disaster, as it seems to have years of User:Danny 93 unrelated Sandbox edits which User:Dudek1337 moved into Mainspace; the approximately 100 edits before [4] are entirely unrelated and should be back in the sandbox. Also the previous 2 deleted (January 19 and February 22) versions haven't got their edit history restored. Is that something you can fix, or should I contact another admin or go to WT:FOOTY. Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Why are you amused? He was clearly not notable at the time, and it's taken him several years to actually make a professional appearance.

Re Danny Ward, it isn't that much of a mess – it's the entire history of what Danny 93 was doing in his sandbox. If the original history is restored then it really will be a mess. It depends what history is wanted - the current version's (i.e. Danny 93's) or the deleted versions. If the deleted ones are to be restored, it will mean deleting Danny 93's work. I think it's probably best left as it is to be honest. Number 5 7 17:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I meant in the ironic sense, that 6 years later it's the same person. No judgement meant! Just one of those things ... no question that the article shouldn't have been deleted at the time. At a minimum much of that edit history should be removed. Only the last 10 edits are related to this subject. The other 98 are related to a variety of different subjects, mostly the 2010 World Cup and Formula 1 racing! They should be back in that sandbox or permanently nuked. Hard to say what best action is, as I can't see the deleted versions. Nfitz (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You can nuke all that old crap I did from 5 years ago haha. You have my blessing. --Danny 93 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: I've deleted all the revisions until January this year, when the article actually changed to being about Ward. Number 5 7 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bezalel Smotrich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disengagement plan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Mandrake move

You recently participated in a move request discussion at Talk:Mandrake (plant). I have posted a follow-up request at Talk:Mandragora officinarum if you are interested in participating. — AjaxSmack 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Boston Town.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Boston Town.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eynesbury Rovers FC.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eynesbury Rovers FC.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Number 57. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:12, 3 April 2015 (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.

Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

User has moved article contrary your RM close

18:44, 4 April 2015‎ Erpert moved page Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress) to Taylor Hayes (actress)
09:26, 19 March 2015‎ Erpert moved page Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress) to Taylor Hayes (actress)
22:43, 15 March 2015‎ Erpert moved page Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress) to Taylor Hayes (actress)

You just closed a RM Talk:Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress) with no consensus, but it has been moved again. Additionally the same User:Erpert appears to be tag-teaming on the subject of removing "pornographic" which is the stable disambiguator in the Category:American female pornographic film actors with another user User:Scalhotrod at Talk:April O'Neil (pornographic actress) and has just made a non-admin close there which evidently fails the consensus criteria for a non-admin close. Additionally I note that there is a male actor of the same name in a minor role in a film article. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) To clarify, I am not tag-teaming with Scalhotrod (or anyone else, for that matter). The RM you are referring to was a suggestion from Scalhotrod to move Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress) to simply Taylor Hayes, which, if you noticed, I actually opposed. What I did do was move the article to Taylor Hayes (actress) because of the outcome of this similar discussion, which perhaps Number 57 didn't see. (I also don't see how the male actor Taylor Hayes even applies here, as he doesn't have an article.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I added more discussion on the Porn Project Talk page, I didn't know about any of this, but I'm fine with it based on the outcome of the Aja article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Number 57 I've put in a technical move to restore to RM result. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

AN

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "WP:PRECISE and pornographic film actresses". Thank you. (This thread is not a complaint against you; I'm just trying to straighten something out.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

UK local elections in London

Hi Number 57, do you know what the naming policy is for the election pages of the 3 royal boroughs in London. Cheers. Doc77can (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Doc77can: They should match the name of the article for the council, so Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council gives Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council election, XXXX. Thanks for creating those last three county templates by the way! Cheers, Number 5 7 17:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

UK Local Election Templates

Hi #57. For info, I think the only template that is missing is the one for Surrey. If you have the time, I'd appreciate if you could create it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts. Yes, it's on my to-do list, alongside Warwickshire and Tyne & Wear. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

PS - can I ask that when you create election categories, you also tag them with {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}? And also remember to add the main articles to them (e.g. Forest Heath District Council elections wasn't added to Category:Forest Heath District Council elections. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, will do - thanks for the heads-up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Doc77can has now created the remaining three templates. Number 5 7 17:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus presidential election, 2015

Hi, thanks for your effort in the restructuring of the table and the article there. The results last night were the preliminary results declared by the committee, and could be reached by clicking the brown box in the middle saying "19 Nisan 2015 Cumhurbaşkanlığı Seçim Sonuçları" (the results for districts can still only be reached from there through a zip file). Now, with some very minor corrections, they have been apparently moved to a proper page here, down where it says "İlanlar", in the word document titled "19 Nisan 2015 Cumhurbaşkanlığı Seçim Sonuçları". --GGT (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Scottish elections

I think fully-protecting would send out the wrong message, however I will add the matter to my watchlist to monitor as a neutral party, and I will invite those who have edited recently, and those who took part in the RFC you linked me to, to begin a new discussion on the template talk page. Giant Snowman 19:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A RFC/DRN or whatever is preferable then if you feel discussion has reached its natural end. Giant Snowman 19:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If it continues I will consider fully-protecting. As I've said I'm happy to act as 'peacemaker' on this matter. Giant Snowman 19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite everyone to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Israeli legislative election, 2015

I was having a disagreement with User:Jeppiz as to whether my added sentences violated WP:NOTNEWS . Kahlon saying he would decide "after all the votes are counted" is redundant. Coalition talks have been in play since March 25, and Netanyahu recently got an extension until May 6. The overwhelming reason a government wouldn't be formed by then and hasn't formed yet (disagreements with Kahlon) should also be noted.

These are the important facts to this entry and I hope that you can agree with me in talking sense into User:Jeppiz. Only conceivable violation of WP:NOTNEWS would be point 2, but given that "information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", more information regarding the coalition as they affect the outcome of the election would fall under that umbrella.

Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Election templates

Hi, I noticed you added full election results, replacing the template that is now unused. Then I noticed you did the same earlier for several election pages (e.g. [5]) for no reason whatsoever. Either there should be a template, which is then used, or there should be no template at all. The current situation you caused where there are unused templates and separate results on the articles is quite counter-productive to be fair. In the case of the Finnish election, I created a template because it appears to be common practice to have such templates. So please either revert your changes to the previous situation, or there should be wider community discussion on whether to have templates for results. Thank you, SPQRobin (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@SPQRobin: It's more common to simply have the results table as part of the article code, rather than have a separate template, which I think is unnecessary. Have a look at all the previous Finnish election articles – only the 2011 one uses a template.

With regards to the Singapore examples, look at the previous edit - an editor actually removed the long-standing results tables and put it into a template, which was completely pointless – I was simply restoring the status quo. This was not "no reason whatsoever".

Unused templates can be speedy deleted by the user who created them by request, but are also logged by certain bots and will eventually be deleted. Number 5 7 15:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I had not seen the previous edits, so I understand you were restoring the status quo. What I care about though is that we don't have hundreds of unused templates spread around Wikipedia. Of course they can be speedy deleted by the user who created them, but they will very unlikely do so unless asked. I'm not sure about the bots logging such templates. See for example the Finnish parliamentary election, 2003: there's a template for the results that has been there for years. So, unless the templates are actually being deleted, I would prefer the ones that exist to be used. SPQRobin (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@SPQRobin: Actually I was thinking about tagging all the orphaned ones for deletion, which I think would be a preferable outcome. Will make a start tomorrow. Number 5 7 20:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'd be fine with that. Thanks! SPQRobin (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Denston

Thank you for your edit on the article of Denston, Suffolk. I am still in the process of changing the page to become more informative about the parish and both its past and present statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithGE96 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

infobox

is there a way to set an infobox to align to the left?

User:GNEbandit User talk:GNEbandit 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GNEbandit: No, infoboxes are designed to go on the right. Number 5 7 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If i set it in a wiki table...that could go on the left? User:GNEbandit User talk:GNEbandit 22:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GNEbandit: It wouldn't be a good idea to put it on the left, as it would be in the wrong place. Infoboxes are meant to be on the right. Number 5 7 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok User:GNEbandit User talk:GNEbandit 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Malta elections

Why are you removing the Gozo 1973 referendum from the template? If the template is "for national votes only", why are local council elections included? --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Xwejnusgozo: The local elections are included as they happened nationally (i.e. across the whole country). Number 5 7 15:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No they don't. LC elections happen in a number of localities but not all at once, so that each locality will have an election once every three years. More details about this can be found here --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Xwejnusgozo: But they happen across the country, not just in one place. The same logic applies to {{United Kingdom elections}}. Number 5 7 16:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

OK then. I just wanted to add the Gozo referendum as it's the only one not included in the template.--Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Movement for Democracy and Progress (Comoros), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moroni. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cocos (Keeling) Islands status referendum, 1984

On 2 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cocos (Keeling) Islands status referendum, 1984, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cocos (Keeling) Islands status referendum, 1984. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Harrias ^talk 09:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Walknack

Hi, I'm Walknack. In Egyptian parliamentary election, 1976, I have taken the percentage with the calculator (295:360×100 = 81.9) and the voters (81.9% of 3,803,973 = 3,115,453). Fort the runner partis, I can correct it. Thanks for You caution. --Walknack (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Percentage

Hi again! Yes, I have calculated various political parties percentage. I will search for locate the parties' percentage. --Walknack (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

March Town United/March Town

I am going to contact the club via email and see if they are still called March Town United or renamed to simply March Town. For now, please revert my changes that state that it is called March Town for now. Good888 (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No reply from the club so far. Good888 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sport London e Benfica Cleanup?

Why have you decided to delete historical data from Sport London e Benfica and described it as a cleanup? All the information provided including finishing runners up etc. shows the club's history. Cleanup des not mean delete the information provided by myself, the club's secretary.

Your cleanup goes as far as to place an incorrect fact which states that the club left the league while at Hanwell Town. This is incorrect. If you read my update, the club was at Haringey Borough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.110.209 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I can be contacted on info@sportlondonebenficafc.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle1981 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Salisbury City Council election, 2009

Hello, Number 57. I notice that you have deleted this page on the grounds that you are "not sure that parish council elections are noteworthy". It would have been appreciated if you had notified me as the page's creator that you were proposing deleting it. I do not know of any principle that applies to Salisbury City Council, or its elections, which is different from the general notability guidance of WP:N. This election is adequately covered in reliable sources independent of the subject and I should be grateful if you would reinstate it and then propose its deletion as an Afd, if you feel that is justified. Moonraker (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Moonraker: I have restored the article, although it had no references beyond the council itself. Now at AfD. Number 5 7 13:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at that page, I have realized that you have also deleted Salisbury City Council election, 2013, which I don't believe is one I created. I see no need to add that to the AfD for the first page, as the issues are the same, but if the outcome on the 2009 page is "keep", then it would be appreciated if you would restore the 2013 one too. If you could perhaps remind me later, I can add some reliable sources for that election if they are lacking. Moonraker (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism revert

Hello Number 57, I didn't recognize that you were redoing the Ministry of Economy (Israel) article. I am sorry for my error.--Anonymoustofu (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Israeli legislative election, 2013

Hi, @Number 57: I am not sure what happened with the format problem. On my Galaxy 8 note I had red text layout problems with the edit in question. Right now I am on my PC and I agree it looks perfect with the edit added back. The Galaxy 8 is a runabout I use / leave at work so I can't comment on how it looks on that platform. Very odd as I have never seen the layout look off with this type of info before. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine today. Seriously strange ! FeatherPluma (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Partii Naleraq

Hi, i saw you rechange partii naleraq as "Centrist" party, but they are Far left party.
But i follow the politic in Greenland, apparently they are not. They support Planned economy and opposing Free market.
They are siding with Socialistic Inuit ataqatigiit party as oppossitions against Siumut, Demokraatit and Atassut. Otto Nathanielsen (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Otto Nathanielsen: The first sentence describing them as a centrist party is referenced. You should not be changing "centrist" to "far left" and leaving the same reference, as that is clearly incorrect. Either provide a source stating they are far left, or stop reverting. If you make the same change again, I will request that your account be blocked. Number 5 7 15:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks glad we got wikipedians like you who support peace on both sides

thanks glad we got wikipedians like you who support peace on both sides and not like this freaks who delete every facts that people say but i need to do me a favor in this http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Menachem_Begin and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Herut this freaks delete what i said only cuz it does not fit their opinions you can please block them or tell them you understand in this subject and they should stop please? they got really annoy me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.133.184 (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are the one inserting incorrect information into the Herut article (the date the party was dissolved). The other text you are adding is very poorly written and unencyclopedic, so they are perfectly within their rights to remove it. You need to discuss what you want to be added on the article talk pages. Number 5 7 20:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

fine than i glad you know hebrew take a look on the hebrew wikipedia of begin it is saying " המפלגה אימצה קו שנחשב אז ימני קיצוני, ובין היתר תבעה את החזרה מההסכמה לתוכנית החלוקה. סיסמתה תאמה את קו אצ"ל, "שתי גדות לירדן, זו שלנו זו גם כן"" http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%92%D7%99%D7%9F#.D7.9E.D7.A0.D7.94.D7.99.D7.92_.22.D7.97.D7.A8.D7.95.D7.AA.22_.D7.95.D7.A8.D7.90.D7.A9_.D7.94.D7.90.D7.95.D7.A4.D7.95.D7.96.D7.99.D7.A6.D7.99.D7.94 which is regulated like the wiki in english about begin you right but not about the herut. so please tell them to stop or block them i know you got a lot of power on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.121.88 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC) oh and i want you to report this user http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:RolandR ok he delete every thing that is not fit to his opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.121.88 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC) please please be a good man and report him for blocking please you seem like a good guy. or if you do not want to involved tell me how im report him he deleting facts by his opinion please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.140.114 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD discussions

To continue the discussion we were having from Salisbury City Council elections. I agree with you that sometimes it may be possible for an editor to be too close to a subject to have a clear enough perspective. (though I don't know anything about soccer to understand your example) On the whole I don't think this is too much of a problem if there are other editors able to add that perspective based on their own interest/experience with articles in that subject area. I assume that you also hold this view which is why you thoughtfully invited people like me from the UK politics project into the discussion. From my experience there are editors who come into AfD discussions by other routes, such as other AfD dicscussions. There are editors who seem to essentially join these discussions offering little more than some understanding of wikipedia policy guidelines. This seemed to be the case with MelanieN who clearly expressed things from a perspective demonstrating no particular understanding of the subject area. A quick research on the editor confirmed their areas of interest and recent activity. I will repeat again, the nationality of the editor should be irrelevant and if you believe that I infer the opposite, then there really isn't a lot more I can say. Graemp (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 17:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI

Mentioned you at ANI re: Herut. I'm probably misreading something, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I will be reporting you for edit warring with me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 13:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

James Shields

Hello Number 57. With this edit you show the result of the move as 'RESULT'. Probably you meant to say 'Moved.' Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks for letting me know. Now corrected. Cheers, Number 5 7 15:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Arab Voters

I don't understand why you deleted it. Archway (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Archwayh: Because something someone said during an election campaign is rarely, if ever, worthy of an article by itself. Number 5 7 21:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: At least can you add what President Obama said? Likewise, there's a necessity to the add the influence of the statement on the election results. Archway (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Archwayh: You're more than welcome to edit the election article yourself, but remember WP:UNDUE. The reason I left out the Obama statement was that it was far too large compared to the rest of the text. Also, you don't have to ping me on my own talk page! Number 5 7 18:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Salisbury City Council election, 2013

Following the outcome of the AfD for Salisbury City Council election, 2009, would you please now reinstate Salisbury City Council election, 2013? As previously discussed, the issues are the same. Moonraker (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Moonraker: Done. Number 5 7 21:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

MacBook

Thanks for your recent close at Talk:MacBook#Requested move 30 April 2015. Is it okay if I move the alternate approach subsection out of the archive box? Even though many of the !voters ( myself included ) disagreed with the proposed move, given the comments both at the talk for that page and Talk:MacBook (2015 version) it is likely that alternate compromise approach to deal with how the articles on the MacBook brand vs models is likely to reach a consensus. PaleAqua (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@PaleAqua: Sure, go for it. Number 5 7 21:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Clotilde, Princess of Venice and Piedmont

Hallo. You moved the article Clotilde, Princess of Venice and Piedmont to Clotilde Courau (February 2015), but didnt move the talk page. The talk page havent been edited since, so I ask you to move talk:Clotilde, Princess of Venice and Piedmont to talk:Clotilde Courau too. Christian75 (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Christian75: Thanks for letting me know, now sorted. Unfortunately when you move a page over another using magic admin powers, it doesn't highlight very obviously that the talk page hasn't moved too, so I have missed one or two of these in the past... Number 5 7 19:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it :-) Christian75 (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

British Guiana general election, 1906

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of British Guiana general election, 1906, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: British Guiana general election, 1911. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

San Francisco City FC

According to these articles from reputable sources; including one from the website of soccer's governing body in America, the US Soccer Federation; the San Francisco City FC vs Cal FC game was in the play-in round. Since they lost the play-in game, they never technically qualified for the tournament itself. http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2015/04/25/22/43/150425-usoc-play-in-round-games-recap http://www.centerlinesoccer.com/2015/4/25/8497959/us-open-cup-play-in-game-2015-san-francisco-city-fc-cal-fc-kezar-stadium-record-crowd There also isn't a play-in round listed as part of the tournament on the its page on the USSF site. http://www.ussoccer.com/lamar-hunt-us-open-cup Crusty4545 (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Crusty4545: Clubs that played in the qualifying round of national cups are still deemed notable. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Sports F.C.. Number 5 7 20:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet, teams that actually qualified like Stanislaus United, Madison Fire, NTX Raynados, ASC New Stars, Global Premier, Schwaben, etc. don't have pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusty4545 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Crusty4545: They can and probably will be created then. Number 5 7 20:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Stanislaus last qualified in 2012 and many of these teams qualified for the last few editions of the tournament. If no pages were created by now, I doubt anyone's gonna start. Just think it's unfair that a brand new team still playing their first season, in the same level as these teams, in the same league in the case of Stanislaus, has more reconigtion than teams that actually qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusty4545 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Crusty4545: You're more than welcome to create it yourself! Editors are still creating articles on early 20th century English clubs, so I don't see why it wouldn't happen with American ones. Number 5 7 10:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

... for moving Śramaṇa. Ogress _smash! 20:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Notablity of seasons articles for Conference National

I'm not an unreasonable person. I'm able to change my mind. And I'm willing to accept defeat. I'm quite willing to follow consensus (even if I disagree with it). My understanding is that you are saying that consensus was established in the four previous AFDs cited in the Hyde AfD rationale. These are 1, 2, 3, and 4. However both 3 and 4 are for Conference North teams, not Conference National. There were only 6 different editors supporting delete between the 2 Conference National AFDs - with 3 more chiming in at Hyde. However with a small number of editors, does this really reflect consensus? Most importantly, in none of those cases was WP:GNG explored. Beyond those AFDs, I can't find much discussion. I've seen several comments that we have consensus that seasons articles for the first 4 tiers are notable, but the 5th isn't. But where have we clearly established this. The last (and only) discussion I can find on that appears to conclude otherwise? Nfitz (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003-04 Aldershot Town F.C. season (note the comment that "per NSEASONS, current consensus is that only fully professional leagues are of a sufficiently high standard to warrant individual club season articles."). This consensus is further demonstrated by the following AfDs:

Number 5 7 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The comment in the Aldershot AFD (before the current league structure BTW) "per NSEASONS, current consensus is that only fully professional leagues are of a sufficiently high standard to warrant individual club season articles." isn't correct. That's not what WP:NSEASONS say. The words "fully professional" do not exist in WP:NSEASONS. What is actually says is (unless I'm missing something) " teams in top professional leagues". Conference National (or whatever they call it this week) teams are all professional. But what's a "top" team. Does that just mean the 1st tier - in which case then it doesn't include League 2, League 1, or even Championship. Or does it mean national, putting the line between tier 5 and tier 6? Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: The consensus is about the interpretation of the ambiguous WP:NSEASONS wording (i.e. that it applies only to FPLs). Number 5 7 19:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm ... is it? I'll have to ponder that; I see one or two people who keep say that - I also see fully professional noted elsewhere in the same article. Though that's not my prime concern. My prime concern is that Conference National teams get enough national coverage to generally (or at least many of them) achieve GNG - particularly those that bounce between League 2 and Conference National (perhaps less so those that bounce at the other end). Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

יהודה פרח

Would be nice if you asked me why I made the move before reverting it. I explained my change in the talk page, please add your remarks there. DGtal (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@DGtal: I could see why you moved it (you said in the edit summary). I disagreed, hence the move back. Number 5 7 22:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you undelete Kilian Elkinson

You were the last person to delete Kilian Elkinson, previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilian Elkinson. He got a cap last week in a friendly against Puerto Rico [6] recognized by FIFA [7]/ It looks like there's been 3 previous versions. If you undelete them all, I can try and piece something together out of them. I'd normally go to the person who closed the AFD, but they are currently semi-retired. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Done. Number 5 7 16:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - what a mess ... I'll try and clear it up later today. Is there anything worth salvaging in Talk:Kilian Elkinson - looks like it's been nuked thrice. Nfitz (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: The only comment on the deleted talk pages (except tags) is you stating "I can't find any evidence of this. Which game? I can only find caps for Upper Canada College." Number 5 7 16:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Given recent comments by someone who is counting my deleted edits, I wouldn't mind if that's restored! :) Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Done. By the way, I am shortly going to prod the remainder of the Conference season articles. I would appreciate it if you respected the consensus on these articles and didn't force yet another timewasting AfD. Number 5 7 16:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I only think you have consensus for this on articles where there isn't WP:GNG coverage. I'm convinced (as noted in my only other discussion today) that while some of those articles might not meet WP:GNG, many do - particularly teams that have significant history in the Football League. As such, I ask you to take them directly to AFD - or instead have a discussion in WP:FOOTY before proceeding. Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: No, a discussion at WP:FOOTY is unnecessary; we have had multiple AfDs (which I cited in the Hyde one) which have resulted in the deletion of articles; more AfDs are equally time wasters (one contributor to the Hyde AfD (who is not to my knowledge even a WP:FOOTY member) suggested the rest be speedy deleted under G4. Being frank, if this continues, I am seriously considering filing another request for a deprodding topic ban. You are obviously aware of the prevailing consensus on a number of football-related topics, yet still choose to force us down the AfD route on a far-too-regular basis with entirely predictable outcomes. Whether this happens is entirely dependent on whether you are willing to swallow some pride and stop wasting other people's time. So, I politely request that you concentrate your efforts more productively on building content on notable topics instead of fighting to keep what pretty much everyone else considers non-notable. Number 5 7 16:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm deeply concerned that long-standing articles with a lot of work behind them are being deleted, without considering the WP:GNG aspects, and in the last case, with no attempt to notify any of the stakeholders involved with the article - these aren't simply 24-hour articles about teenagers that don't say much, and haven't had hours of work. The waste-of-time aspect of deleting these articles are huge. I'd appreciate though if you point me to the WP:NSEASONS discussion on Conference National Seasons articles. The only (rather dated) discussion I can find is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Season article task force/Archive 1#Notability which seems to favour keeping Conference National articles. I'm happy to go along with consensus if it's been established - but other than some poorly attended AFD discussions that didn't touch GNG, I'm not seeing much. Let's work to establish consensus (which I will go along with), rather than rushing into this - this process has been underway for 2 years so far (I can't say I'd even noticed until the most recent one), so I don't think there's any particular rush. As for a topic ban ... that idea seemed to have gotten shot down very convincingly last time AND I've tried very hard to be very discerning with my prods since then - if anything my record is far better now, than it was during that last discussion - have I made some mistakes ... sure I have - but my work here has always been to improve and better the project, and I feel bullied, belittled, and intimidated by those that disagree with me, rather than people following WP:AGF and being respectful. Nfitz (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Firstly, the stakeholders of the article (i.e. WP:FOOTY members, which includes the article creator) were notified of the AfD, as it was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves.

Secondly, you should be aware that not all consensuses are the result of discussions at guideline or project pages; some develop as a result of multiple AfDs. We have several of these types of consensus, including the one that English clubs having played at level 10 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase are notable (something you yourself have used in AfD arguments). There have been multiple AfDs on this topic, and far from being "poorly attended", the number of comments on those AfDs surpass the likely response at the project page – the five AfDs (the Hyde one and the four cited in the AfD rationale) have a combined contribution from 20 editors. Consensus has been clearly established – you just need to accept it.

Thirdly, you don't seem to understand WP:AGF, as it is primarily aimed at (a) newcomers and (b) occasional mistakes. This is not a new issue – I first complained about your behaviour in 2008 – nor is it an occasional mistake. Any good faith that you may have been due was used up years ago. As I pointed out on Lankiveil's talk page, your very recent edits suggest that you come to Wikipedia solely to engage in deprodding and arguing at AfD. This trend was evident some time ago, but has now become pronounced to the extent that you are effectively an WP:SPA. You need to stop taking it personally – you are not being bullied, belittled, and intimidated; other editors are simply sick of you going against consensus again and again. Instead of bleating on about AGF, a more relevant consideration is WP:HOWTOLOSE, specifically Recognize when no means no. Your idea of what Wikipedia should be or do may be completely different from what the community believes. Sometimes "no" means "I don't understand", but more often, it means "we understand, and the answer is still no." If you're in the minority, recognize and remember this fact. Don't continue to press for your desires against clearly expressed community-wide consensus. Doing so will just make yourself look like a child who thinks, "No, you may not have a cookie" means "I must not have yelled 'COOKIE!' loud enough for my parents to hear me."

Lastly, I simply do not believe your claim that you are being more discerning with your prods; in May you removed prods from six footballer articles that were quite clearly WP:NFOOTY failures. If you are being discerning, why on earth would you do this? You are fully aware of what is generally considered notable and not, yet you clearly choose to ignore the general consensus. Number 5 7 17:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

1) I believe that major stakeholders includes those that have edited the article. I believe that excluding these are not notified then reliable consensus determinations will rarely be possible.

2) I have no problems accepting consensus. I'm just not seeing it on this issue. I fail to see how there has been a conensual conclusion that WP:GNG has been trumped. But more on that below. Let's discuss that simply without all this baggage.

3) I believe you are mistaken that WP:AGF is aimed primarily at newcomers and occasional mistakes. I believe it to be valid at all times, with all people. In fact, I believe it to be fundamental.

4) I make mistakes. One can make lots of mistakes and still be acting in good faith. What were these 6 clear prods from May? I assume your not counting BLPprods here, and just prods. I see 5 prods I removed in May for articles that still exist; and 5 more BLPprods I removed, which haven't been challenged otherwise. And I see a 6th prod I removed in late April for which I was still trying to fix the article in May - and hasn't been challenged. I guess one was probably Jorge Gotor Blas which was hardly a slam-dunk AFD. My only goal is to improve the quality and integrity of the project. Nfitz (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: The prods you removed in May were Dean Santangelo, Attila Osváth, Austin Lipman, Njabulo Zungu, Rory Gaffney and Peter Kelly (soccer). Four of these subsequently went to AfD, where you were the only person to argue to keep any of them. You also removed a prod from Uphill Castle F.C., which you are fully aware does not meet the accepted club guideline.

As for AGF, I suggest you read the guideline again; it mentions mistakes, newcomers and copyright. Everyone is deserving of good faith when they initially do something, even it is wrong. However, if they persist with inappropriate behaviour, the good faith is lost. This happened with yourself in 2008, so I am somewhat bemused that you believe you still deserve any GF despite repeatedly doing what people have repeatedly asked you not to do. Number 5 7 18:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to look at them. Though as far as Uphill Castle F.C. I didn't argue at AFD it met the club guideline; I argued it met WP:GNG - and then during the AFD discussion I admitted I had misunderstood the GNG requirements for notability from multiple sources and withdrew my keep vote.

As for AGF, I'm somewhat bewildered and disappointed that you would every consider that any fellow editor no longer deserves the assumption of GF. I've shown a capacity to learn and change what I do. I'm not sure repeatedly pointing to a mistake I may (or may not - I have little recollection to tell the truth) have made a decade ago helps further the project. I see no inappropriate behaviour - there is nothing inappropriate about removing a few prods (this was clearly established in the previous Admin complaint) - and I certainly don't remove most prods I encounter, only a small fraction - and even in the month you point out, 50% of those resulted in keeps, and I've admitted back in May that I erred on at least one of the others.

Quite simply, your fellow editors deserve the assumption of good faith long with respect and civility. If you do not share that belief, then that's a fundamental violation of WP:5P and you should review that. Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: But you have not "shown a capacity to learn and change what [you] do". You are still removing prods from articles on footballers and football clubs that do not meet the accepted notability guidelines. Number 5 7 19:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's only an opinion, not a fact. It's never going to be 100%, particularly when WP:GNG is the issue. Of the 6 prods you mention, I see that I argued GNG at the AFD for two of them - and one I retracted admitting my error. I have no recollection the basis of the prod removal of the other 4, and I didn't comment at AFD (which is unusual) - what were my edit comments, do you have the diffs - I don't even recognize Njabulo Zungu to be honest. Are you sure those weren't BLPprods ... which is a bit different, and would have been prodded again before going to AFD. So one honest mistake (which I admitted to at the time), and one differing opinion on GNG. I do have to admit it's odd I removed the PROD without commenting at AFD - it happens occasionally if while developing the AFD argument I realise an error in my thinking (perhaps I got the status of the league they played in wrong) - but 4 strikes me as odd too. Kelly rings a bell, but I don't remember the issue, and the others look vaugely familiar; I hope you are not counting OTHER edits I may have made - I'll certainly edit a prodded article, keeping the prod, if I see something that should be changed. Of course you have the advantage of being able to see data I can't - what's April and June like? Nfitz (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: It is a fact that you are removing prods from footballers that clearly fail WP:NFOOTY and clubs that clearly fail the generally agreed consensus; this is the root cause of the problem. In April you deprodded Cassandra Dimovski claiming (wrongly) that she had played in a W:FPL (the article was subsequently deleted at AfD) and Maxime Crépeau, who failed WP:NFOOTY at the time. In June so far you have deprodded one article that fails WP:NFOOTY and appears to be heading for deletion at AfD. Number 5 7 20:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I did mistakenly deprod Cassandra Dimovski on the grounds of WP:FPL - though presumably in March, as it went to AFD in March - I also recall apologizing to the person who prodded it on my misread of WP:FPL. While Maxime Crépeau did fail WP:NFOOTY he did meet WP:GNG which was the basis I deprodded him - he was getting significant national media coverage during Montreal Impact's goalkeeper crisis between the first and second leg's of the 2015 CONCACAF Champions League Finals; I worked to improve the article, and no one even disagreed enough to take it to AFD; I see nothing wrong with that prod! The one in June ... if something goes is deleted with 3 supporting delete, and 3 against ... then is removing the prod a bad thing; I've also noted my error in that debate, in that I'd assumed that the comments were from the director of soccer of both teams, while the second team has independence that I had not realised - and I was the one who identified that error ... it's not like I tried to let it slide. An occasional bad prod here and there doesn't seem that bad; there are editors you often concur with that seem to routinely start several bad prods in a month! I'd think making mistaking prodding articles in the first place, is far worse than making a mistake removing a prod! I see little in April or June then of complaint. I'm still unsure of the depth of the May complaints - and particularly curious as to what Njabulo Zungu was about. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: This is not "a bad prod here and there", otherwise I and other football editors would not be so frustrated by your behaviour. Number 5 7 22:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And yet in April through June there's clearly far more good prod removals than bad prod removals. I'm not sure this can even be defined as bad behaviour - if it was, on a bad behaviour scale of 10, it's perhaps a 1-2 - compared to WP:AGF, intimidation, and bullying, that's a 10. I'm still curious about Njabulo Zungu. What was my edit comment? Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Your good prod removals do not give you licence to also make ones where you know full well the subject does not meet the notability guidelines. If this had only happened once or twice then AGF would apply, but you have been persisting with this for seven years, so as I have repeatedly said, any GF was used up years ago. You are not being bullied or intimidated, you are just being asked to behave like the majority of other editors and stop wasting our time – what is so hard to understand about that? If you actually listened to other editors and stopped deprodding these types of articles, then no-one would have a problem with you. Re Zungu, you removed a BLPprod. Number 5 7 01:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never removed a prod where I feel that there wasn't a need for further discussion, if not clear evidence that the article was notable. And looking at the numbers you have from April to June - more often than not, I'm correct. I don't tend to remove BLPprods if I think they aren't notable - but I don't spend a lot of time worrying about that, if it's really easy to find a reference, and it appears they are notable. There's nothing stopping someone prodding them again - quite frankly, I don't understand why people BLPprod an article that should probably be prodded instead. AGF ALWAYS applies. If you've got to the point, you think that it no longer always applies to you, quite frankly, you shouldn't be here! Nfitz (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Firstly, you are still missing the point re AGF. It applies initially, but once the problem has been brought to someone's attention, then the good faith ends there if they continue that behaviour. Your apparent interpretation of the guideline is that AGF should be applied on an individual edit basis, and this is incorrect; if an editor makes repeated NPOV violations, they do not get AGF on an edit-by-edit basis – if they have been asked to stop making such edits and do not, then they eventually (one would hope) be sanctioned. The same goes for any number of misdemeanours on here. Or do you think JarlaxleArtemis is deserving of AGF every time he reappears?

Secondly, even if you were correct more often than not, it doesn't mean you are excused deprodding articles that you are fully aware fail to meet the notability guidelines. GNG is always your excuse, yet you must be aware that very few (if any) other editors share your opinion on what GNG is – I refer you again to WP:HOWTOLOSE. Number 5 7 18:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never not once prodded an article that I didn't feel met notability guidelines. I may have made the occasional mischievous edit in the political realm (though none recently, and none of substance), but you are are wearing blinders here, and simply assuming someone that doesn't agree with you on a content issue, is not acting in good faith. From April through June I see at least 10 BLPprods I removed, and there's only 1 in question; surely that improves the project. In the same time there's about 13 prod removals I see, of which 8 articles remain - and a couple of major mistakes I admitted at the time. So this comes down to 3 (in the community's eyes) bad prods in 3 months? And that's even assuming that removing a prod is a policy violation - many would argue that by definition it can't be. If I was removing a signficant percentage of football prods, I could see an issue. An examination of the alert log, shows clearly that I don't. An examination of the same log, actually starts to raise questions of who prods so many articles that are never deleted. I don't see that there needs to be any further discussion on this. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Where do you get "3 bad prods in 3 months"? You have removed ten prods from articles that were subsequently deleted in the last three months. Please stop making excuses and attempting to downplay things. Number 5 7 19:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You listed 8 previously. One was a BLPprod, where I provided a reference; that hardly counts. Two I admitted my error at the time and apologized. One never event went to AFD. That leaves ... okay, 4 bad prods; though you can see the data, I can't. I'm also probably missing some good ones, as I sometimes don't put PROD in the edit comment (which I should do). Hardly worth this WikiDrama. Enough already. Nfitz (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Then just stop doing it! Number 5 7 19:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop making mistakes - yeah, it's on my bucket list. :) Stop thinking independently and trying to improve things by asking questions (like should we really delete this?) ... resistance is futile - we shall all be assimilated. Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: It's not mistakes though. You know full well what the generally-accepted notability criteria are, so simply stop removing prods from articles that fail to meet them. It's hardly rocket science. Number 5 7 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Basically you are calling me a liar. We are done here. Nfitz (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Restavek

Good move. Do you mind repairing the double redirects [8] from "Restavec" to the current version and update the spelling on the page? Thanks. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Savvyjack23: There are no double redirects (a bot fixes them on the day of the move). I didn't change the spelling in the article as I assumed the requested mover would sort all that stuff out. However, have now done. Cheers, Number 5 7 07:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Shoot my apologies. I thought you had proposed the move. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary

Please remain civil and not add obscenities to edit summaries as you did here and also this could be seen as a personal attack. Please assume good faith. Thank You for your time. TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Please actually look at what you are reverting rather than making blind reverts. If you did so, other editors would not feel the need to ask if you were taking the piss. Number 5 7 11:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

founded (on)

Regarding your edit of Meimad, here are some Google search results numbers:

"founded june" site:nytimes.com: 12 results, of which 4 are of the form "founded June dd, yyyy"
"founded on june" site:nytimes.com: 7 results, of which 7 are of the form "founded on June dd, yyyy"
"founded june" site:latimes.com: 21 results, of which 11 are of the form "founded June dd, yyyy"
"founded on june" site:latimes.com: 10 results, of which 10 are of the form "founded on June dd, yyyy"

So I don't think it's wrong to say "the Meimad movement was founded 1 June 1988 ..." —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: It must be an Americanism I am unfamiliar with (in British English prose it is wrong; compare Guardian hits for Founded June (three hits, all in bullet points) with "Founded 1" (seven hits)). But still, you shouldn't be changing from one version to another anyway. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Google search results:

"founded 1 June": about 105,000 results

Most of these results are not sentences with "founded 1 June YYYY", but many are, including some very British examples.

Wikipedia's article on Neue Rheinische Zeitung: The Neue Rheinische Zeitung: Organ der Demokratie ("New Rhenish Newspaper: Organ of Democracy") was founded 1 June 1848 in Cologne (Köln), part of Rhineland.
Michael D. Sheimo; Andreas Loizou. International Encyclopedia of the Stock Market, Volume 1. p. 116. The Securities Exchange of Barbados was founded 1 June 1987.
"Bearskin Group". Linkedin. Bearskin LTD was founded 1 June 2013, in Birmingham UK.
"About RYS". Royal Yacht Squadron. The Yacht Club, as it was first known, was founded 1 June 1815 at the Thatched House Tavern in London.
"Parishes: Northwood". British History Online. Founded 1 June 1815 at the Thatched House, St. James' Street, and two meetings were held annually, one in the spring at the Thatched House, the other at the Medina Hotel, East Cowes.
"Renewable Energy in and Independent Scotland" (PDF). Maclay Murray & Spens LLP. Founded 1 June 2012

So I still don't think it's wrong to say "the Meimad movement was founded 1 June 1988 ..." in any variety of English. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Well done for finding some obscure examples. If you had actually bothered reading all of them instead of just picking random Google hits, you'd see that not all of them back up your claim;

In the British History Online example, the text is in a footnote, not prose
In the Renewable Energy report the text is in a bullet point, not prose.

Of the other four, one is another Wikipedia article (I have no idea why this is proof, especially when it's on a German subject and appears to have been largely written by an editor from Oregon), and the other is a LinkedIn profile that contains several other grammatical errors, which suggests a certain level of desperation to prove the point.

But anyway, rather than hitting Google again, the thing to take away from this conversation is that you shouldn't be changing this sort of thing. Thanks, Number 5 7 21:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You wrote, "It must be an Americanism I am unfamiliar with (in British English prose it is wrong ...)." I have shown that it is not an Americanism and that your lack of familiarity says nothing about its widespread correct use in British English prose. Also, footnotes and bullet points, even if not complete sentences, suggest what sentence grammar allows. If "on" were truly required in founded date expressions, I would expect to see the preposition in footnotes and bullet points. That's all I have to say on this matter. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: If you don't think text is written differently in bullet points, then I am clearly wasting my time here. My final comment is simply that when I was teaching English I would have marked this as incorrect grammar, and as an occasional copyeditor, I would amend it, as it's not correct in standard British English prose (of course, that doesn't stop some people mangling the language, as your LinkedIn example shows on many levels). The final word is yours, if you insist in having it. Good night. Number 5 7 22:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Makhar

You created Makhar on 8 July 2007‎ as a redirect to Democratic Choice. The current Democratic Choice dates to 1 April 2013 and is a disambiguation page. I suspect you want Makhar to redirect to Democratic Choice (Israel), but it's not obvious why, as that word does not appear in that article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind; I see Democratic Choice (Israel) talks about Mahar, so I'll fix Makhar. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @Anomalocaris: As you've now realised, "Makhar" was the transliteration of the original name of the Democratic Choice party; in the article it appears as "Mahar", which is an alternative transliteration (the "h" here is somewhere between a voiceless uvular fricative and a voiceless pharyngeal fricative, which is sometimes transliterated as "kh", but it was later agreed at WP:HEBREW that it would appear as "h" on Wikipedia). Number 5 7 08:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Malaysian election template

Please don't reverse the changes in the Malaysian election templates. The full template contains all the necessary information needed to find the information. Lazybugger13 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: we are not following the examples of other countries elections as agreed upon in the talk pages of the Sarawak state election, 2011.Lazybugger13 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You still need to get consensus from other editors who are editing Malaysian political articles and templates before you institute commonality for all political templates.Lazybugger13 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The display of election results are one part of the discussion, as we want to make Malaysian election articles and templates different from those of other countries.Lazybugger13 (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore I am not talking about ownership issues, I am talking about the originality of Malaysian election articles and templates. You can edit templates of other countries election articles as you like, but please get consensus before you delete the extra info in the template. Lazybugger13 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for getting back to you later than I want to. I've been busy at work and still am not satisfied with your explanation in regards to the changes in the Malaysian election template. Like I said that conformity with other election templates with other countries are not suitable for Malaysia election articles. We have different state elections from previous years, states like Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore which it would be easier to have these links in the main template. We also have links for various by-elections for state and parliamentary level elections which would be easier for people to access. I would like to gain some consensus in issue, otherwise I feel I would not want to use the current Malaysian election template in its current form which has no proper links to local and state elections. I would just create a new template for elections that have taken place after 2000 and discard this current template. Thank you and I hope we can reach an amicable solution to this.Lazybugger13 (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ease of usage or accessibility is not simply a link at the bottom of a template. Malaysia is not Italy, so that example is not applicable. It would be better to have the links for the various states elections and by-elections in the main template. The template in its current condition has too many broken links. Tell me how are you going to fix this? It would be better to discard this template and use a different template if no consensus is reached. Lazybugger13 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You still have not addressed the issue of ease of usage and accessibility(link at the bottom of the template), which means you want to retain this template in its current form. The editors in the past have created links for the Sarawak state elections in 2011 and there were state elections running concurrently with the general elections in 2008, 2013. There are results pages for the parliamentary elections and state elections as well. So the current template I said should be scrapped otherwise even if I provide you the links that you asked. And there are no articles at the moment for local elections, so this conformity thing (with other countries' election templates) which you are supporting is not applicable. Lazybugger13 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You already have started the changes but these are not state elections running concurrently with the general elections. Eg. Sarawak state election, 2011, Sarawak_state_election,_2006. There should be sections for Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore (which once was part of Malaysia) There should be disambiguation or separate sections.Malaysian state elections, 2013 - And you made changes to the title without consulting anyone else, its not State but States. Please stop! These are results, there are no summaries or campaign topics. Lazybugger13 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a results page not the state elections themselves. Malaysian state elections, 2013 - the title is misleading and the title should be change back to State election results of the Malaysian general election, 2013. Thank you.Lazybugger13 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

How are people going to differentiate 2008, 2011 and 2013 state elections in the template? Better to break it into sections - General, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. Stop trying to bandaid this growing mess. Lazybugger13 (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

- So since you say its a fork then it would be better to put sections up and the title name should be changed. Don't you see that you made a mistake here, plain and simple. Lazybugger13 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't you see that the only excuses you make are examples of other countries elections templates? It doesn't work here and there is no ease of usage or accessibility. You made a mistake.Lazybugger13 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Your just covering up the mistakes you have made. I don't need to create a main article just because you have just changed a title's name. I think I will just create a new template and discard the current one. You don't want to admit that you have made a mistake here, but keep on harping on conformity with other countries' election templates.Lazybugger13 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to remove the template, just to let you know. I am going to create a new one and placing it in the all election articles since 2000. The title names which you changed will be reverted since you did not get any consensus on the name change. Lazybugger13 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Evemahmoud. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Malayan state elections, 1959, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Evemahmoud (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Malaysian state elections

Thank you for your editing. Reply to your question, I hope that this link would be useful for you - http://www2.pmo.gov.my/election/ Alexander Iskandar (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot really understand the content in Malay language, you may use Google Translate if necessary. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Alexander Iskandar. Nice to meet you, Number 57. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

From the editor: The Signpost tagging initiative

Op-ed: Content Translation beta is coming to the English Wikipedia

Special report: Small impact of the large Google Translation Project on Telugu Wikipedia

Featured content: One eye when begun, two when it's done

Recent research: How Wikipedia built governance capability; readability of plastic surgery articles

Technology report: 2015 MediaWiki architecture focus and Multimedia roadmap announced

News and notes: Board of Trustees propose bylaw amendments

In the media: Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing

Blog: 7,473 volumes at 700 pages each: meet Print Wikipedia

Arbitration report: Politics by other means: The American politics 2 arbitration

External links citations

Thank you for drawing my attention to WP:ELCITE. Like many other editors, I sometimes use citation templates in External links sections, always omitting the access date, as called for by this style guide. I will remember that "a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more important than the actual title of the page." Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: No problem, I just thought it looked rather strange when it was in the cite format (particularly having a full stop after the link). Despite our obvious disagreements on certain other matters, I do appreciate the work you are doing on cleaning up the articles. Number 5 7 18:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it. Figured I'd been here long enough that it was about time I gave it a shot. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Problem with a member

I saw this member Qed237. He changes boards beacuse of what he thinks and hears which is absurd. I showed actual facts from the FIFA site about Serbia not being listed two times champions beacuse at the time in 1987 it was Yugoslavia and not Serbia who won the title. His arguments are that according to him (In football it is widely considered that Serbia is replacing Yugoslavia) without giving any source to it. He is basically using his own views as sources i mean come on.... I saw that you are an admin and that you have faced absurd problems with same person as well. Is there any possibility to report him or has wikipedia stoop so low? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borovine (talk • contribs) 23:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Borovine: As you can see in the introduction of the Serbia national football team article, both FIFA and UEFA consider the Serbian team to be the successor to the Yugoslav team (and this is sourced). Although I agree that this edit by Qed237 was inappropriate at the time of the edit (West Germany and the Soviet Union are also listed rather than Germany and Russia), the fact that Serbia has since won the title means that it is probably now appropriate for them to be listed as such. Number 5 7 10:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Development and Peace (political party)

From where did you get the author name and date for the citation in Development and Peace (political party): Jonathan Edelstein (5 January 2003). "Bring back Flatto-Sharon".? —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: The author/date were on the article when it was on its original website (http://headheeb.blogmosis.com), which is now offline (you can see it on the Waybackwhen archive here. Whoever copied it onto the http://www.flattosharon.co.il site does not appear to have stated the source. Number 5 7 10:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to link to the archive source or another source that preserves the author and date, rather than this one, which doesn't.—Anomalocaris (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Yes, that's fine. I hadn't thought about checking Waybackwhen when I fixed the link, and it's probably better to show it in its original location. Number 5 7 16:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: I've put in the original link now. One thing I have wondered about you converting all the stuff to {{cite}} is that you are adding the current date as the "Retrieved" date, even when they were added to the article years ago. Is this correct? Number 5 7 16:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

template:cite web, template:cite news, template:cite journal, and template:cite book all say

access-date: Full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires url; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations.... Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book, but should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites (these can change from time to time, even if they are also published in a physical medium). Note that access-date is the date that the URL was checked to not just be working, but to support the assertion being cited (which the current version of the page may not do). Can be hidden or styled by registered editors. Alias: accessdate.

and that access-date / accessdate is "The full date when the original URL was accessed."

Until now, I thought the primary purpose of this parameter is to say to the user, "on this date, the URL went to a working page, not a 404, a home page redirect, or other failure page." Therefore, whenever I update url, I also update accessdate or set it if it is missing. I haven't been verifying that the content supports the article text. However, I haven't been adding or changing accessdate when I set up archiveurl, because I've never until just now known if accessdate is supposed to relate to url or archiveurl.

Now that I know that accessdate is supposed to be the date that the content was verified to support the text in the article ... this is going to slow editing down a lot. I don't think it is proper to have an accessdate that relates to a URL that isn't displayed at all. For example, if a fr.jpost.com URL is updated to a www.jpost.com URL, the old accessdate is a lie, because the currently-displayed URL didn't even work on accessdate. So now, I suppose, every time I fix a fr.jpost.com url, I have to check the article to verify it supports the text in the article. I am not happy about this. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Perhaps the answer is just not to complete it? Number 5 7 17:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if I update url and there was no accessdate it would save time to continue to omit accessdate. But if I update url and there was an accessdate it seems wrong to leave the accessdate unchanged, because it falsely implies to naive users that the displayed URL actually worked on the displayed Retrieved date; it seems wrong to remove it; and that means I have to read the article, see that it supports the text, and if so update accessdate; otherwise insert {{not in citation}}. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 8#accessdate when url changes. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have started a related discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 8#accessdate and named references used multiple times. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

News and notes: Training the Trainers; VP of Engineering leaves WMF

In the media: EU freedom of panorama; Nehru outrage; BBC apology

WikiProject report: Able to make a stand

Featured content: Viva V.E.R.D.I.

Traffic report: We're Baaaaack

Technology report: Technical updates and improvements

Blog: These Texans are on a quest to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of their state’s revolution

Visit from an old friend?

I just checked other languages, and there has been no activity in other languages since the last round. (There are some articles where our friend made the last change, no one has reverted, and there it sits—but I'm not prepared to challenge policy on such matters in wiki communities where I don't speak the language. There are also a couple of places where others decided to go in that direction themselves. Whatever.) If you see a second stab at it, will you put in a checkuser? StevenJ81 (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

RM at Odia people

Hello. I think the move should have been towards "Odias". Both the supporters explicitly supported move to "Odias". Khestwol (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A Barn Star For You!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for defending my articles that were put up for deletion. Not only that but you're tireless contribution to players in the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup! Wikipedia and I thank you! Da Drewster 03:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Political parties used with singular or plural pronouns and verbs

You are not adding clarity in your reversions of edits that are adding clarity and consistency in use of pronouns in articles on Israeli political parties. If you persist, there will be discussions on talk pages and we have seen how these go. Cheers!—Anomalocaris (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: As you have been told, there is no requirement for consistency in British English, so I will be persisting. If there are further discussions, they should be done without requests for the input of editors you know agree with you. Number 5 7 17:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Editorial: So you want to get your message out. Where do you turn?

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation annual plan released, news in brief

In the media: Wikimania warning; Wikipedia "mystery" easily solved

Traffic report: The Empire lobs back

Featured content: Pyrénées, Playmates, parliament and a prison...

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Polish presidential election, 2015‎

Hi Number 57! The edit war will probably never stop unless it is somehow acknowledged in the article that even though Komorowski officially ran as an independent candidate − having renounced his PO (Civic Platform) membership before being sworn in for his first term − he did have official PO support during the campaign.(Source) It can be as simple as writing "Bronisław Komorowski (independent, supported by PO)". Do you think this can be done? Is there a way for the templates used in the article to handle this? — Kpalion^(talk) 14:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kpalion: I don't think the infobox is the place for that. Perhaps it would be better to amend the lead from:

In the first round of voting opposition candidate Andrzej Duda received the greatest number of votes with a share of 34.76%, followed by incumbent President Bronisław Komorowski (with 33.77%) and independent Paweł Kukiz (with 20.80%).

to:

In the first round of voting Law and Justice candidate Andrzej Duda received the greatest number of votes, followed by incumbent President Bronisław Komorowski, who ran as an independent with the support of the Civic Platform, which he had renounced his membership of after winning the 2010 elections.

I was also thinking of requesting long-term semi-protection of the page, or starting an SPI into the IP and the editor who repeatedly made the same change. Cheers, Number 5 7 14:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've made the the change as you suggested. Let's hope this will make everybody happy now. I'd suggest to wait and see if this solution works before making any more drastic moves like semiprotection or user blocking. After all, the IP user did have a point, as probably in most voters' eyes Komorowski's link to PO was obvious and he wasn't treated as a really independent candidate. Thanks for your help! — Kpalion^(talk) 15:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Gold Belly

Hi, I was just looking at the source. It says they were called "Gold Bellies" or "Golden Belly". Why didn't it say just "Gold Belly"? The list is all singular except "Gold Bellies". (I'm just concerned that another editor will pull the hook over sourcing.) Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I don't know; in the plural they are known as Gold Bellies, I guess it's just not well written. Anyway, I have replaced the reference with this and this, both of which use the singular. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Montserratian general election, 1970

On 14 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Montserratian general election, 1970, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1970 general elections in Montserrat saw Percival Austin Bramble's Progressive Democratic Party defeat the ruling Montserrat Labour Party, led by his father William Henry Bramble? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Montserratian general election, 1970. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Massey Ferguson 35

On 15 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Massey Ferguson 35, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the original version of the Massey Ferguson 35 released in the UK was known as the "Gold Belly" due to its distinctive colour scheme? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Massey Ferguson 35. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Legislative Council (Nyasaland)

added a link pointing to Zomba

List of Speakers of the National Assembly of Malawi

added a link pointing to Presiding officer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Op-ed: On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it

Traffic report: Belles of the ball

WikiProject report: What happens when a country is no longer a country?

In the media: Shapps requests WMUK data; professor's plagiarism demotion

Blog: Wikimedia Foundation releases third transparency report

News and notes: The Wikimedia Conference and Wikimania

Featured content: When angels and daemons interrupt the vicious and intemperate

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 324 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

. Buster Seven Talk 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: Thanks! Although this does make me wonder whether I need to get a life... Number 5 7 21:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Republic of China elections

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have reverted your multiple movings of pages related to elections in Republic of China (Taiwan) because of the uncertain and controversial political status of Taiwan, and the use of “Republic of China” conforms to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). While I understand why you moved those pages, the elections are officially titled with “Republic of China” (Chinese: 中華民國總統、副總統選舉) (and it is named so in the Chinese Wikipedia), had electoral districts from areas that are not considered as part of “Taiwan” by virtually anyone, and a Taiwanese election may easily mean an election for Province of Taiwan, Republic of China. If you feel this move is inappropriate, and there is a consensus that articles pertaining to politics in this region should change to use the name “Taiwan”, please start a discussion on relevant talk pages and move after reaching a consensus.

In cases where there had already been a community discussion about renaming the page and the proposal was already rejected, I would suggest to start another move proposal first.

As per WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums, the article title should use “Demonym type election, date (subdivision)”, instead of the Wikipedia article name pertaining to the specific country. Alex Mattrick | ゆうせい 04:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alexlur: It seems you haven't actually read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) because it makes no comment whatsoever about the naming of Taiwan/Republic of China. Number 5 7 07:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: It did mention Administrative divisions of the Republic of China, if you wish not to use Ctrl-F. Can you also point to the part of WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums on which your move is based on? Alex Mattrick | ゆうせい 11:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alexlur: The bit you refer to is for listing "established translations" of administrative divisions. It says nothing about the naming of Taiwan-related articles.

The relevant part of WP:NC-GAL is the first bit (and the one you have quoted above)., i.e. "Demonym type election/referendum, date". The demonym for Taiwan (as stated in the infobox on that page) is Taiwanese. Number 5 7 11:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57:Thanks for the input, pal. Now you mention it, do you it should fall in line with United Kingdom general elections and United States presidential elections? As for demonym, I would think the infobox failed to mention that the demonym is also much part of a controversy. While I wouldn’t use occassional exceptions, I think a discussion is very much needed for a mass move of pages. Alex Mattrick | ゆうせい

@Alexlur: I'm not interested in petty nationalistic disputes. If the main article is at Taiwan, sub-articles should follow that lead (just like Burmese election articles reflect the fact that the article is at Burma and not Myanmar (they were moved after the main article was moved). If someone has a problem with "Taiwan" being used in article titles, the place to get that fixed is the main article, not sub-articles. If you want to follow the UK or US example, it would just mean moving the article to "Taiwan general election, 2016", which would just be a bit silly really. Number 5 7 11:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: I would surely refrain from calling these disputes petty, and I am not sure if there is an official policy that sub-articles must follow that lead, especially considering that Province of Taiwan, ROC has their elections and government as well, and is officially titled as such. As always, my point is that a mass page move requires a discussion, especially considering that those moves had controversies before. Can we at least open a discussion first before moving so many pages at the same time? Alex Mattrick | ゆうせい

Requested move AZ Alkmaar

Hi, there is a move request at Talk:AZ Alkmaar#Requested move 21 July 2015 that you might be interested in. Qed237 (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Football?

Could you please take a look at Avi Rikan? Something very strange is happening with that bio; he is constantly changing clubs. (I´m afraid I know nothing about football, I have it "watched" because a "certain friend" of mine (Grapw) typically changes "West Bank" to "Israel"....) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Unfortunately this is fairly common during the close season - tranfer speculation is rife on messageboards and in tabloid newspapers. If editors add every transfer they hear about via these means, it does often end up in a mess... Number 5 7 08:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for protecting the article. And yeah; I thought it was a bit strange; having half a dozen transfers in a day ;P, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Lancashire elections

Re {{Lancashire elections}}, if articles have the wrong names, the solution is to rename the articles. It's not difficult. Until they have been renamed, breaking links to the articles is pointless. -- Dr Greg talk 21:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, I got that completely wrong. Feel free to delete both my comments from this page if you wish. -- Dr Greg talk 22:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colin Cameron (Malawian politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zomba. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

From the editor: Change the world

News and notes: Wikimanía 2016; Lightbreather ArbCom case

Wikimanía report: Wikimanía 2015 report, part 1, the plenaries

In the media: Novelists annotate Wikipedia; Wales promotes TPO; Working for free

Traffic report: The Nerds, They Are A-Changin'

WikiProject report: Some more politics

Featured content: The sleep of reason produces monsters

Gallery: "One small step..."

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Thank you

Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Thank you for the message in Qed237 conversation, sometimes I need help in my articles, because my English is not perfect, I improve English wikipedia by transleting or from romanian / spanish sources, so if you are interested in football you can also improve. thank you ! Go go England. p.s. My plan is to move in Great Britan also.Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:1932 establishments in Saint Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla

Category:1932 establishments in Saint Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Tim! (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jimmy O. Yang

You didn't check the past RM? There wasn't a support on the renaming. --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Close of America move discussion

Hello, Number 57.

Can you please elaborate on the rationale for your decision in closing Talk:America (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 July 2015 as a consensus to move?

How can the move be decided based on a convincing argument as the reason, rather than policy or a formed consensus among participants in the discussion?
How have you weighted the established consensus in all the previous move discussions during the years?
What is the evidence presented by the editors supporting the move, and how does it compare to the evidence against?
What is your opinion regarding the argument that 20% of users of the redirect will have to load 1Gb of content that they don't need?
How did you take into account the enduring notability and educational value of the term America for the landmass, which is comparable to that of the country, and similar to the situation of other articles which don't have primary topics?

Thank you for your time in addressing the multiple arguments that were presented in the discussion and were the basis of your decision. Diego (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: To answer your bullet points

Convincing argument is what creates consensus – see WP:CONSENSUS, which states "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."
I didn't give any weight to previous discussions as WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE.
The evidence was in the statements made by the supporters of the argument. Some things are so patently obvious that they do not need a detailed list of Google scholar results to "prove" they are true. In addition, I did not see any strong evidence from the opposers that the proposed move was unjustified.
That's not a good reason to avoid a move (and just looks like someone is desperately trying to find a reason to justify a position)
As was pointed out several times in the discussion "the Americas" is how the landmass is more commonly known

Number 5 7 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, those reasons don't fully reflect the arguments made in the discussion.

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE is not a reason to ignore the previous arguments for the current consensus. Both Cambalachero and me included the argument that nothing has changed from the previous move requests in the current discussion, so that's an argument that you should have weighted in. Nobody disputed the previously made arguments, so they should have been addressed.
"Some things are so patently obvious" is an argument that runs directly against the Not "what first comes to (your) mind" part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ("Because many topics on Wikipedia are more interesting or pertinent to particular groups, one potential criterion to be avoided is what "first comes to mind""). An argument which contradicts a guideline can't be the basis to overturn a years-long consensus. Coming first to mind does not preclude primary topic, but having one should be determined by an agreement by editors that such commonality is present (to the point of "much more likely than any other topic" required by the guideline), and that no other criterion is relevant.

In order to achieve such consensus, the evidence for primacy of usage should have been based on some kind of systemic review of reliable sources, which no one provided. Moreover, such analysis was provided *against* the move, showing that what appears obvious in common use is not that clear-cut in academic, educational and historical settings; an analysis that remained uncontested by the supporters of the move. Did you not see the articles that use "America" as the target of European discovery and colonization, or is it that you don't consider academic papers and historical published books reliable to establish usage?

The argument of degraded navigation for a signification portion of readers is a call to improve Wikipedia for its users regardless of what written rules say, and thus policy-based. It was just one more reason in the pile of policy-based opposition, not a "desperate attempt" - it was never presented as the core reason to avoid the move, just some small additional reason why the move is detrimental to the project.
The argument that "the Americas is how the landmass is more commonly known" is true (I even accepted it as such), but the discussion has addressed (also repeatedly) why it doesn't justify the move with several different opposing arguments grounded on policy. Did you not give any weight at all to those parts of the discussion?
You still have not addressed the argument presented by several editors regarding the educational value of both competing terms, or the fact that the guideline requires a primary topic to have substantially greater enduring notability and than any other topic, which no one agree had been shown in the discussion. Can you elaborate on that part? Diego (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: I'm sorry you feel that my response doen't "fully reflect the arguments made in the discussion". I feel that it does and as an experienced closer of long-overdue RMs, I saw this one as fairly clear-cut. Regarding the "argument presented by several editors regarding the educational value" or "substantially greater enduring notability", you were the only editor to mention either of these, and I wasn't convinced of its relevance given the overwhelming common usage of the term. You are clearly annoyed that the move has succeeded, but I'm afraid you are not going to change my mind. If you are that unhappy, I suggest you go to WP:MR. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought you said the number of editors which hold a minority view was not a factor in consensus? ;-)

I can accept a close against my position when the arguments stated in the discussion are addressed with objective reasons rather than ignored or simply denied. What pisses me off is not the result, but rather that I saw this as a clear non-consensus - based on the fact that the only argument for the move is a subjective assertion of superiority which never before had been accepted to justify the change, in a discussion where the supporters had argued a particularly poor case with respect to the assessment by external reliable sources (which should always be a touchstone of any decission, per the WP:V and WP:NPOV pillars) - as none of their supporting evidence addressed the academic and historic setting that was the core of the opposition (together with the high number of users looking for the alternate topic, which made the first topic not "much more likely" to be sought).

I'm not trying to change your mind, that has never worked in the history of admins closing discussions. I'm trying that you explain your position regarding all the mayor arguments presented in the move request, with support from policy and guidelines rather than subjective opinion, so that your rationales can be addressed at such MR. As an admin you're expected to justify your actions made under administrative role, that's why I must insist that you explain your position with respect to the arguments we made in the discussion of why the "obvious superiority" of America as the US, if presented without a solid rationale behind it, is irrelevant with respect to the actual benchmark encoded in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Diego (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: My reading of the debate is that there was a solid rationale behind the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument made in favour of the move by the majority of editors. This is my justification. Number 5 7 22:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So, your rationale is based on WP:VOTEs, and you won't address the arguments presented against such rationale? Diego (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: No, that's not what I said, and I have already addressed the issue of the evidence of the opposers. If you're going to start using straw man arguments, then I think this conversation is over. Cheerio. Number 5 7 22:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Majority of editors" is precisely what you said. The only thing you've stated regarding opposing evidence is "I did not see any strong evidence"; you've not provided an explanation to my question if you didn't see the reliable sources provided, or if it's you didn't consider them strong. Diego (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a chance that you will provide your assessment of each argument that opposed the reasons stated in support of the move, and how you weighted them in their relation to the previous consenus established by policy and previous move requests, so that we can review your close of the discussion? Diego (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No. I think I've made my reasoning for the close fairly clear (despite your attempt to deliberately misinterpret what I said). I also won't have computer access for the next month or so, so would have difficulty conpiling a thorough response. Number 5 7 14:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

News and notes: BARC de-adminship proposal; Wikimania recordings debate

Op-ed: My life as an autistic Wikipedian

Recent research: Wikipedia and collective intelligence; how Wikipedia is tweeted

In the media: Is Wikipedia a battleground in the culture wars?

Featured content: Even mammoths get the Blues

Traffic report: Namaste again, Reddit

DYK for Elections in Guyana

On 31 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elections in Guyana, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in elections in Guyana, the nominee of the party that receives the most votes becomes President, even if the opposition win more seats (as happened in 2011)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elections in Guyana. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Editorial: Wikipedia better equipped to deal with systemic bias than traditional publishers

Op-ed: Je ne suis pas Google

News and notes: VisualEditor, endowment, science, and news in brief

WikiProject report: Meet the boilerplate makers

In the media: Probe into Nehru edits launched; dangers of the right to be forgotten

Traffic report: Mrityorma amritam gamaya...

Featured content: Maya, Michigan, Medici, Médée, and Moul n'ga

Blog: Get help editing Wikipedia with the new “Co-op” mentorship program

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

2014-15 Guernsey F.C. season

You have deleted the above page.

Please explain why this was done ?

A query on this and two other pages were raised and I responded with several reasons why the pages should be allowed to remain.

I have no idea why a previous page of the same name was created and delete last year

I received compliments from monitors on the quality of these pages.........

I have not heard why anyone believes why these pages should not exist beyond the fact the team must be notable.... well in the country of Guernsey.... Guernsey FC is very notable.... and I have outlined several points in this area. You do not delete Gibraltar, Luxembourg, or other smaller country football teams.

You permit amateur as well as professionals.... so that is not a reason to delete it.

I await your response.

regards

@Mwiki3101: The article was deleted as there was a discussion on it last year, and it was decided that it was not notable. There is a general agreement that season articles for clubs playing outside of fully-professional leagues are not notable and should be deleted. Similar examples should not exist for Luxembourgian or Gibraltan clubs, so if you could point out where they are, I can also nominate them for deletion. Thanks, Number 5 7 04:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

News and notes: Superprotect, one year later; a contentious RfA

In the media: Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj

Forum: Community voices on paid editing

Wikimanía report: Wikimanía 2015, part 2, a community event

Traffic report: Fighting from top to bottom

Featured content: Fused lizards, giant mice, and Scottish demons

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Blog: The Hunt for Tirpitz

Demonym of Myanmar

Thanks for moving sub-articles of Myanmar. It would be great if you discussed in Talk:Myanmar#Demonym of Myanmar before mass move. I've stopped moving Burmese to Myanmar/Myanma yesterday and asked other editors' opinion. Thank you. PhyoWP *click 11:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Regavim source

Hi man,

What do you think about the Regavim source. Right now, only the Palestinian narrative is present. Reading RS I believe it can fall under "Biased or opinionated sources" which requires attribution but otherwise can be present. Settleman (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Op-ed: WP:THREATENING2MEN: The English Wikipedia's misogynist infopolitics and the hegemony of the asshole consensus

In the media: Politically controversial science; "Wikipedia hates women"

Featured content: Dead parrots, live frogs, a symbolic kiss and what do we get? Enrique Iglesias!

Travelogue: Seeing is believing

Traffic report: Straight Outta Connecticut

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Blog: How Wikipedia responds to breaking news

new page

Could you take a look at this page and maybe help improve it? [9] (Lilic (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)).

@Lilic: I have merged the content to Next Serbian parliamentary election, which was already in existence. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Erm, the page did not exist - rather it was a redirecting page. I guess it's okay, though I personally think that it's more accurate/better to write the 11th elections, because indeed they are the 11th. Meanwhile after they pass, what happens after that? Does the same page get recycled over and over? To avoid this recycling over and over I thought it would be best to just call them 11th. Then again, I am not sure what the policy is regarding such issues... I have seen pages with both sorts of names. (Lilic (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)).

@Lilic: As soon as a date is set, the title will be changed to "Serbian parliamentary election, 201X". We have a naming convention for such articles, which you can see at WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. Titles such as "Eleventh" are best avoided (I believe Canadian articles are the only ones that ignore this and do their own thing - unfortunately editors from a handful of countries think their own particular one is in need of special treatment). Cheers, Number 5 7 21:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I am in Canada, so I guess my first intuition was to do as the Canadians do. ^^

One more question... I had a lot of sources in the initial article which I started... you removed them... could you bring them back? (Lilic (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)).

@Lilic: You can access the old version of the article that I merged here. Not sure which extra sources you need though? Not all the ones you added to the opinion polls needed to be there (it's common practice to link them as they are in the current article - see e.g. Greek legislative election, September 2015). Cheers, Number 5 7 21:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Green Party (Slovakia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Party of the Democratic Left. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

In focus: An increase in active Wikipedia editors

In the media: Russia temporarily blocks Wikipedia

Op-ed: Wikimania—can volunteers organize conferences?

News and notes: Re-imagining grants

Featured content: Out to stud, please call later

Arbitration report: Reinforcing Arbitration

Recent research: OpenSym 2015 report

Burkinabé move close

Re your RM close at Talk:Burkinabé. Every single editor support some move from the current title. Can you just use your wisdom and the power of your office and pick one of the two options or either leave the discussion open for another admin to close? Thanks. — 21:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: I don't think it can be closed either way at the moment, hence the no consensus. However, I have relisted it again. Number 5 7 09:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems that since your relisting, enough editors have endorsed one of the two options. Are you interested in revisiting it? — AjaxSmack 15:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Num. 57,

Thank you very much for helping me edit Tamar's page. I have just started editing on Wikipedia and I hope to edit the pages of more female Knesset members. I noticed that you deleted various paragraphs pertaining to Zandberg actual work in the city council and Knesset. I was wondering why you consider that puffery? As a frequent Wikipedia user, I think that such information is what I would look for in an entry on a politician.

Thanks and best, Dez Daphiez (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Comoros

Regarding this discussion: was it your intention to follow-up on this and nominate the other subcategories of Category:Comoros? Right now the majority still use "of/in Comoros". One format or the other should be used, not a mix of both. And right now the guidelines still say to use "of/in Comoros" for category names. If they all change to "of/in the Comoros", the guideline could be changed quite easily. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory: Yes, it was – as it took so long to be closed (and was done whilst I was on holiday), I missed it. I will nominate the remainder this evening. I'll also change the guideline, as it's wrong as it stands. Cheers for the reminder. Number 5 7 08:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.5.221 (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Eshhar

Hi, thanks for improving the flow and format of this page after I expanded it, as well as updating the population data. However I want to understand why you removed some of the detail such as the Eshchar scout group, which is an important feature integral to the ideology of the place, as well as the reference to the official website which supported what I wrote? I have made some limited revisions and would be interested in your view. On a separate issue there is maybe a discussion to be had about the name as rendered in English. The spelling "Eshhar" is used on Google maps but hardly anywhere else in reality. "Eshchar" (which redirects to the page when entered into the Wiki search) is used by the village itself, on road signs, although not by the CBS. The side panel gives it as the "official" spelling, although I am not sure what is the source for that. That is why I added it as an alternative spelling. Lastly, I didn't change the un-referenced claim that the members of the garin came from Chicago in particular, but I do not believe it is right. Few of the original group remain and, from talking to the remaining "veterans" it doesn't appear to be the case. I have put a question on the talk page to see if we can either reference or correct this. --Mlevitt1 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mlevitt1: I removed some of the content as it appears to be written as if the Wikipedia article were the village's own website (I'm guessing you either are a resident or connected with the place?) – it's not encyclopedic to say something like "Today it continues to be a heterogeneous community of religious and secular Jews from all backgrounds committed to mutual respect and acceptance."

The name is in line with WP:HEBREW guidance on translitering Hebrew. Some Israeli English spellings are often non-phonetic or simply nonsensical (e.g. Petach Tiqwa), so they are not really given much attention (note that the official and alternative spellings are in the infobox at Petah Tikva, but only the WP:HEBREW-compliant spelling is used in the introduction). However, you're correct to note that it shouldn't be listed as an official spelling in the infobox, so I have changed that.

Regarding the Chicago information is from the Hebrew Wikipedia, where I translated the article from. You could try asking on the talk page there too.

Also, when you reference something, please don't do it to a general web address (as you did with the facilities section) – you need to do it to the specific page that contains that information. Cheers, Number 5 7 09:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very helpful. However I still do not understand why you removed some of the detail about the Eshchar scout group, which is an important feature integral to the ideology of the place, as much so (and for the same reasons) as the attempt to set up the mixed religious-secular school. Is it for lack of a reference? None of the other information is referenced apart from the school. I understand your point about "unencyclopedic language" - I am trying to find a way to express that it was not just a (potentially failed) initial ambition to establish Eshhar for the purpose of religious and secular living together in harmony, it continues to be heterogeneous. As I live there, I can tell you that is the case, but it is hard to reference, other than from the Eshhar website. Is this not enough? Mlevitt1 (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mlevitt1: The issue here is notability - I don't believe a scout group is notable enough to be mentioned in an article. I was a member of the scout groups in the villages near where I grew up, and would definitely not consider it appropriate to include detail about them in the relevant articles. Regarding the living together thing, the sentence "The aim was to create a community in which religious and secular could live together." is really all that's needed - even that stands out as being a bit much. Number 5 7 11:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I come from the UK and even in the 1970s when I was a kid, scouts were a minority interest, so I see where you are coming from. But in Israel it is very notable. Youth movements in the Jewish world, both inside and outside Israel, have historically been of huge importance, and continue to be so, and together with compulsory army service have a huge impact on the youth and thus on the country and its communities: many of the villages (though not Eshhar) were established by youth groups. Particularly in small communities, from kibbutzim and moshavim to community settlements and co-operatives like Eshhar, but also in cities, youth movements play a huge role, and there is a huge variety available in terms of ideology, religiosity, politics etc. There are some 60,000 Jewish and over 25,000 Arab scouts in 160 troupes, and that's just the scout movement. A good article is at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/Youth.html - maybe there should be a Wiki article about it (maybe there is, didn't have chance to check). The fact that Eshchar, having first established its own unaffiliated youth group, chose to affiliate to the nonpartisan Scout movement, only the second group in the country to bring together religious and secular in one troupe, reflecting the ideology of the village. Have I convinced you it is probably more deserving of mention than the facilities?! This therefore connects both to the issue of the mixed school, and the ideology which established the village. These are live matters, and the legal structure of the village ensures that they are kept so (if residents wish it) - as with any other community settlement. See the introduction of the WP Community settlement (Israel), which makes clear that the whole purpose of these settlements is ideology - they are unlike any English town or village. Unless Wikipedia is simply a geography resource, there is no point to an entry for such a settlement unless it concentrates on the ideology, as no-one can buy property here unless they sign up to it! Therefore again, I believe it is of interest to the reader to know whether the original ideology pertains to this day, or has been abandoned. Can we agree a wording to this effect? Perhaps changing the sentence "The aim was to create a community in which religious and secular could live together" to read "The aim, which continues today, was to create a community in which religious and secular could live together?" Mlevitt1 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mlevitt1: Sorry, I'm not convinced re the scouts issue (I lived in Israel for a few years, and it seemed of similar importance to the UK from what I saw; 85,000 is only around 1% of the population, which is less than the combined membership of the Scout Association and Girl Guides in the UK – roughly 1.6% – and of course this excludes Boys/Girls Brigades etc). There is also already an article at Israel Boy and Girl Scouts Federation.

However, I have reworded the article in line with your suggestion. Number 5 7 15:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewording. Regarding scouts, I'm not sure that % of the whole population (as opposed to youth) is meaningful, but assuming this was the parameter for both the UK and Israeli percentages you quote then fair enough! But this is not about scouts per se but youth movements, of which there are many. It is about the highly important role that youth movements play in Israeli society (you must be aware of this if you lived here), along with the choice that different communities make as to which they offer which reflects their ideology. It isn't about numbers, but even so, if Scouts alone attracts 1% then we can assume that by the time you add in just the popular movements like Bnei Akiva (another 70,000), Betar (14,500), HaNoar HaOved VeHaLomed, Ezra, Ariel, Religious scouts, Magshimey Herut etc it is more significant. In Eshchar there are something like 200 kids now and among those of scout age there are literally about 5 who aren't members. If you can't agree to the inclusion of my original brief sentence (The Eshhar Scouts, in which a majority of the village's children take part, is the second troupe in Israel to bring together religious and secular Jews, and the only one in the North of Israel) then maybe I should put this on the article's talk page and see if there is a concensus? Mlevitt1 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mlevitt1: By all means start an RFC on the talk page. I'm afraid I'm totally unconvinced though – this really does seem like something more suitable for a village website than an encyclopedia. Cheers, Number 5 7 17:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Myanmar

You misspelled Myanmar: Myanma constitutional referendum, 2008; Myanma general election, 2015; Myanma by-elections, 2014; those are the ones I noticed. Ogress _smash! 21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: This was deliberate (it's not a misspelling). Myanma is the demonym of Myanmar (as Burmese is for Burma). Cheers, Number 5 7 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you missed their talk pages: Talk:Burma by-elections, 2014, etc. Ogress _smash! 21:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Thanks. The RM tool is a pain as it doesn't highlight strongly enough when a talk page hasn't moved with the parent (it appears in small letters at the bottom of the page). Number 5 7 21:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Rollbacks

It's fine - sorry for stepping into it. I've been holding off for a while, but it looked like everything was square, so I went for it.

I can help you out - if you can point me to which categories, specifically, need to be rolled back I can take care of it myself. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing - I'll get on it right away. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

OK - I've done a lot. Probably there's more that needs doing, but I have to head out for a while shortly and won't be back until later. I can continue doing this - I've also been reverting the category changes as I see them. Don't worry too much about changing every instance of "Myanmar" back to "Burma" in the categories themselves - I can do that with AWB once everything is sorted out. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure reversion is as easy as that, though...it may require admin tools right now, as it requires deleting the new category to make room for the old. (I.e., deleting Category:1980 in Burma, now a redirect, to make way for the page move.) Let me know if I can continue to help out. And any categories I missed on my own, so I can continue mopping up tonight. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've undone everything I did, near as I can tell. Let me know if you need help with the category fixes as well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Any time - always a pleasure. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Special report: Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia

News and notes: Flow placed on ice

Discussion report: WMF's sudden reversal on Wiki Loves Monuments

Featured content: Brawny

In the media: Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage

Traffic report: You didn't miss much

Technology report: Tech news in brief

The New Lawn

I can't find a capacity for The New Lawn. It was recently changed by a user, without sourcing where he received this information. I'm not sure what to use as the capacity, as I'm working on fixing the grammar and improving the article's status. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Leeds United FC fan: The FGR website gives it as 5,000, although this is a bit of a throwaway comment. However, numerous other sources give it as 5,140 (e.g. BBC). The latter is more detailed (it also gives the seat numbers), so looks a decent source. Number 5 7 14:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you recommend using? I'd rather not get in some disagreement. In the user's edit descriptions, he mentioned the Gloucestershire council. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Leeds United FC fan: I would recommend using the BBC source for now (it seems fairly comprehensive) unless you can find the Gloucestershire report. Number 5 7 15:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The football stadium guide says 5141. The BBC report seems a little old (it is archived) however until a definite answer can be found, I think it'd be a good idea to go with the BBC? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Leeds United FC fan: The Football Ground Guide also has 5,140 (not 5,141). However, there is a difference in the number of seats (BBC has 2,500, FGG has 2,000); this may be due to the fact that some seats were removed to create a terrace, so the lower figure is likely correct. Number 5 7 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As this is the first page I'm attempting to considerably improve (until now I have mostly updated information), does my most recent edit to the page seem suitable? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Leeds United FC fan: A few comments to get you started: Firstly you can start links in lower case (they are automatically converted when you click on them), and shouldn't make links like [[Stadium|stadium]]. Secondly, punctuation should go before a reference i.e. .<ref></ref> not <ref></ref>. Thirdly, Forest Green are a club not a team (their first team or reserves are teams). Lastly, there's no need to use "association football" on British articles, as it's clear what football means in this context. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing these errors. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Leeds United FC fan: No problem; let me know if you need any further advice or guidance. It seems rather a waste that the club is seeking to build yet another new ground so soon after the New Lawn opened. Number 5 7 23:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Westmarch may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*[[Westmarch (stadium)]], a defunct football stadium in Paisley, Scotland]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Dulwich Hamlet F.C page

Hi - if you're going to undo changes made to pages (as with the Dulwich Hamlet F.C. page today), please ensure you revert to the correct, most recent version. You risk losing a lot of good work by others by not doing so. Thank you.

82.12.249.66 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

With regards to your response, I appreciate the reversions made due to my errors. It would perhaps be useful if you had the good grace to acknowledge the same. I corrected your error with regards to the squad update date, and also the alphabetic ordering of the squad - don't think you spotted that one. I'd suggest that as an administrator, you should keep a closer eye on the changes you make. You could be leaving errors on multiple pages with your apparent lack of attention to detail.

With regards to the deliberate changes, please confirm why you removed the 'bits' from the notable players section. I'd suggest that a player representing a national team is notable.

82.12.249.66 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The England C team (not "England amateur" team as you suggest - the article on the England C team confirms that "Currently, the majority of selected players are full-time professionals with Conference Premier league clubs") represents England at non-league level. Players representing England C are therefore notable, as they are selected as the best players available at that level. And for a player to be picked for the England C team from a non-league team at the 7th step of the pyramid is, I would suggest, particularly notable.

By your rationale, is it only notable to play for the senior men's national football first team? What about national B teams? Or national team age groups - U21, U20, U19 etc? And what about the England women's national football team? Which, historically, has featured amateur and semi-professional players? Does such an approach not risk being accused of elitism or sexism?

As such, I would suggest that your reasoning is flawed, and on that basis, would request that you revert your edits.

82.12.249.66 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forfarshire Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glebe Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago general election, 2015

Hello, I appreciate the work you're doing to make/improve the article. However, I am a little disappointed in the edit reverts without at least discussing some of the changes first for consensus.

I disagree with this revision, and the notion that it is pointless duplicate table. There is merit to showing the People's Partnership consolidated vote totals somewhere in the article. It was displayed this way in the 2010 version of the page, and they formed the previous government. From an encyclopedic point of view, their consolidated vote totals and seat counts is relevant. In the media, this consolidated amount is frequently reported. Perhaps it is duplicate to show it as another table and it could be put in a paragraph/sentence, but please consider talking about changes that remove information. I'm trying to be reasonable and not engage in an edit war over this. -- R45 ^talk! 11:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@R45: I agree with the idea that it could be mentioned in prose at the start of the section, and have added this. I guess another thing that could be done is to add (PP) after the names alliance's parties in the table; this would help highlight/remind readers who they are. However, two tables is really a bit much, especially when there is another one directly beneath the expanded results. I also appreciate you discussing this rather than reverting. Cheers, Number 5 7 12:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@R45: See the table at Singaporean general election, 1955#Results for what I mean by detailing the alliance in the table. Cheers, Number 5 7 12:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds/looks good! -- R45 ^talk! 13:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Gallery: Being Welsh

Featured content: Killed by flying debris

Op-ed: DYK, or proudly displaying incorrect information on the Main Page with alarming regularity

News and notes: The Swedish Wikipedia's controversial two-millionth article

Traffic report: Mass media production traffic

Technology report: Tech news in brief

In the media: Calling all scientists!; More Wikipedia editors in the Netherlands than all of Africa combined

T+T general election, 2015

[[10]]120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Re:polls in infobox

I'm definitely not a fan of that either and would support removing that function from the template. However, at least that page lists the most recent poll from every firm. I don't see why polls need to be included in the infobox in the first place but setting that aside there also seems to be a lot of selective and/or abusive use of the function. For example, on the pages for Australian elections editors are including only the most recent poll in the infobox no matter what firm its from. To make things worse, it doesn't even list what firm its from in the infobox! Example of this here (its done on all Australian election pages just look at the template at the bottom.)

Like I said though, I don't see the purpose of the function anyways. Even when there's a fair sample of polls and they're properly identified (as in the article you linked) they're just repeated a little farther down with equal or more context and/or information. So, over all, I don't see the point of the function and it seems frequently abused anyways. Also, I think its ugly (although YMMV.) --4idaho (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll start a discussion tomorrow. --4idaho (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Gibraltar is non-sovereign. This means it is part of another sovereign state. The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. Gibraltar is part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, but not part of the actual United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I will add the page to a separate category. AusLondonder (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: No, that's not how it works – they do not have to be part of any state, they are just not entirely sovereign. But thanks for not readding the category. Number 5 7 07:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That isn't exactly true. This is a matter of legal technicality, but unless an area is Terra nullius is is a part of another sovereign state. The United Kingdom has two meanings. One, the Kingdom that is a Union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The other is the internationally recognised sovereign state. Gibraltar is not part of the first but, technically, part of the second. AusLondonder (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Cathkin Park

First of all, great work on your various historical Scottish football ground articles; but I have a concern about the original Cathkin Park, which I've brought up on the article talk page. Jellyman (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

Editorial: No access is no answer to closed access

News and notes: Byrd and notifications leave, but page views stay; was a terror suspect editing Wikipedia?

In the media: Is there life on Mars?

Featured content: Why did the emu cross the road?

Traffic report: Another week

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nigerien General Council election, 1946−47, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Upper Volta. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sekshon Pagá

Hi there 57, regarding my entry for the Sekshon Pagá, it is the only professional league on the island. That is what the opening statement is saying in Papiamentu of the PDF document that I shared. The second tier is amateur level. It is a small country, and none of the clubs on the island have their own stadiums. But the top tier is considered fully professional, which is the only professional football league on the island. The salaries are not high, but neither is the cost of living on the Island. Please let me know if there is any other criteria involved besides the fact that the players who compete in the league are paid for it, and are thus considered professional athletes in their own right. Should it only be considered Semi-professional, then I will move my entry to the list below it, but I would just like to better understand what qualifies a league as fully professional, I am simply going off ofthe opening statement in the year end review of the Federation, which claims just that. Thank you in advance for the clarification. (Subzzee (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC))

@Subzzee: The PDF document says the FKK is professional ("un FFK nobo moderno, profeshonal"), but the FKK is not the league, it is the administration - it does not say the league is professional. On the other hand, the RSSSF explicitly says the league is semi-professional.

A fully-professional league is one where players are full-time footballers - i.e. they do not require jobs outside football to earn enough money to live on. Many leagues are semi-professional and pay players (even down to the 10th or 11th level in England), but this is not the same thing. Cheers, Number 5 7 14:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That's all I needed to know, cheers! (Subzzee (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC))

Replaceable fair use File:Aharon Yariv.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Aharon Yariv.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: I'm happy for it to be deleted as there's an alternate on commons. Number 5 7 09:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

In the media: PETA makes "monkey selfie" a three-way copyright battle; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Op-ed: Can we please stop bashing Wikipedia?

Featured content: Inside Duke Humfrey's Library

WikiProject report: Dancing to the beat of a... wikiproject?

Traffic report: ¡Viva la Revolución! Kinda.

Technology report: Tech news in brief

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm DGG. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Referendums in the Netherlands, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Godmanchester Rovers FC.PNG

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mid-West Region legislative election, 1964

added a link pointing to Mid-West Region

Singaporean general election, 1963

added a link pointing to Ahmad Ibrahim

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of info

Why did you during your so-called "cleanup" remove so much central info about the municipal structure and party system from the Åland election article? It makes it a lot less useful. Basically just an empty shell.--Batmacumba (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Batmacumba: The article is about the legislative election, not the municipal elections. The info on municipal elections is not appropriate in that article, nor is the generic information about the parties or the islands' politics - that belongs in the Politics of Åland or List of political parties in Åland. By all means please add some information specific to the election itself though, such as which parties will contest it. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The party mentioned are the ones contesting, which should obvious. Why no rewrite instead of these "massacres" on relevant text. since they are also doing the municipal elections it probably should be moved.--Batmacumba (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Batmacumba: I would strongly advise having a separate article on the municipal elections, as is done for almost all other articles on Wikipedia - see Category:Elections in the Åland Islands for a start. The article should be moved back. Also, please stop adding the list of municipalities to the lead – one of the reasons I removed it (apart from unnecessary detail) is that it's also incorrect English - a skerry is an uninhabited rock, so unless puffins have the vote in Åland, it's not correct. Number 5 7 23:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not a list of municipalities, but of different types of municipalities - and why not correct info instead of deleting it? There is a picture of an Åland skerry the size that is inhabited in the skerry article and it says "usually too small to be inhabited", so not always. Skerries is the standard translation of skärgård.--Batmacumba (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cmon, you said I could add parties contesting the election, and then you delete them because you do not like the word "contestants" (which is used in fx the Portuguese election article), that is just being petty. By all means use another word, do not delete relevant info.--Batmacumba (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Batmacumba: Presumably you didn't actually bother reading what I did before you blindly reverted? Look again and you'll see that I merely put your list into prose format, which is preferable. Also, I see you reveted some incorrect English back into the introduction. Could you explain why? With regards to "contestants", it is not generally used for elections (most commonly it refers to people on game shows). If they use it, the Portuguese articles need correcting too. I will sort that out tomorrow. Number 5 7 23:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Batmacumba: Seeing as you didn't bother responding, I have merged the parties and campaign sections again - there is no point in having both, and hopefully you can see this time that no information has been lost. I also corrected the grammatical error you reverted back into the introduction again, as no reason was given for doing so. I've also moved the article back as per all the others. If you really insist on wanting to move it, please start an RM rather than a move war. Thanks, Number 5 7 13:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraising report, Montreal to host 2017 Wikimania

In the media: Irish legislative editing; coffee quarrel; more sports vandalism

Op-ed: Wikipedia needs more administrators

Recent research: Wiktionary special; newbies, conflict and tolerance; Is Wikipedia's search function inferior?

Tech news: Tech news in brief

Colorado state capital election

I reverted your good-faith edit changing the article's name because every source I have found on the event refers to it as an election, and so the title should reflect that under WP:COMMONNAME. Regards Plazak (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Plazak: The title should follow WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums, so if you insist on referring to it as an election, you still need to follow this formula (i.e. Colorado state capital election, 1881 (I linked to this in the move summary so I hoped you would ready it). I also disagree with your common name assertion. Common name is one of the five key naming criteria, but three of the others are recognisability, precision and consistency. With regards to consistency, the naming format means that all election and referendum articles are titles in the same was – "United States presidential election, 2016" is not the common name of the event, but we use this formula everywhere. With regards to recognisability and precision, referring to this as an "election" is not useful – an election is an event that elects a person to public office, whereas a referendum is giving citizens a vote on policy choices – this is clearly the latter, and naming it as an election is not helpful. If you still disagree with my latter arguments, please at least move it to the correct title per our naming guideline. Thanks, Number 5 7 09:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You are right about the naming convention; I will replace the "of" with a comma. You are also right that the voting in 1881 was unlike most elections, but it was also unlike any referendum I have ever heard of, because the choice was not yes or no, or from a limited number of choices, but was an entirely open field of candidates (as it were) for state capital. In the end, you and I can quibble all we want, but every single source I have found, including contemporary newspaper coverage, legal works (Colorado Statutes Annotated), and historians both old and modern (Richard Collins and Dale Oesterle, The Colorado State Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2011) 210.), all refer to it as an election. It seems peculiar to me that we should dismiss every knowledgeable and reliable source, and not call it an election. Perhaps I missed some WP:RS on this subject which uses your preferred terminology (entirely possible). If you can cite a single WP:RS that refers to the event as a referendum, I will concede the point. But unless you can point out just one such source, we should not let the opinion of one Wikipedia editor override every single published source on the subject. Fair enough? Regards Plazak (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Plazak: Sure, a couple are listed below:

"Denver was selected as the permanent seat of government of Colorado, by a referendum taken in 1881" (Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer (1900) The Referendum in America: Together with Some Chapters on the History of the Initiative and Other Phases of Popular Government in the United States, C. Scribner's Sons)
"a statewide referendum officially confirmed Denver as the capital city in 1881" (Thomas J. Noel (1985) The City and the Saloon: Denver, 1858-1916, University of Nebraska Press, p33)

Cheers, Number 5 7 20:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not only one, but two good sources. You win the point fairly. I will revert my change. Plazak (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried to move it, but could not due to a conflict. I may be tripping over a redirect. Plazak (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Plazak: I've moved it for you – as the article had been moved twice (back to the original and then to the title minus the "of", the redirect had been corrected so needed deleting. Hope this is ok, and thanks for approaching the debate in an open minded manner :) Number 5 7 22:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swiss federal election, 2015, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jura and Council of States. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I have seen you created a page with players of Faur București, this is very nice, thank you, and I also see you did many edits in football articles and I was wondering if you want to help a bit to develop Romanian Football ?

Things we want to improve are Cupa Romaniei - Romanian Cup - to create the missing seasons - and to create a few more teams. And also Liga II, the second league, I edit there now, I improved the main page, and also are missing seasons to create, and maybe a few teams to create. Have a look and tell me your opinion.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your Lagos-related articles!

Hi! @Number 57: Thanks for contributing to Lagos!

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Lagos, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about Lagos.

Eruditescholar (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for New Logie Green

On 9 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article New Logie Green, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New Logie Green is the only stadium outside Glasgow to have hosted a Scottish Cup final? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/New Logie Green. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Stadium names

WP:NCDAB: "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Op-ed: Walled gardens of corruption

Traffic report: Reality is for losers

Featured content: This Week's Featured Content

Gallery: Winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 in Pakistan

Arbitration report: Warning: Contains GMOs

Technology report: Tech news in brief

In the media: Jailed Saudi blogger wins award; PR editing and Wiki-embarassment; Pakistan's third-richest person?

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for defending my article and backing it up with news sources. Much love! Ashkaan232 (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about your evidence at WP:ARBPIA3

Hi Number 57. I was thinking about what you wrote a while back in your evidence to WP:ARBPIA3 - in particular, that you wrote this: "...via frequent reports at WP:AE and WP:SPI."

Does that imply that you think some of the AE bans and SPIs were unjustified? Perhaps innocent editors incorrectly identified and banned as socks? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@AnotherNewAccount: No, most of the bans are justified, it's more a case that the pro-Palestinian editors have put a significant amount of effort into getting the pro-Israeli editors banned from the topic space. The problem is also to do with the outnumbering - it's easier to get those in the minority banned, as the majority group can simply tag team until someone from the other group gets frustrated and violates 1RR. Number 5 7 19:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. Do you think then that administrators have chosen simply to ban any editor that appears to be causing immediate problems rather than examine and address the wider context in which the problems occur? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@AnotherNewAccount: Yes, but that doesn't mean the editor getting banned doesn't deserve it. The problem is that the editors from the other side who also deserve it don't get banned. No admins are interested in sorting out the long-term problems in this topic area, because the only way it can be done is to topic ban the c. 10–20 SPAs causing the problems. Number 5 7 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think if the current lot of editors were banned, the vacuum would simply be filled with new editors who bring similar problems. Would it not be better to impose clear standards and consistent content policies instead? One of my earliest Wiki-memories as an IP/previous account around 2004 was rewriting the work a notorious and now retired pro-Israel editor who insisted on calling Palestinians "Arab Terrorists" and the West Bank "Judea and Samaria" etc. The kibosh was all-but put on the Judea and Samaria thing with the WP:WESTBANK policy, which was a rare example of the Arbitration Committee finally putting it's foot down, and it worked.

The topic area seems to be extremely undeveloped in this regard. There doesn't even seem to be any coherent Manual of Style on how content should best be presented, which means petty things that should have been decided years ago still become the subject of disputes. For example, I noticed recently there was a brief war on whether Sur Baher should have an Israeli infobox or a Palestinian one. (I'd personally decide based on whose job it is to collect the trash.) The lack of consistent content policies leaves the area wide open to editors sneaking in rejected changes some weeks or months later when they think nobody is looking.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@AnotherNewAccount: No, I don't believe the topic area will ever be NPOV whilst the current lot are editing - the only reason they are here is to skew it in the direction they seek. The flow of pro-Israel editors has thankfully diminished to almost nothing over the years, which suggests that new POV editors showing up to fill the void isn't necessarily the problem.

A tiny number problems can be solved by having an agreed form of words (e.g. West Bank), but that cannot undo the biasing of an entire article. Number 5 7 21:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ponder what you've written! Finally, you mentioned in your evidence that you did raise the issue with the administrators at the time. Can you remember where? I'd like to read what was discussed, out of curiosity!

Thanks! AnotherNewAccount (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnstone F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Association. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Hi N57. For your info. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Referendum or plebiscite?

Why referendum and not plebiscite? --Danrolo (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Danrolo: Because referendum is the more common term. Hence why the articles are in Category:Referendums in Argentina, Category:Referendums in Brazil etc. See the WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums naming criteria. Number 5 7 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

List of members of the Iraqi Kurdistan Parliament (2013–)

HI , can u see know this article List of members of the Iraqi Kurdistan Parliament (2013–). Kurdistantolive (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kurdistantolive: Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean? Number 5 7 14:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Population figures

Thanks, I had not thought of doing that! It is indeed extremely useful. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Op-ed: WikiConference USA 2015: built on good faith

WikiConference report: US gathering sees speeches from Andrew Lih, AfroCrowd, and the Archivist of the United States

Editorial: Why the news media needs a Wikipedian in residence

News and notes: 2015–2016 Q1 fundraising update sparks mailing list debate

Traffic report: Screens, Sport, Reddit, and Death

Featured content: A fistful of dollars

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Blog: Third Wikimedia Spain conference takes place in Madrid

Hello

I have seen you created a page with players of Faur București, this is very nice, thank you, and I also see you did many edits in football articles and I was wondering if you want to help a bit to develop Romanian Football ?

Things we want to improve are Cupa Romaniei - Romanian Cup - to create the missing seasons - and to create a few more teams. And also Liga II, the second league, I edit there now, I improved the main page, and also are missing seasons to create, and maybe a few teams to create. Have a look and tell me your opinion.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand, what elections did you talk about ? You said that you rescue articles, maybe you can help and rescue 2 articles of mine about Spanish Football: Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season and Copa del Rey Topscorers I will be very grateful. Thank you ! --Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)