Jump to content

User talk:Number 57/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crewe Alexandra F.C. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
  • One]], the third tier in the [[English football league system]], and are based at [Gresty Road]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bowling Green Ground, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gainsborough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Indian general election, 2014

The table in the schedule section needs to be smaller as its quite unsightly (and was worse with colours). If you can decrease it, thatd be nice ;) If you wanna ignore me, then don't bother, no harm done ;)Lihaas (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of several Ukrainian parliamentary election templates

Several templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Petr Matas 11:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Elections in Ukraine

Hi Number 57, you are invited to Talk:Elections in Ukraine#List of elections. — Petr Matas 11:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Raikes Hall

Just confirming that the 1900-01 information in this article is incorrect? - Dudesleeper talk 20:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If it turns out to be correct after all, this edit of mine, just made, will have to be reverted too. - Dudesleeper talk 20:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Ribbon International

May I inquire why you moved the image to the right and made it smaller for The Ribbon International? There are pictures on Wiki that are placedSusan Macafee (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC) in the center and the same size before you made changes.

§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Macafee (talk • contribs) 23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

Danish Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Reichstag
Economic Union (political party) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Reichstag
Independence Party (Iceland, historical) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Icelandic parliamentary election, 1916
Polish Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Reichstag

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

National Party of Work / Liberal Party

I noticed that you wrote National Party of Work, but there are some factual errors. There is no continuity between the two parties, as Liberal Party disbanded without a legal successor in 1906, after the election. The Party of National Work was founded only in 1910, by the merger of two organizations ("Nemzeti Társaskör" and National Constitution Party). Of course, most of the members of the new party were formerly members of the Liberal Party too, however, creating a new article on Liberal Party is reasonable. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

In English? Sorry, I don't know. Maybe Hungary: Governments and Politics 1848–2000 (ed. Mária ORMOS – Béla K. KIRÁLY). Columbia University Press, New York, 2001.; there are also several usable publications in Hungarian (e. g. Pölöskei, Ferenc: A szabadelvű párt fényei és árnyai, Budapest, 2010; Pesti, Sándor: Pártfegyelem a dualizmus kori Magyarországon; Jónás, Károly: Pártpanoptikum: 35 választás, 256 párt Magyarországon : 1848-1990.
I think "using violence" is a sweeping statement. Yes, there are gerrymandering, rigorous census, open voting in countryside, corruption, nepotism etc. but Hungary was not a dictatorship in the 19th century, only a Dominant-party system. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a simplified illustration of parties "genealogy" during dualism: here.
  • Határozati Párt = Resolution Party
  • Felirati Párt = Address Party
  • Szél(ső)bal = Far Left
  • Balközép = Centre Left
  • Deák-párt = Deák Party
  • Függetlenségi Párt = Independence Party (this story is very complex, so the date of 1867 is not accurate)
  • Szabadelvű Párt = Liberal Party
  • "Konzervatív Párt" = The actual name was "Right-wing Opposition" and led by Pál Sennyey. They left Deák Party in 1874, when its merged with Left Centre (= Liberal Party). Some politicians left Liberal Party in 1878, because they opposed occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kálmán Tisza's economy policy. They joined Sennyey's party and renamed United Opposition. The party's name after that Moderate Opposition then National Party. Led figures were Albert Apponyi and Dezső Szilágyi. The party merged into Liberal Party between 1900 and 1903. Disbanded in 1905, when joined the Coalition which won the 1905 parliamentary election.
  • Katolikus Néppárt = Catholic People's Party, actually it formed in 1894 (and not 1867), when the Wekerle cabinet accepted the civil marriage.
  • Nemzeti Párt = National Party (see above)
  • Koalíció = Coalition, political alliance of several parties, opposing Liberal Party
  • Nemzeti Munkapárt = National Party of Work

--Norden1990 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Referendum move requests

If you'd like to contribute, I added a move request to Quebec referendum, 1980 and Quebec referendum, 1995. I kinda plagiarized your argument from Talk:Crimean referendum, 2014#Requested move. Hope that's ok . . . Also there's an ongoing move request over at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Requested move2 that I think you could help with. Cheers Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mongolian referendum 1945

Hi,

I have changed the number in the introductory sentence of the article. When you originally created the article, you wrote that voter turnout was around 64%. Later you added a table that says voter turnout was 98.5%, which seems much more consistent with the number of votes and Mongolia's population at the time. Yaan (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk: List of candidates in the Indian general election, 2014

There is a merger discussion at the above page. Your input could help.Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Naming issue

Hello Number 57, I noticed that you moved Venetian online referendum, 2014 to Venetian status referendum, 2014, but I have some reservations on the name you chose. Could you give me your opinion at Talk:Venetian status referendum, 2014? Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Green Lane (Stockport)

I have drunk in a pub a matter of feet from that spot but I never knew there had been a football ground there. The things you learn on Wikipedia! Mr Stephen (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Inexistent referendum and inexistent election

As already explained in talk, you are adding referendum/elections-related categories that are simply inexistent in all the sources about referendums and elections in Italy (Referendums in Italy, Referendum (ordinamento costituzionale italiano), Elections in Italy, Calendario delle elezioni in Italia). A self certification like "per evidence provided" it's weird when the evidences says poll or sondaggio, when in talk there's no answer about categories, and when even the incipit states was an unofficial, online and privately organised poll. Thanks. --Felisopus (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

In the same report, please add this incomprehensible and careless rollback of a dead interwiki link. So, following this link, people can reach a deleted page. Deleted by an overwhelming majority of admins and users for the following reason: clearly no more than a survey very little serious [chiaramente non più di un sondaggio molto poco serio], maybe remaining faithful to the sources and not to a "three-user majority". Have a nice weekend. --Felisopus (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

Lea Bridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Speedway
Lea Bridge Stadium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Speedway

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian Constitutional Assembly election, 1881

You made this edit back in 2011 and added the month for this election to be June. I'm just wondering what sources you used for this. I have found two sources that say the election took place in July (I'm going to write the article) and I would like your input.

Source 1: R.J.Crampton. "A concise history of Bulgaria", p. 90. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Source 2: [1] This paper was printed on July 1, 1881 making it seem impossible to of had the election on that same day. My reasoning is that the election probably started in June and finished in July. Due to the 10 hour time difference between Bulgaria and the California it is possible to fit it in the issue. Note: I looked up time zones, turns out they were still in their infancy in 1881 so my reasoning above may be false.

-- Kndimov (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Swiss elections

 Done - initially for 3 months. GiantSnowman 12:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jerusalem Bread Foundation

The article Jerusalem Bread Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable political party, has never won a seat or had a serious candidate

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Observers and legitimacy". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Republic of China elections

Hi there. The reason why I changed the template for ROC election was actually on the separation between Municipal Election (election in Taiwan's 5 municipality (taipei, kaoshiung, tainan, taichung, new taipei) and Local Election (election in Taiwan's 14 counties and 3 provincial cities (keelung, hsinchu, chiayi)), and not just the combined those 2 together in Municipal and Provincial Elections as what is written right now. Because in reality, those 2 types of election are never held around the same time, they are always differ from each other by 1 year. Hope you can consider this.Chongkian (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Football maps

Hi,

It is true that I originally did something like a century’s worth of football maps, but it seems at least those that you asked me to revise, have been redone, with a fundamentally different approach, which I find difficult to grasp, at least with a quick glance.

It seems to me that the revision was done by User:Peterborofan1982. Would it be possible for you to ask him to revise hiswork?

Yours sincerely, Apanuggpak (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

…except that he doesn’t show up here too often. Anyway, it seems the maps are done in a completely different way now, and I don’t really know how to even start to study they way they are done now. And, it seems it’s not possible to choose the place of the labels so freely anymore, so I feel quite ill at ease with this task you’ve asked me to perform. Apanuggpak (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tower Athletic Ground, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Brighton F.C. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Pike's Lane

slakr\ talk / 01:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

AN notification

Information icon 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. Thank you. GiantSnowman 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democratic Convergence Party (Guinea-Bissau), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National People's Assembly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Elections

For the love ogf god, you have had everything your way with the BOLDTITLE and the name of the result scetion (and its plurality). Not leave the reaction alone. It is a subsection as its in direct relation to the result.Lihaas (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Lithuanian Jewish parties?

Hi. Do you think the Democratic Jewish Union and Achdus might be the same? Since they didn't contest the same election, and as Achdut means 'union'? I'd guess that it was a joint list of different political parties. --Soman (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --John (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't start another edit war over the flags. There was no consensus to remove them following the last discussion, and per BRD, they remain on the template until there is one. Thanks, Number 57 17:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. To recap, BRD is an essay, not a policy; I don't need consensus to remove them, you need consensus to add or restore them, which you have signally failed to demonstrate. Can you do so now? Continuing to remove good-faith edits is likely to result in a block for you. Are you sure that is what you are looking for? --John (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not interested in your threats (are you able to have a conversation without making them?), particularly coming from an editor who is clearly misusing their rollback rights. Number 57 18:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Misusing my rollback rights? That's hilarious. I see you were last blocked in 2010 for edit-warring, so you know what it is like to be blocked, and you have form as an edit-warrior, and you haven't learned. You've been misbehaving in this area for a few months now. I feel like handing it over to the community now. Give me a reason why I should not. --John (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to have our behaviour scrutinised by others. Number 57 18:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Good. I keep forgetting you are an admin here; it's so hard to tell from your behaviour. I had imagined that having failed to achieve consensus for your proposals six months ago you had ceased to beat this particular horse. Nevertheless I apologise for my tone. I will frame an RfC to finally resolve this matter and will inform you here when I have done so. --John (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You are right that there was no consensus, but the proposal in question was made by Gnevin. And is there really any need for petty insults? Number 57 18:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is how I think about these things. I am sure you are a worthy person and overall a good editor. On this issue you are wrong. Do you accept that MOS:FLAGS represents a project consensus? I do, it's been substantially unchanged for several years now and attracted fairly widespread discussion when adopted. Do you accept that it basically says that using individual flags where they add no information or navigational utility should be avoided? I do, as that's what it says. Therefore, if you want flags to remain on these templates, the onus is on you to show a convincing consensus that they should remain. Failing to accept when you are wrong and especially edit-warring in a lost cause like this one, seems to me to fit squarely in the middle of unproductive behaviour. But maybe it is I who am mistaken. Is it a flag thing with you? I remember when we had a little  Ireland on the U2 article and the endless edit wars that resulted about whether they were "really" an Irish band as two of them were born in London. We don't have that any more, and I don't miss it. Or is it just that you don't like the move away from using flags willy-nilly the way we did in 2006? Either way, I request that you read over the MoS page and the previous discussions (as I just have) and reconsider. --John (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
MOS:FLAGS is quite a wide ranging guideline, with several different aspects. There are some which undoubtedly have widespread consensus (no flags in infoboxes being one - possibly what you are referring to with regards to U2). However, there are others which are clearly do not reflect a clear consensus (as you have seen recently with regards to use on sporting events). As I pointed out in the football debate, the issue is that a relatively small number of editors can create a guideline (I have recently seen one created with the support of only four editors) which does not actually have widespread support. If a guideline is widely flouted for several years, it is usually a sign that that it does not actually have the support it purports to. This is certainly the case here (as noted by doktorb in the discussion linked to above). Number 57 19:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Democracy Party (Guinea-Bissau) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
  • The party was established by [[Mamadú Iaia Djaló] in 2007. It won a single seat in the [[National People's Assembly (Guinea-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian General Election???

I started the discussion about the naming of the Macedonian elections on the discussion page. Also, please have a look at the General Elections article. Crnorizec (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User's disruptive edits

Hello. A user has been editing disruptively and I am wondering if it merits admin attention.

User:Severino appears to be hijacking the page on Israel–South Africa relations, reverting almost any editor who comes its way. The editor has not broken 3RR, but does appear to be engaging in edit-warring behavior. A simple look at the history of the article over the past year (and even longer than that) shows numerous reverts and attempts to discredit other editors. Almost any editor who edits is subject to his trump card (revert). See, e.g., as early as 2009 and 2010.[2]. But see recent examples here: [3][4][5][6]

Despite his constant reverts of editors removing the relatively trivial point above (which I am not involved in), he actually accuses others of "POV pushing" or giving undue weight, yet he removes references to reliable sources or even important points coming from the very same sources he cites from. He assumes the role that he gets to decide what small points merit inclusion. If others dare enter a point, he reverts. Here you can see the process. Removing an editor's edit, and picking certain small points to highlight. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

He might respond in talk but it is almost futile as he never engages in discussion; he does not say specifically what point or what sentence is POV. Finally, in order to avoid any further baseless allegations from him that statements are not sourced, I introduced an edit, methodically sourcing every sentence, sentence-by-sentence, often with not one, but two or more sources, and I kept part of his edits and the points he wanted included. I cited the sources with quotations from the books or sources, so he may see every detail. I kept it comprehensive giving due weight to all points. He reverted. Again, he did not say specifically what his issue with any source or any statement was in the edit summary or in talk. Rather, he focuses on personal issues with me apparently.

The editor almost treats the article as if it were his own. I kindly ask for guidance. --Precision123 (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed the most recent addition/revert incidents, I concluded that the material you added was a fair reflection of the sources and see no reason why it should be removed, so reinstated it. I suggest that if the material is reverted again, then you should produce the above on ANI or another appropriate noticeboard. I have also added the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} template to the talk page, as I think the amount of reverting going on is rather concerning. Number 57 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I thought that maybe adding footnote quotations or citing each sentence—or comma—would help put an end to that, as well as integrating some of his points. It is unfortunate that some editors are not cooperative. In any case, I appreciate your opinion and hope it defuses any tension. Thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible system gaming

I would like to return your attention to template:Location map Israel incident, where Sepsis II modified a long-standing version of Israeli map to 1949 borders version without any discussion, suspiciously naming it File:Neutral Israel location map.svg instead of File:Israel location map.svg. I would like your feedback following your previous ANI complaint. I shall also inform other administrators and editors involved in that incident, now posted at ANI.GreyShark (dibra) 17:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

Malian parliamentary election, April 1997 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Party for Democracy and Progress
Malian parliamentary election, July 1997 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to National Rally for Democracy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Number 57,

I contacted Imc on this issue as he/she had raised it on my talk page.

Arjunkrishna90 states that "all datas removed by thamaragirl is provided with references by other authors." To clarify, Arjunkrishna90's erroneous information is the only information I edited. This person has been accusing me of things I'm not guilty of. I suspect his/her intent is not to describe the character of Arjuna found in the Mahabharata but a version that suits this individual's preference of making Arjuna less important than he actually is in the great epic. For example, this individual added the following section: "Blasting of Arjuna's Chariot" on the page and as reference is citing this source: Philip Lutgendorf. "Hanuman's Tale: The Messages of a Divine Monkey". January 2007 ,ISBN 9780195309225, which is not part of the Mahabharata text. There is consensus among scholars and academics that the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune), which is a compilation of the various manuscripts of the epic by scholars at the Pune School, to be the most comprehensive an reliable of sources for the Mahabharata. This is what editors of this page should be referring to. I tried addressing this with Arjunkrishna90 on his/her talk page but he/she became combative and started calling me names. If you and other editors of this website are concerned with the integrity and veracity of the information posted on this website, please address this issue. As for me, I feel a bit discouraged and disenchanted and will perhaps not concern myself with this issue anymore.

Thank you,

Thamaragirl (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged. Don't give up. You did the right thing here. CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Lil Snupe

Hey Number 57, thanks for protecting Lil Snupe. However, that same IP is now repeatedly creating the article on the talk page Talk: Lil Snupe. What should be done? STATic message me! 17:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've redirected it to the Meek Mill talk page and protected it. Cheers, Number 57 18:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Metals

The talk page for Other metals appears to be a messy redirect that makes it hard to discuss whether the article should be moved. Can you please take another look at the redirects? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like someone else has fixed it. Number 57 23:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

poor metals and other moves

I am not willing to search for the talk page of the page before it went on the multiple moves, but I am sure it must be somewhere. You did the last few moves, so please move the talk page from where it was lost back to the page were it belongs.--Stone (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Largest election in human history

Hi. Considering your contributions to election articles, I'd like to know if you'd be interested in contributing to articles related to the Indian general election, 2014? There is a discussion at Talk:Indian_general_election,_2014#Ready for the Results!!, and I created Wikipedia:Indian general election, 2014 progress report to be able to keep track of which related articles need updating once the results are out. Thanks, --Soman (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helena Costa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alhandra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Graham Allner may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
  • , but were denied promotion because their [[Aggborough]] ground was not deemed up to Football Leagu] standards.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure

Hi Number 57,Could you give a further explanation of why you closed this RfC as something other than 'no consensus'? I've started a thread on the talk page. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Number 57. Thanks for closing the move review. Although seven users supported overturning the original discussion's close while only four opposed this, I'm ok with the verdict because you at least tried to be fair by stating that there was no consensus for the original move discussion. The move review page indicates that a "no consensus" verdict can mean either essentially the same thing as "endorse close" or instead "relist". In this case, I assume it by default means "relist" since you quite reasonably recommended that we start a centralised discussion covering all such articles in order to sensibly conclude this issue ("I would suggest a centralised discussion that covers all those articles would be the best route of coming to a sensible conclusion on this issue" [16]). Am I correct in this assessment? Also, there's a new website guideline on how to handle racial descriptors that I and several other users drafted [17]. Where should we submit this for possible adoption? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Middayexpress. I'm not sure if relisting that specific article's debate would be of any use, but do think that there should be a centralised discussion about these types of lists, rather than discuss one in particular and draw conclusions from that. With regards to your draft guideline, see WP:PROPOSAL for the process. Cheers, Number 57 21:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and link. I agree that one centralised discussion is best. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the Voting system RfC

First, thanks a lot for closing the RfC. Of course I'm happy that it came out my way, but I'd be grateful for your time even if it hadn't.

Second: I noticed you termed my actions "unacceptable". You probably don't want to read a wall of text with hairsplitting justifications of each of my edits and their context. But I can't feel contrite until I can find a clear statement of what I did wrong. Is it, in fact, generally accepted practice to refrain from editing an article in ways that are relevant to an ongoing RfC? Before I made those edits, I honestly searched for some statement of policy on that, and I came up blank. Can you show me what I missed?

Again, thanks. (I've put this talk page temporarily on my watchlist, so you can reply here.) Homunq (࿓) 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

ps. Contrite or not, I am treading carefully here. Would it be appropriate for me to re-add the material now the RfC is closed? Or perhaps: would you do it? I'm sure that if you add the basic material as in my last edit, Schulze and I will hash out the details of the references, and I expect we can do so without any edit-warring. Homunq (࿓) 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome to restore the material now, but you should not have done it whilst a discussion is ongoing. When a discussion is in process, changes being discussed should not be made. This is probably written down somewhere, but even if not, it is common sense, and is behaviour expected of editors. Number 57 18:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I honestly disagree about what should be considered "common sense" in this context. I could argue for my point of view, but first: Is there anything to be gained by having this debate here? If not, I'm OK to agree to disagree. Homunq (࿓) 14:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
And by the way: even if I don't think I did anything wrong here, I don't expect or plan to do anything like that again. In fact, since I understand you do think I'm wrong here, I'll go further than that: I promise that if the situation is to repeat itself, I'll get a second opinion about what's appropriate before acting unilaterally. So one way or another, I think your rebuke has had its intended effect. Homunq (࿓) 14:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding edit to RfC you closed

Hi 57, one of the Users involved in this RfC is asking me to edit, strike, or redact comments I've have made regarding my observations of their edit history and patterns. Even though its closed, is it permissible for me to just strike it and add a note that I've done so at their request and in the interest of good relations with that Editor? Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Number 57 19:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John Schlossberg

There were actually two questions. The second question seems to have consensus for "not include". Only two people !voted include on that one, and by your own closure the "strongest" arguments were the last two, both of whom !voted not include. -- GreenC 18:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know, which is why I finished with "I don't believe there is a consensus on either matter." Whilst I felt the strongest arguments were to include neither, there was reasonable level of support for including the father-related category. I felt Tvoz hit the nail on the head when he stated that it would be unreasonable to keep one but not the other, so I could not justify a close that would have resulted in one being kept and the other not. I suggest you might want an RFC on whether having one lineage represented in the categorisation of the page is acceptable and go from there. Cheers, Number 57 19:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure what basis you're using to judge what a strong argument is in this case, but the relevant guideline is WP:DEFINING. Most of the !votes didn't even address this guideline unfortunately and made decisions based on whatever personal opinion. The purpose of guidelines is to prevent deadlock arguments like this. It would have been good if the guideline had been applied when judging which arguments to give weight to. -- GreenC 00:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If using WP:DEFINING, Herostrarus hit the nail on the head with what is important about him: He was born in 1993, he is from New York City, he attends Yale University, writes some pieces for Yale, and he's from the Kennedy family. Not independently noted for much else in terms of individual characteristics. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:DEFINE was used by both sides in the argument. If you don't like my close, feel free to request another one on ANI or somewhere. Number 57 08:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
"No consensus" seemed like an appropriate close. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN/R: NCAA basketball championship (once a year)

How about the argument that the final is the 3rd most watched sporting event in a country that has 50% of WP's readers? And not far from 2nd? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The first and third parts of your argument has some relevance, but as several commenters pointed out, it is a heavily US-centric topic, with no evidence of overseas interest. The second part of the your comment is irrelevant as that would involve introducing systematic bias. Number 57 14:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I change the Lil Snupe page to make it BETTER I wasn't tryna threathen it or whatever. If you looked on the page you could see I just put information of Lil Snupe over there so he had wiki page. It would be better as it was before with everything on there including death, musical career, discography and more. Everything I wrote on there is legit check for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.48.215 (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ehud Avriel

Not an automated edit. The username doesn't have bot in title. Visa serves no purpose. Only thing would be the photo and that would be best to cut out the image. Bgwhite (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you were using AWB, so I assumed it was a run of edits that automatically made changes (especially as all your edit summaries have identical text). Number 57 08:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Football squad lists

Thank you for the barnstar. Do try to keep a lookout for sneaky edits that has happened frequently over the past few days. I'll do my share too until the discussion can reach a consensus. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again. LRD NO (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:R from character

Hi. Regarding your close at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10#Template:R from character, it seems to me that you only partially implemented the consensus. If you agree that the consensus is for User:John Vandenberg's suggestion, as slightly modified by User: Paine Ellsworth, can you also move:

and also perhaps confirm that there is consensus for making {{R from fictional character}} a "proper template" rather than a redirect. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I moved the other one to Template:R to character list entry (as this is what JV suggested). And I confirm the consensus for making it a proper template. Number 57 19:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your work diligently closing discussions at WP:AN/RFC and bringing down the backlog of that page, I hereby award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Thank you for your closes and for taking on tasks other administrators shy away from. TLSuda (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I endorse TLSuda (talk · contribs)'s "The Tireless Contributor Barnstar". Thank you so much for your hard work closing numerous WP:ANRFC discussions! Your closure at the "no consensus" discussion Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 April#List of black Academy Award winners and nominees had excellent advice to the participants. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Motique

Regarding this message, as you can see here, Motique has made almost 4000 edits with this account, none of which are to talk pages (apart from this one correction). It's unlikely that you will receive a reply. The best course of action seems unclear. Would a very short block to get their attention work ? Maybe not. They might just switch to another account e.g. before Motique I assume they were Special:Contributions/Mottic, an account that also made no talk page edits, and switched accounts for some reason. Good luck. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll mention that when I take it to ANI or wherever. Number 57 19:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
you will also note that Motique never provides an edit summary despite my repeated attempts to request that he does. He also repeatedly removes Arabic names from Israeli articles, at least 2 editors have asked him to stop doing this. Again no explanation for these actions. A complete failure to engage. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dundee Community Garden discussion

Can I ask why you choose to Close that discussion, and implement the Merge? Just a few hours prior I had stated that I was working on the article to address the comments from the discussion, to improve the article.

There had been no substantial response to my comment(s) regarding the Notability and Reliability of the Omaha World Herald newspaper as a reference source. Even aside from that, several editors including myself had recently added additional referencs from other primary sources, to specifically address the criticism on non-Notability/non-Reliability of the newspaper.

Had some time limit elapsed?

ScottHW (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Because AfDs last for seven days, and this one was overdue for closure already. There was no winning policy argument, and a clear majority of editors were in favour of getting rid of the article, either by deleting it or merging it (even one of the two editors in favour of keeping it stated that it could be merged). Number 57 18:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for taking the time to close the RfC on Talk:Jodie Foster as well as the many other RfCs you've closed. It's much appreciated!

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Moroccan Jew topic on Yoram Marciano

Hello User:Number 57 I am not too familiar with the process of "messaging" through Wikipedia. The problem is that you are the one who is editing my change based on irrelevant motive. Moroccan Jew is an actual ethnicity, it is referring to the Jews who live, or whose recent ancestors lived in Morocco. Despite of Zionism view, Yoram Marciano is considered as a part of the Moroccan diaspora, Israelis of Moroccan descent are still entitled to their Moroccan citizenship. So technically an Israeli-born of Moroccan parents is still considered as a Moroccan Jew. So Yoram Marciano is an Israeli of Moroccan descent, and Israeli of Moroccan-Jewish descent and a Moroccan Jew. These three categories apply to him. Keeping him in the category Moroccan Jew is relevant, so when you click in this category, you can see all the people of Moroccan Jewish descent, wether they live in France, Israel, Canada, or China. It's a good idea so you can havee a global view on the Moroccan Jewish diaspora. Please keep him in the category "Moroccan Jew". Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdoul (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Restormel council elections

Hi, I like the more specific titles for the various Cornish councils, just a small quibble - Restormel was a borough council. I know in practice borough and district councils were the same, but I thought it worth pointing out for your consideration. DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I voted in some of those elections :) Thanks for fixing it so quickly, and again I do like the new titles. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Election templates

Hi, Just a quick note to equire about "better arranged", in what way? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Because they don't look awful when collapsed by having different headings still visible. Number 57 17:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah I think I see where you’re coming from now. When I set-up the template as I did, it was because I felt that the old template in un-collapsed state was too big. I presume your idea is to default them to collapsed even if only one Navbox is in use? If so, I think that makes them pretty useless as a Navbox, but I've always doubted that many people would actually use them to navigate anywhere.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Jodie Foster

How long do you feel we should wait before starting a new discussion/RFC about the LGBT category?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No idea. With requested moves, the answer is usually several months. Number 57 10:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of sandbox

Hi Number 57,

I noticed you deleted by sandbox [18], but I was in the process of working on it still. There was some misinformation that I was indef blocked, but I was not. There are over 70 PubMed references in there that I was using to gradually bring up to the talk page. Can this please be reversed, or can you entertain a discussion about it? Thanks. DVMt (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, there was a MfD discussion that closed in favour of deleting it. You need to go to WP:DRV if you are unhappy with the decision. Number 57 13:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks. DVMt (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Galician autonomy referendum, 1936, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I thereby award you with The Admin's Barnstar for your continued work of closing discussions listed on the Requests for closure subpage of the Administrators' noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc de Binary

Hi there. I have just added the BdB case to the Wikipedia:List of banned users. It appears to me that Notsosoros as one of their prominent sockpuppetteers (and all others for that matter) should probably also be formally site banned per the ANI discussion. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a list of sockpuppeteers. Do you think all of them need a talk page note, or just Notsosoros? Number 57 15:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of Notsoros as the only confirmed sockmaster. The second list here could not be allocated to a specific master and many of them didn't touch the BDB article, so let's leave them alone for the time being. I guess they're all part of the same PR company but were tasked with editing multiple targets. But I'm under the impression that there were more outright BDB SPIs?. De728631 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
PS: There's also Okteriel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who did engage in the BdB campaign but was only suspected to be Notsoros. A ban notice wouldn't cause any harm there. De728631 (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I've put the notice on Notososoros' talk page, but as the others are only suspected, I'll leave it at that. The accounts are indef blocked anyway. Number 57 21:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
That's alright then. Thanks for notifying Notsosoros. De728631 (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Football squad player/doc

You and another editor are involved in a dispute at Template:Football squad player/doc. I've temporarily given the page full-protection. It is far preferable for the two of you (and others) to discuss this on the talk page instead of reverting each other. If this continues, this edit warring may result in a block. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lord Roem: You don't need to tell me. I attempted to discuss the matter with them on their talk page, but they continued reverting whilst the discussion was ongoing. If you were going to protect it, would it not be better to revert to the pre-dispute version, rather than leave a contentious one up? (And yes, I know about WP:WRONGVERSION, but as an admin, I am very careful to ensure that the version protected is not one that means the antagonistic party in the dispute gets their version kept). It's also very disappointing to see that I get exactly the same treatment as them, despite their appalling attitude towards consensus editing. Number 57 16:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There's clearly a dispute as to what the consensus on this issue is in the first place, so I don't feel comfortable getting to the "right" version. Honestly, I find the debate on this inclusion of flags and whatnot a bit silly. Whatever the case, I encourage you to try out WP:DRN if this continues, since the two of you are clearly having difficulty communicating effectively with each other. I see you've had discussions spanning multiple pages. DR may not be a bad idea if that discussion hasn't been productive. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Lord Roem: Surely the answer is just to revert to the longstanding pre-dispute version. I didn't revert all the changes made. And yes, I agree that the debate is rather lame - the template has been in use for around a decade with no major concerns, but there is a small number (about 6) of very determined editors who are obsessive about removing flags from Wikipedia and refuse to compromise. This is not the first topic area where I've seen them suddenly appear and disrupt things. Number 57 17:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yoav Ben-Tzur, new MK form Shas

You are invited to add to this article --Midrashah (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded it quite a bit. Cheers for letting me know. Number 57 21:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Kfar Vitkin

Hello. Thank you for creating Kfar Vitkin. I was wondering if you would be able to add inlined references for what you wrote? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really. I translated it from the Hebrew Wikipedia, which doesn't have any inline references. I have added one for the population though. Number 57 10:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There might be some on Google, although they may be in Hebrew. Those small towns in Israel really need to be expanded with inlined references, but that is so much work! Thanks for uploading the census.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, would you be interested in translating Lili Bosse into Hebrew for the Israeli wikipedia? Mayor of Beverly Hills, daughter of Holocaust survivors who met in Israel, prominent American Jewish philanthropist. I don't speak Hebrew yet unfortunately (I'd like to learn at some point). Lots of good inlined references there.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I no longer have a Hebrew enabled computer. Plus although I can understand a lot of what I read, writing it is a quite different matter, so I very rarely write on the Hebrew Wikipedia (it's been years since I created an article on there, and even simple ones had to be heavily corrected). Number 57 11:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I wonder how long it will take me to learn. Perhaps, one day, when I can actually read/write/speak Hebrew, I'll do it! Meanwhile, do you know any Wikipedians who might be able to translate it, in other words Wikipedians on the English wikipedia who also use the Israeli one?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Ynhockey is one editor I would recommend. However, most of the decent Israeli editors have slowly drifted away due to the unpleasantness of other people involved in the topic area. Number 57 12:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have contacted them. FYI, my DYK for Lili Bosse was blocked by "unpleasantness" too, although it may make it to the front page with another hook, but not a Jewish-related one. We live in strange times...Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, as an administrator, are you able to block this unregistered account please? They keep trying to delete Ron Manners, even though he is a prominent libertarian and the fully is fully referenced, as I tried to explain both on the talkpage and their userpage. If it was a registered account, perhaps I would try to be more patient, but they really are trying to get that page deleted in an obsessive manner, and it simply looks like spam (or someone who hates the right). Can you please help?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I think if anyone was in the wrong on the Manners article, it was you. The IP is completely entitled to try and AfD the article – the fact that they made a mess of it is not a justification for removing the template, and certainly not with the edit summary "reverted vandalism". I have now AfD'd the article in the proper way. If blocks are to be handed out, you would also be getting one for violating WP:3RR. Number 57 15:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me like this is vandalism as the page is fully referenced and you can see from reading the article that he is prominent, but I have responded on the AFD page. I just hope more people will do, or should we start deleting all kinds of prominent articles now?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see my talkpage. Bibliography section deleted from Manners's page during the AFD...to make the page look weaker perhaps?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
More books removed again by the same unregistered account, even though they were re-added by another wikipedian. All during the AFD. Perhaps, you will want to re-add them. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have protected the page and readded them. Please open a discussion on the article talk page about the inclusion of the books in that section - if there is a consensus against removing them, the IP will not be allowed to continue doing so. Number 57 12:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux RfC

Book and newspaper reliable sources that use the exact term "philosopher"

Independently published mentions of Molyneux from reliable third-party sources:

Your close of the Molyneux RfC is I believe in error and at a minimum should have been closed as "no consensus". The RfC was created and polluted by votes based on political agenda, not referencing policy, and those votes should have been immediately disregarded. Several of these political voters said that there were no reliable sources, but this is patently false, as The Times and The Globe and Mail are major national newspapers and clearly reliable sources fully complaint with policy, and you should have disregarded those votes as well. Some voters said that non-mention in certain types of sources that list people as philosophers was evidence he is not one, but these should be disregarded because absence of evidence does not outweigh the presence of evidence in the reliable sources given. -- Netoholic @ 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. The vast majority of the "no" votes addressed policy, mostly WP:RS. They pointed out that (a) the sources are not sufficiently reliable on this topic or that (b) they did not specifically call him a philosopher, but some other variant on the term. In contrast, none of the "yes" votes addressed policy in their statements, although you did this in other areas of the debate. Number 57 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Two points:
  • I provided the sources and sections which directly use the word "philosopher" here and on the RfC page. Any vote that says "they did not specifically call him a philosopher" is patently and clearly false. Any vote that disregards these major newspapers as a reliable sources is clearly going against policy, as being a major newspaper clearly makes them reliable based on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations : "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact".
  • The question posed in the RfC was "Question: Should Molyneux be called a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article?" - You did not address this. If "philosopher" should not be "without qualification", then there has been no proposal for what qualifier to use. This point was brought up, and there is no consensus on what the correct qualifier should be. This central question was not addressed in your close. --Netoholic @ 20:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, you're wrong on both counts. Half your sources call him an internet or cyber philosopher, which as several editors pointed out, is not the same thing as simply philosopher. Concerns were also raised about the Trust Edge's reliability as a source. And my close did address the central question, which was whether he should be described as a philosopher or not. There was a sub-discussion about qualifiers under the RFC, but (a) that was not the central question and (b) there was no agreement. As I see on the AN section, you say you'll request a review if you don't get what you want from me. Please do that. Number 57 07:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The literal central question of the RfC (copying it here) is: Question: Should Molyneux be called a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article? You can see that precise line here, directly under your closing edit. I just need to be VERY sure you understand that, because you're saying above the opposite ("(a) that was not the central question"). I would really rather not take this to AN without giving you every opportunity to see this and correct if if you agree. The way I'm looking at it, you're misreading the precise wording of the central question. Do you really not acknowledge that this is the exact wording of the question? Wouldn't a misunderstanding of the central question fundamentally affect how you approached the closure? -- Netoholic @ 08:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I did not say the opposite, I just omitted the words "without qualifiers" because I don't feel the need to quote exact text when in an informal discussion. I fully understood the question. The problem here is that you are unable to understand that other editors had valid reasons for disagreeing with you. This is my final response: If you don't like the close, get a review. Number 57 08:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Done as you've asked. -- Netoholic @ 09:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Notice of ANI

An ANI on the Stefan Molyneux philosopher RFC closing has been opened here. – S. Rich (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Mauritius

hi, following the closure of a discussion which you made at COA, i would like you to reconsider the conclusion that you made about the discussion as there is a clear consensus that the new COA is closer to being accurate. Thank.Kingroyos (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't a clear consensus (I have no idea how you think there is). Four editors (SiBr4, Fishal, Nford24 and FkpCascais) said neither version was preferable and that a new one needed creating, three editors (Dqfn13, Keithbob and yourself) supported your version, one editor (Floatsam) said your version needed more work and two editors (Odysseus1479 and Nyttend) did not indicate a preference for either version. Number 57 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Since there has been no support for Escondites COA is a clear indication, the question here is to choose the best one between the two COA which is available, whether a new one need to be done later is a different matter, by the way, i don't think anyone will do it and what specifically need to be change is still unclear. Moreover among these users some of them did mention there preference for the new one; Fishal The trees from the older version, and the shield from the newer fersion, seem to best match the government original. and I agree that WP should use a file that matches the government graphic as closely as possible., Nford24 Escondites tree's connect correctly-ish but Kingroyos is closer to being accurate. Floatsam I concur that while the Kingroyos version is more accurate in some respects of shape and color.Kingroyos (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The question you proposed was to choose between the two, but as the discussion developed several other editors made a different choice, which was to say neither was appropriate. You don't get to control the debate, nor decide that certain opinions are not valid because they don't fit into the categories you initially chose.
Furthermore, your cherrypicking of quotes from other editors is not going to change my mind, particularly when you are being so blatantly biased in what you have chosen to ignore (e.g. the rest of Nford24's comment that "Due to the various differences being rather vast I would suggest they both go back to the drawing board at this time.").
What I suggest is that rather than trying to change my mind with very badly-thought out arguments, you take the comments on board, and try again. Number 57 22:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
You didn't understand what i wanted to say, i agree some users said it should go to the drawing board but its still unclear what exactly should be change, i can try to change them myself. I only cherry picking these quotes just to show you they did mention the new COA was still better while no one supported Escondites version. Kingroyos (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have started a closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#RfC closure review: Coat of arms of Mauritius. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure

Can you please close the RfC on this talk page?. The bot removed the template and it seems nobody else will be showing up. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, have done. Number 57 18:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Doesn't seem like it got enclosed entirely there. Wanted to mention you give a very thoughtful closure to RfC's. I noticed it on the one on Albert Einstein. That's why I asked you for this one. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the reflist seems to be causing the colouring to stop halfway down the page. But thanks for your kind words. Number 57 19:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jacob Barnett

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jacob Barnett. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (I wasn't aware of the thread here regarding this AfD, when I started the deletion review.) Taku (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination) was closed the wrong way.

You cannot ignore WP:BLP. The fact that one user posts reams of flawed arguments doesn't override the overwhelming consensus on this. Revise your flawed assessment before someone else has to do it for you. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP is an issue for the article's content, not it's existence. Please take it to DRV if you disagree with the closure. Number 57 13:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Your close rationale significantly misrepresents many of the delete arguments, which were based on WP:V and WP:BLP not on WP:PROF nor on vague arguments about "twaddle". Please reconsider. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Do I really need to mention every single argument put forward by contributors in a rationale? PROF was cited in both the AfD rationale and the first commenter, and was mentioned more often in the debate than WP:V. As I've already pointed out to Barney, BLP is largely about content, and is a very weak deletion rationale (the only real valid rationale is when an article does not have a single reference, or if the article is entirely negative in tone). See WP:BLPDEL for further information. I highlighted the twaddle example because it was a !vote that was being discounted as it was completely invalid.
Summarising, I took into account the arguments put forward. One was clearly stronger than the other. I'm not going to reconsider the close. Please take it to DRV if you disagree with the closure. Number 57 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't say I'm happy with either the decision or the rationale. I feel that many policy based deletion reasons were dismissed, and others categorically misinterpreted. This was a controversial close, and normally one expects a bit more thoughtful weighing of arguments than you have done. I don't think it's worth the bother of taking to DRV, as I don't see a strong case for overturning the close to delete. (At best, I think it could be overturned as "no consensus".). But please take this as constructive criticism for other similar administrative actions in the future. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I did dismiss policy-based reasons, but that was because either (a) the policies/guidelines quoted are overruled by others (i.e. GNG) or were being misused (e.g. the BLP claims, which I have dealt with twice above). Your comments about "a bit more thoughtful weighing of arguments" is made solely because I arrived at a different conclusion to you. I read every single argument put forward and assigned them the weight they deserved. Whether you agree or not is up to you, but claiming that I failed to do so weigh them up thoughtfully is simply wrong. Number 57 16:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. This was a bad close and you deserve a trout for your disrespectful misreading of many of the arguments. Like Sławomir Biały, I don't see much grounds for DRV, but rather than being dismissive of the complaints here as sour grapes you should take this as an opportunity to think about how you could have done it better. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) As the closing administrator, if you decide that certain policy arguments with substantial community support do not apply, then the onus is on you to explain carefully why that is. For example, I disagree with your interpretation of the BLPDEL policy that you have cited. This is not an injunction against deleting problematic BLPs; it is an injunction against summary deletion (deletion without a discussion). But this was not even an argument that was raised during the deletion discussion. If there was any consensus to be had from the discussion, it was that there was an apparent conflict between the BLP policy and the NPOV policy. You might disagree with that community consensus, but to close the debate without even addressing that community consensus is unacceptable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, the decision to keep was based on a thoughtful analysis of the AfD arguments and reached the proper conclusion. This was a huge wall of text to wade through and not an easy task. I think it was the right decision. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be special pleading on the grounds that the discussion was unusually long before consensus was finally reached. That does not excuse a close which completely disregards the consensus. If such things were decided on the whims of administrators, there would be no point in having discussions at all. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
SW3 5DL, I agree with you. Number 57, thank you for taking the time to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination) in response to an ANRFC request from Xxanthippe. The contentious AfD was difficult to close, and I found your closing rationale an accurate assessment of the arguments in the discussion.

There was no consensus that the BLP policy and NPOV policies conflicted. You addressed the subject when you wrote Reasons for deletion were given as ... a claim that the boy's work is twaddle. Even if this was true (without any proof, this is also original research), it is still not a reason to overrule GNG (if there are concerns about his work which are reported in reliable sources, these should be included in the article).

You were right when you said you'd get flak from the close. I hope you won't let it get to you and affect the excellent work you do at ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If, as you believe, there was no consensus, there is an option for closing a debate that way. You are arguing that an absence of consensus justifies a keep closure. Apart from you, I think there was substantial consensus on the NPOV vs BLP issue. In any event, this needed to be addressed one way or another in the closing rationale. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I said "There was no consensus that the BLP policy and NPOV policies conflicted", not "there was no consensus in the AfD". In other words, there was no agreement based on the strengths of the arguments that BLP and NPOV conflicted. Instead, Number 57 found the arguments against a conflict persuasive. This was addressed in Number 57's close (see my quote from his closing rationale above).

I believe that a "keep" result is a reasonable assessment of the AfD based on the strengths of the arguments. Cunard (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely fail to understand how the lack of conflict between these two policies can possibly be addressed in a closing rationale that mentions neither of these policies. Indeed, this is the whole reason it was a bad close. Mkay? Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, agree with Cunard. @Sławomir Biały:, if there's any special pleading going on, it's all on your side. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
And now we have an ad hominem. Any other fallacies you wish to showcase for our amusement? Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I never argued that the AfD was too long. I said it was a wall of text, meaning it took a lot of patience and thoughtful consideration to wade through it and reach a cogent decision. Number 57 did that. You came along and twisted that around into 'special pleading' which I'd never even heard of before. Now you claim an ad hominem. Your hectoring is disruptive to the discussion. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Kim Pyo

Could you please expand your closing comment at Kim Pyo RfD discussion? The situation looked more like no consensus to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically, my assessment of the debate was that the rationales behind the two non-delete !votes were debunked by the following comments from other editors. I discarded the comment of Christian75 as quant countered "Kim Pyo" doesn't give any results either for Kim Seung-pyo or Kim Jin-pyo, because neither is actually referred to that way. Regarding your own rationale, the point at which I gave it less weight it was when you answered the question "Is there any source which has ever referred to Kim Pyong-il as Kim Pyo?" with "No". Hope that helps clarify. Cheers, Number 57 16:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Reasonable. Thanks! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for being so reasonable about the outcome! Number 57 21:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to South Ossetian presidential election, 1996 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
  • Asian Republics at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century: A Guide to the Economies in Transition] Routledge</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Basma and Ma'ale Iron

Frankly, I need some help, what (=which villages, places) actually went into Basma and Ma'ale Iron? Can we get a solid source on that? Not Dov Guttman; I have found so many mistakes in his web-site.

It is sort of difficult to write the history of the places without knowing their former names.

Also, what about was al-Murtafi'a, Aqqada and Kh. Um al Abhar: were they joined into Ma'ale Iron? They are not on the list of depopulated 1948-villages, and were in the middle of the group of villages Guttman say went into Ma'ale Iron. (And all 3 are noted on the 1880s SWP map).

Hope you can help! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Re Basma, it would appear that the article is correct (Barta'a West, Ein as-Sahala, and Muawiya), as it is confirmed by the Council website and a Haaretz article. The Hebrew Wikipedia has quite detailed articles on the three villages (which you can access via the main Basma page) if you want to run them through a translator.
Re Maale Iron, the Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't say, but this Wadi Ara website seems to suggest that the English version is correct. There are Hebrew and Arabic versions of the Musmus article.
al-Murtafi'a appears to be part of Maale Iron, based on the municipal boundaries shown on Google maps (one suburb is named "El Murtafa'a-Zalafe"). Aqada is in the Umm al Fahm municipality. I can't find any record of Um al Abhar. Number 57 21:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
That was very helpful, thanks! Um al Abhar is south of Aqada towards Umm al Fahm; I think then we can assume it is under Umm al Fahm. (I do not read any Hebrew, or Arabic, unfortunately, and translate.google works so and so.) Cheers, Huldra (talk)
<removed>
Ah, one more thing. In the 1945 census, Ein Ibrahim and Khirbat el Buweishat were counted under Um al-Fahm. I will just create a redir for whatever that they are counted under today. Which I have no idea as to what is? Ein Ibrahim is south of Musmus, NW of Um al-Fahm, Khirbat el Buweishat is between Mu'awiya and Musheirifa, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Ein Ibrahim is within the Umm al-Fahm boundary (if you type the town names into Google Maps, it also shows the boundaries), Can't find el Buewishat, but I'd hazard a guess that it's also within Umm al-Fahm, as the Maale Iron boundaries are pretty tight around the built-up area.
Also, FYI, I'm teetotal ;) Number 57 22:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh boy, was I wrong there...so sorry. Here, hope you like tea? If not, turn it into coffee, cappucino, or what you like?

I thought Ein Ibrahim was within the Umm al-Fahm boundary (it is pretty close), and I´ll re. dir the other to Maale Iron, Thanks again, you have been very helpful! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Actually, I'm not a fan of tea or coffee either – hot chocolate is my drink of choice. This information usually brought some rather shocked reactions when I lived abroad ("You're British and you don't drink tea OR beer?"). Number 57 23:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Then it is of course it is a nice cup of hot chocolate which is pictured ;) Yeah, I can imagine the shock. At least you care about foot-ball/soccer? I´m a "teaaholic" myself; completely addicted to it (with lemon, or lime, no milk). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Keesings access

Hey Number 57, I have approved your access to Wikipedia:Keesings but need you to follow the instructions in the email I sent a week ago. Sadads (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Page protection of Slovenian parliamentary election, 2014

Hello Number 57,

could you please reduce the level of protection to semi-protection, in order to allow registered users to update the article? I think the edit war is over. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

im sana khan from pakiatan plz help me

Plz help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqbal Boss (talk • contribs) 07:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixtures

I wasn't aware of the case, however would still be very dubious about including them whilst licences are still being issued. Is there any pressure on us to include them, if not then personally I still wouldn't. We aren't a sports fixture list.Blethering Scot 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read article in full. Just seen they aren't issuing them. What was the project consensus then when this happened, was it too include or exclude. Blethering Scot 13:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Ive started a conversation at WP:Footy.Blethering Scot 19:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Liga Bet for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. scope_creep 18:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde
added a link pointing to National People's Assembly
Party for Social Renewal
added a link pointing to National People's Assembly

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop removing minor parties from results tables

One thing are "minor" parties, which I accept, and way another are parties which, separately, poll 0.00%, or even sometimes do not get 1 single vote. They have been added to the "Other parties" category (mostly in order for them to actually poll something together, even if it is 0.01%, but also to prevent the table being very long as a result of Spain having a lot of very small parties) in all Spanish election articles from 1989 to 2011. It has been like this in many of them for months, and up until I edited the 1989 election article it did not cause any trouble. Furthermore, some other countries' election articles follow similar procedures to prevent having a lot of almost non-polling parties (see UK, US, Germany, French legislative, etc). Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Rabota15

I've blocked for 1 week for violating WP:BLP with unreferenced categories; next time will be indef. GiantSnowman 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, now indeffed for block evading as Abity9 (talk · contribs), identified per WP:DUCK - appeared a few days after Rabota15 was blocked, exclusively edits Israeli football, engages in the same OVERCAT. GiantSnowman 20:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

UNCHR

Oh, you are right. It doesn't say "legitimate" asylum seekers, just asylum seekers. So you can remove the word "legitimate". However, they are referred to as refugees, which is, to my knowledge, the same thing as a "legitimate" asylum seeker. The previous revisions of the article referred to them as "infiltrators" and "migrant workers", so I just wanted to change that. You can re-word it how you please, so long as you remain impartial. I'd suggest simply referring to them as "asylum seekers". JDiala (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

They are all referred to as asylum seekers. It's used as a blanket term, so we can assume the UNCHR believes that the migrants are asylum seekers. Again, you can re-word that sentence how you please, just refer to them how the UNCHR does. JDiala (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't see how much more clear the document can be. It referred to them as "asylum seekers" in every instance. From that, we can conclude that the UNCHR believes that the African migrants to Israel are asylum seekers. JDiala (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If you're not going to respond to my argument, then I'm afraid I can't just let you revert it. The report clearly refers to them as asylum seekers.. JDiala (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it does not. It, however, refers to them as asylum seekers. Therefore, the statement "the UNCHR believes that the migrants are asylum seekers" is not invalid. JDiala (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Karabakh Aghdam

Please, don't start edit war due Karabakh FC. First of all, Karabakh played in Aghdam's Guzanli district 2 years ago, moreover they represent that city.--Yacatisma (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
It's nice to meet an admin who just gets on and does stuff, knows what he's talking about and is a genuinely nice, friendly human being! I'm glad we got a moment to chat at the weekend. WormTT(talk) 10:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As insane as it sounds... normal isn't normal any more and nice is rare! WormTT(talk) 10:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Dahomeyan Democratic Union at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Bahraini general election, 1973

Thank you Number 57 for your quick review. It is mentioned in the introduction that “the remaining members were independents with shifting positions”. I tried to find a source that lists only the original six members and I could not find any. The source from which I got the names probably listed one of the members with shifting positions as from “Religious Bloc”. --Bu7assan (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages

Thank you for your recent articles, including Agrarian Union (Poland), which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do appreciate the interwikis. And it is always a nice surprise when an esoteric Polish subject is first covered on en wiki instead of pl wiki :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Dahomeyan Democratic Union

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Victoria West

Hi. Sorry, I was using the unlink tool and realised I had made a mistake. I tried to cancel but it obviously carried on running. Sorry for all the extra work I created Gbawden (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yehoshua Ya'acov ben-Avraham

I'm a little disappointed that you didn't use A7 as the speedy delete requirement. I would have gotten a good laugh labeling the Messiah as an unremarkable person. I've had a crappy day and something like this comes along to make the day somewhat better. Thank you. Bgwhite (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Former England National Hockey Stadium

I suggest that you may have been blinded by custom and practice into a default edit. The former ENHS no longer exists, so it seems to me to be quite misleading to use a title like National Hockey Stadium (Milton Keynes). That title seems to suggest that it is in current use like Lahore and KL. If it were still active, then I would agree with your edit. Today I don't. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, apart from thinking that Arsenal Stadium should be called Highbury Stadium (per wp:common name at least), I won't argue the point further.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

Beninese parliamentary election, 1995
added a link pointing to Rally for Democracy and Progress
Beninese parliamentary election, 1999
added a link pointing to National Salvation Front

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Metallurgist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Unrelated, but do you know if there is a talk page archive bot? I think I remember reading about one, but I cant figure out how. I used to manually archive my talk page, but I was thinking it would b better to just split off the old article edits into the archives. Do you know if I can do this with a bot or would that be an admin thing and not going to happen?--Metallurgist (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Metallurgist: Yes, I use one on this page. Have a look at the coding at the top (it starts {{User:MiszaBot/config). If it's not obvious, I can set it up on your talk page for you. Cheers, Number 57 16:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

GNC

I was unimpressed by your edit to self-proclaimed GNC. How you can find a political group running a national capital city without government authority while backed by armed militias to be "not notable" is baffling to me. If you can find a more appropriate term for this group, please try the talk page. I considered several titles and found it the most objectively accurate, but i would be very interested in your suggestions, if you have any. Contributorzero (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Contributorzero: I was unimpressed by you creating an article with an entirely inappropriate title. I have now merged it into the General National Congress article, as it is a continuation of the old body - I hope this is an acceptable outcome. If not, we can have an AfD. Cheers, Number 57 20:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not an acceptable outcome, nor have you started to explain how the title is inappropriate. Your argument for deletion - that the article is not notable - is weak, and you have not started to explain that either. Perhaps you could engage in more discussion. Contributorzero (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The title is inappropriate because it's entirely original research - nowhere is the body referred to as "Self-proclaimed General National Congress". An appropriate title would have involved disambiguation (such as "General National Congress (2014)") in which it is clear that "(2014)" is not part of the title. Regarding the merge, this can be discussed at the AfD. Cheers, Number 57 20:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It is certainly not original research, what an odd accusation- it is well documented in the media that this group proclaimed themselves the GNC on 25 August 2014, after the original GNC had been dissolved. However, this has nothing to do with deletion. If you dont like a title, you can discuss that on the talk page. "General National Congress (2014)" is not possible because the last GNC was also in 2014, as you would know if you were following Libyan politics. Contributorzero (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If it's not original research, please point me to a news source that calls this (not describes it as) the "Self-proclaimed General National Congress". And yes, I have been following Libyan politics - I wrote half the articles on elections and referendums in Libya, so please don't try and make out that you have some kind of superior knowledge. Cheers, Number 57 20:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, I have replied to your message on my talk page. I really don't want to fall out with anyone and I feel we have got off on the wrong foot but I don't think it is fair of you to misinterpret and misrepresent my positions, or indeed to suggest I should be blocked for breaking the 3RR rule given the circumstances, it's not exactly an honest interpretation of the situation given that I am the one who directed the matter to the relevant talk page and was not the one removing sourced content that is standard to the article layout. I also said repeatedly said that I did not have a problem with the rest of the individual's edit, to which I got a childish reply and a clear and deliberate act of edit warring, he actually reverted an edit in an act of spite. All I did was replaced standardised sourced content and said I had no problem with the rest of his edit. You talk about getting backs up but I'm feeling really defensive now in reaction to yourself. I want the situation to be resolved and diffused, thats why I followed Wiki's proper channels to do so. Owl In The House (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elections in Benin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atakora. 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) 09:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What the ever living Nora.....

The Next UK general election article has gone bonkers! What's happened... doktorb wordsdeeds 13:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw The Anome moved it to an incorrect title, so I then moved it again. Unbeknownst to me, they had also moved it again, which meant by the time I hit the move button, I was now moving a redirect over the article. I then had to restore the article and undo the redirect...
Now moving all the associated talk pages, which weren't moved. Number 57 13:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh balls. I've tried to move it BACK. There's no consensus to move it away from "Next United Kingdom general election", is there? doktorb wordsdeeds 13:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have done a cut and paste move (which I've rolled back). Do you want me to move back to the original "Next..." title? The rationale they used appears to be flawed, as it was pretty much out-argued in this move discussion. Number 57 13:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Squad Templates for teams below the Conference

Hi,

I added a squad template to the Dulwich Hamlet F.C. page yesterday.

You removed it, stating "We don't use these templates below the Conference".

Could you confirm why that is please?

Cheers.

82.12.249.66 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I've replied at User talk:82.12.249.66 in case you missed it. Cheers, Number 57 12:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:undo

Apologies, I meant to undo both, seeing as they were linked - now rectified. GiantSnowman 14:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Question on the central WP:OR issue Re: "RfC: Is the List section original research?" in Pariah state article

Thank you for your close. I left my apology on the talk page. I didn't realize there was actually a formal closing procedure. I was so happy with the way things were going; the last thing I meant was to disrespect other editors. I went out of my way a couple of times to solicit dissenting views because I think they assure we have studied the issue thoroughly.

My question: If a list is made of items that are each individually sourced, yet the list itself is not sourced as a whole (or maybe that such a list is not sourced as being a meaningful concept?), is it inherently OR or SYNTH? Our discussion ignored that issue and focused on deletion of the list for other reasons. I know contrasting views, for example, can be juxtaposed, and that's how I see a list like this. But there is surely a qualitative difference between a UN source and a political pundit using the term, and the lack of that distinction is, I think, what opened the list to such controversy in the first place. Thanks again! Dcs002 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dcs002: No problem, I saw that you did. As for the OR and SYNTH thing, I agree that there is certainly an element of that here - unless we talk about membership of a certain body, or prizes awarded, any "list of people/things described as X" is inherently problematic, as there will always be different motivations for people describing something/someone as X - for example if we had "List of democratic countries", you can imagine the kind of shit-stirring we'd get from editors using sources based on the Russian/Chinese/North Korean government-type of view. The US is the most extreme case, as it will always be described as everything within any range of potential descriptions depending on how much the writer loves/loathes it. Number 57 22:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eric Lawson (politician) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
  • s heavy involvement in its establishment, it was later renamed the [[Lawson Tama Stadium]].<ref>[http://www.solomonencyclopaedia.net/biogs/E000765b.htm Sports Grounds Solomon Islands Historical

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your block of 83.228.167.87

Hi Number 57, I noticed that indefinite block you placed on 83.228.167.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), would you mind changing it to have an expiry date say in a month or so given that it's an IP. Also given the number of contribs (some look like they're not Soapamalkanmaime) could you please use {{anonblock}} (with the link to Soapamalkanmaime in the manual reason box) so any innocent users know what to do. Thanks you and regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc. TBH, I'm a bit concerned about shortening the block. I looked at a fair number of contributions from the IP, and I didn't really see any that suggested it wasn't Soapamalkanmaime (perhaps you could give me some diffs for which ones you think aren't him? The vast majority are classic Soapamalkanmaime edits - portal or reference related). It was only being used from 23 August, so I'm not convinced it's an open IP. The fact that he's actually requested an unblock (I don't think this has happened at any other account/address) suggests that it's effective. This also makes me a bit concerned about adding the anonblock template - I'll think it over (got to rush off now). Cheers, Number 57 15:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Difficult editors

Hello, I hope you are doing well.

There are major problems with the article Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, not the least of which is POV (esp. undue weight) and use of unreliable sources. One particular editor seems to be hijacking this article, even deciding he can remove the undue-weight tags for himself. Please check out my comments in talk as well as the edit history (note that this particular editor usually reverts others with harsh language) dating from July. I would love to engage in a meaningful discussion but it seems almost impossible with him, and the article continues to reek of several editorial problems. --Precision123 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Number 57. If you are too busy or otherwise unable to provide guidance for me in this case that is perfectly fine, just please let me know. At the very least, I believe a maintenance tag should appear, as the article cites personal Twitter accounts as sources, but this particular editor is removing them (even as all his edits remain intact). Can editors remove tags like these? Thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Precision. Really sorry for not responding previously - I was busy when I read the message and then it slipped my mind. I'm busy tonight, but will try and have a look in the next couple of days. Re tag removal, it's not good practice, although in fairness I have removed tags when they are being insisted on by a single editor. A brief look at the walls of text on the talk page suggests that little progress will be made, so perhaps an RFC might be a good starting point (if it attracts comments from outside the usual suspects). Number 57 16:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Completely understandable. I think an RFC is normally a good idea, although I don't want this to become an Israeli–Palestinian issue when it is really a matter of RS and undue weight. Another problem is that because the article has multiple issues, it will be very hard to break down each problematic sentence/source/section in a way that is readable to outside editors, though I am not saying it is not possible. If you have any suggestions with regards to that, feel free to let me know. Let's touch base again after you give the article a closer look. Best, --Precision123 (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
What I did is no different than what User_Precision123 did by calling for your intervention against me, though I see you have not also warned him/her of canvassing like you did me. And I do think what I did was neutral - I specifically requested that other users provide balance in the discussion, and I only did that because Precision123 was asking for your interference against me before, thereby making conversation unbalanced. S/he did not ask for a neutral mediation - s/he asked for action against me. And the unbalance is for all to see, seeing as that you have not extended the canvassing warning against him/her like you did me. I therefore ask you to not interfere in the page, as doing so only enables Precision's own attempts at canvassing. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::: The "note" s/he left was a demand for intervention for his/her side. S/he was not asking for neutral mediation, that much is clear, and you shouldn't make little of that - it only further arouses my suspicions that your intervention wouldn't be a neutral one. As for your question, I read your infobox and the categories on your profile about Israel and got mixed up, thinking you're Israeli. About my asking the WikiProject Palestine people to not intervene: well, no one has intervened from that corner thus far - they probably know the Wikipedia rules better than I do, though, yes, I think it's absolutely necessary that people from other political persuasions provide balance in the conversation if Precision123's own canvassing is allowed to succeed. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solomon Islands general election, 1973, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Progressive Party. 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) 09:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at Vigyani's talk page.
Message added 12:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nicola Smith

I see you reverted my change to the hatnote at this article. The reason that the link is piped through the (disambiguation) redirect is so those of us at WP:DPL (and the bots that create lists for us) know that the link is intentional. This is spelled out at WP:INTDABLINK. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 12:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Montserrat Elections

Thank you for the assistance with updating the content with the Montserrat elections. Caribbeanbio (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Help needed for archiving

Please explain this step "If an archive box doesn't already exist on the main talk page, add the line (you can see about the line at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Cut_and_paste_procedure) below the WikiProject tags and save." I can't understand what it's supposed to mean. Where should I add the line? KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Also I might have foolishly altered your talk page's archivebox and I don't now how to fix it. Forgive me for that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor parties

It think it is actually a very good idea. It would require some work (specially for the most recent elections) but it is a compromise solution between both our proposals that I like. Impru20 (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Referendum

Hello. I will be adding a new "Voting age population/turnout" row to this template, which I intend to use on the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 and on Chilean election articles. I'm not planning on searching for every usage of this template to add such information. Also, this information will obviously be an optional parameter. What do you think? Pristino (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi. I am writing to you as one of three parties recently edit warring on Swedish general election, 2014. You are all receiving the same message. As evident from the recent page history, there have been disputes in recent hours. The edit warring must stop immediately. Further edit warring may result in a block without any further warning. Please see my note on the article talk page regarding the Request for Page Protection that was received. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rjd0060: Thanks for protecting the page as I requested, but I think giving me a warning is a little out of order. I made two reverts over several hours, only one of which was after the dispute really flared up (the first when I restored an earlier version of the table was before I realised there was a problem, and the second was with an edit summary requesting BRD be followed and accompanied by a note on the user's talk page. When two other editors kept on going, I both asked them to stop on the article talk page and requested page protection. The other two users clearly violated 3RR and one has made 5 or 6 reverts (depending on what you class as a revert), including after the request on their talk page, the article talk page and my RFPP request, and I think it's rather unfair to get the same message as them. Number 57 02:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Ossetian independence referendum, 1992, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Government of Georgia. 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) 08:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Eric Lawson (politician)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Cut & paste moves

Hi, I haven't been aware of the WP:RM process, and the move tab didn't work. Besides and as a matter of fact, I didn't even intend to get involved into moving/renaming pages that featured incorrectly spelled adjective "Czechoslovakian" to "Czechoslovak". I just moved one page, which led to other sub-articles as I found shortly, so I got the rest of those few moved too. I'm done with it, sorry for inconvenience. MiewEN (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, and here we are, should we not be rather using more formal words, then alternatives. It is a very common mistake, also in case of Slovakia. Slovak Republic is the official name of the country, not Slovakian Republic, thus "(Czecho)Slovak" is the proper adjective to be used. There are Czechs and Slovaks, not Czechians and Slovakians. That is Slovenia which is the other case around to be spelled. No need to reply, cheers. MiewEN (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Number 57; I noticed that you moved Federal popular initiative "against excessive remunerations" to Swiss executive pay referendum, 2013, citing WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. Whilst the move seems indeed supported by these naming conventions, I think it's rather confusing in a Swiss context, and especially for people from Switzerland, such as me. In Switzerland, there is a distinction of two types of referendums, and only one of these two is actually called a "referendum": In Switzerland, we usually use the term referendum only for referendums held on federal laws, especially for the optional referendum (laws opposed by citizens). If there is a vote (in German: Abstimmung, Volksabstimmung) on a federal popular initiative (Eidgenössische Volksinitiative) - a proposal by citizens to change the constitution - the term "referendum" isn't commonly used. (There is also a mandatory referendum for changes of the constitution not initiated by citizens, so one could speak of three types of referendums on the federal level). However, of course this is the English-language Wikipedia (and English isn't one of Switzerland's four national languages), so it may still be a good idea to follow the naming conventions cited by you. Just wanted to explain why people from Switzerland wouldn't feel inclined to choose the term "referendum" for an article about a popular initiative. Popular initiatives always have official names in Switzerland's national languages, and Federal popular initiative "against excessive remunerations is a close translation of the official French form Initiative populaire fédérale 'contre les rémunérations abusives'. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Gestumblindi: I fully understand your point, but I think that would only be relevant on the French/German/Italian/Romansch wikis - i.e. the native languages of the country. Referendum is commonly used in English language publications for all the types of votes in Switzerland, both in academic publications like the Nohlen book I have used, and non-academic election/referendum focussed organisations like Election Guide. However, I do think it should be made clear in the introduction of the articles what type of vote is being held. Cheers, Number 57 13:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

can you explain your reversions to first utility ?

Hi,

Can you explain your reversions to the first utility entry ?

All the additions were well reported, accurate, referenced & factual.

The poor customer service history is clearly well documented and a very significant aspect of it's history which should be public knowledge.

- and do you have any connection with the company ?

many thanks Owen

Owenxx (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Owenxx: I reverted most of your additions to the article, as almost everything you added was critical of the company. Given that it is a fairly short article, trebling it's length with entirely negative material is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Unless you count being a former customer, I have no connection with the company. In return, can I ask about your motivation for adding so much criticism to the article? Number 57 13:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hiya, I'm a current customer of them.

I have to disagree that it was entirely negative, since it included statements from the company about how they had increased the number of customer service people significantly, and also that they took the issue of fuel poverty seriously, which is a positive balancing statement.

Can I suggest we go through the edits line by line and see if there are any particular bits you feel make it too unbalanced and we can see how to either remove the bits you find most disagreeable - and / or attempt to find some suitable balancing positive material.

I am sure you will agree that the fact that Ofgem went to the lengths of giving them a warning over cutting off pensioners is a suitably weighty fact that it is vital to include.

I note that whilst removing all the material described as negative you left in the 'good news' part of my edit which was that they now have 2% of the UK market. At the moment I feel the article is exclusively 'good news' so some negative sections will actually give it more balance.

Since this is a large corporate company dealing with residential customers, the area of it's interface with it's customers and any failings or positive aspects are a very valid topic for inclusion.

many thanks Owen Owenxx (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I get the feeling that you are an unsatisfied current customer, and you are on Wikipedia specifically to disparage them. This really isn't what it's for I'm afraid. Number 57 21:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited F.C. Romania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunday league. 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) 09:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to comment?

An editor is contesting the decision you made in closing the RM that moved automobile to car. I thought that you'd perhaps like to comment on whether his concerns have merit. The discussion is located at Talk:Car, in the same section as the RM]. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Premature close

Please don't close RMs that are still in contention so quickly as you did at Talk:Black Hereford (hybrid)#Requested move; the rationales being given against the original proposal were all conflicting, some of them were invalid (one was a POV/IDONTLIKEIT object that the American breed is a "designer crossbreed" as if this had anything to do with WP:AT, WP:V and WP:N, and some alternatives were under discussion. It would be better to have that play out longer, and see whether any of the competing naming ideas gather any support. The article in question still needs to be renamed (to something) because the current one is inaccurate nonsense; the term hybrid applies to crosses between things at the subspecies or higher level (usually species, occasionally genera); applying it to breeds is a POV-pushing neologism unsupported by reliable sources. At this point, the most likely name would probably be Black Hereford (crossbreed), which I was going to suggest only to find in edit-conflict that you'd already closed it. If were listed for RM to that name, people will probably procedurally object due to the recentness of the proposed move you closed. So, should I take to WP:MR to have it procedurally re-opened? As the closer can you just self-revert the closing? Should we just leave it at the bad name for several month and do another RM?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I closed it because it was listed in the backlog section for RMs, and because of a request to clear that backlog at WP:AN. I don't agree that it was still "in contention" - there hadn't been any comments since 25 September, and I also disagree that a likely outcome would have been Black Hereford (crossbreed), as no-one had actually suggested that - someone said it was potentially more accurate, but it was certainly never formally proposed. If you still disagree, by all means take it to WP:MR, but you may be better off starting a new RM on the crossbreed proposal. Number 57 09:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there any real convention on how long to wait? It seems like a bad idea to leave it at a factually incorrect name for months just for procedural nit-pick reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I think in cases like this (where it'a completely different proposal which came about as a result of the previous discussion), it's perfectly acceptable to start another RM straightaway. It's only really frowned upon to open a new one soon afterwards if it's exactly the same proposal (or a very slight variation thereof). Number 57 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Massacre, er ... Shooting

I wish you'd opened up the discussion of what to call the Virginia Tech Massacre to more than a handful of people before summarily changing the name. If that wasn't a massacre, what is? I note that six people died in the Boston Massacre and five died in the St. Valentine's Day massacre, yet those grisly shootings fall under the "massacre" rubric. Thirty-three people died at Virginia Tech. This criterion of looking at Google hits to find the right name is creepy. Surely we should call things for what they are, whether in Wikipedia or elsewhere. I do appreciate that gun violence in America has reached horrendous extremes such that even the deaths of 33 people can be considered merely a "shooting," but c'mon. Really? Chisme (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Chisme: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "opened up". The discussion was listed at WP:RM, and was advertised to the whole community at the RM page and via five different article alert streams (Crime & Criminal Biography, Terrorism, Death, Virginia and Serial killers). Where else should it have been advertised? Your comments here also appear to contradict what you were saying at Talk:Virginia Tech shooting#It wasn't a massacre, it was a "shooting", so I'm a bit confused. Number 57 09:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
That's sarcasm at the other spot. It didn't look to me like it got "advertised" enough. Only a few people weighed in. I maintain my original point: what constitutes a "massacre" should be judged according to what the word "massacre" means, not according to how many Google his "massacre" gets compared to "shooting." Chisme (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Medium rare

Greetings Number 57. I just visited Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014 and wanted to say that I thought the closing was rather well done. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I formally bestow upon thee the following, multiple barnstars...

First:

The Original Barnstar
For the John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS). Because this contribution was just outstanding! Mark Miller (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


and this one:

The Barnstar of Diligence
For the John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS). You had to really scrutinize that discussion to parse it all out! Mark Miller (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

and this one:

The Admin's Barnstar
For the John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS). That had to be hard to figure out...just from all the drama! Mark Miller (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually want to give you more...but these are the one you certainly must accept! I insist. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Arab satellite lists

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Bosnia vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina

Regarding your move on the 2014 general election article, please take note that the name of the country is Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bosnia being the northern part of the country, and Herzegovina southern part. While many people call the country only "Bosnia", it is not correct - it might be acceptable for unofficial use, but the encyclopedic article should have the correct name. Varro (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Varro. Yes, I know that the country's name is "Bosnia and Herzegovina", but the naming convention for election articles is to use the common country demonym, and in this case it is simply "Bosnian" (regarding what you refer to as being encyclopedic, we use the common usage on Wikipedia, not the formal one. As an example of what the common usage is, the BBC articles exclusively uses "Bosnian" and not "Herzegovinan"). Cheers, Number 57 22:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of this "common usage" in most of media. However, the same media usually write, for example, "Mostar, Bosnia", either out of ignorace, or because they don't want to bother, while the city is clearly in Herzegovina. If something is in common use, it doesn't have to be correct, too. Varro (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French legislative election, 1945 (Ivory Coast), 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) 09:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dong Chang (Tang dynasty)

Can you revisit this move request?

  1. 1. The article has been at Dong Chang since October 2010 until it was moved on August 2014. Per WP:RMCI "...sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. If no recent title has been stable, then the article should be moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." "In article title discussions, no consensus... If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept."
  1. 2. Despite two opposers, I don't think there was a consensus if you consider that the first opposer (who has a personal grudge against me) was clearly lying. He presented 2 links, the second of which irrelevant, and the first one clearly not what he claimed if you click on it. After I exposed his lying with detailed facts, his only response was "The results I get show Eastern Depot. Confirm Oppose" without any evidence. His opposition should be ignored.

Therefore, I believe it's 1 supporter (me, the nominator) against 1 opposer. Even if it's 1 supporter against 2 opposers, I don't think it's a consensus, and therefore ought to revert back to the long-standing/stable title.

  1. 3. The second opposer was the person who moved the page without a discussion in August 2014, and his opposition was mostly to defend his move. His argument was in good faith, but incorrect, as I've pointed out, since Google search cannot distinguish "Dong Chang" from "Dong-chang" or "Dongchang" separated by a linebreaker. He has not made a follow-up argument against my viewpoint.

Sincerely. Timmyshin (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Timmyshin: You do appear to be correct about In ictu oculi's Google Book results (I'd be interested to hear their side of the story), but your counter-results (which match what I get) seem to show that neither is the primary topic. I suggest you take it to WP:Move review. Number 57 13:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for looking into that, and I probably will follow your advice. But don't you have to consider the fact that it was stable for years before it was moved without discussion, and if no consensus is reached (since it's somewhat subjective to decide whether there is or not a primary topic), the page should be moved back to the original stable place? Timmyshin (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@Timmyshin: Although the title had been stable beforehand, that was because the other article did not exist until very recently, so I agree with Zanhe that it's not a particularly convincing line of argument. Number 57 13:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Re "(who has a personal grudge against me) was clearly lying" .... "I exposed his lying" thank you Number 57 for the ping.
As I see it Timmyshin, whom I have only recently even noticed, has recently made a series of upwards of a dozen time-wasting RMs failing to present or weigh Google Book and other considerations and engaging in personal attacks on several users questioning or disagreeing. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, dodging the issue at hand, which is about your lying. It's not personal attack to expose a liar. And for the fourth time, where are the Beijing Review and CCTV English articles that you repeatedly mention in Talk:Alan Dawa Dolma but could not provide any links or evidence? Timmyshin (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Southern Ming emperors

Hi Number 57, thanks for closing the move requests on Talk:Zhu Yousong. I agree there is no consensus. However, one thing that the dissenter Timmyshin and I both agree upon is that the "Prince of X" part of the article names should go. I've moved two of the articles, but could not move Zhu Yuyue, Prince of Tang and Zhu Youlang, Prince of Gui, for technical reasons. Could you please move the remaining two? Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Zanhe: No problem, but I can't actually see where the agreement between you and Timmyshin on this is. Number 57 08:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with moves to Zhu Yuyue and Zhu Youlang. Timmyshin (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Timmyshin's original comment is here. -Zanhe (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Zanhe and Timmyshin: OK, no problem - now done. Number 57 21:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! -Zanhe (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football biography

You shouldn't have changed "Current team" to "Current club". That field may be used for managers who are in charge of a national team, and "Current club" doesn't work in that scenario. Can you please change it back and then raise your arguments on the template talk page? I think it's a bit of an abuse of your admin rights to change a page that no one else can change, especially when the text was changed to "Current team" as a result of a talk page discussion. – PeeJay 23:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Good point, I've changed it back. Didn't realise there had been a talk page discussion about it, so apologies. However, I think the abuse comment is a little uncalled for - anyone with template editing rights (which I believe is automatic?) can edit the template. Number 57 23:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't realise that was the case. I simply assumed that, because I couldn't edit the template, only admins were able to do so. Do I need to apply somewhere for the right to edit protected templates? – PeeJay 23:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: No worries, see WP:TPE (seems it's not automatic). Also, on second thoughts, "current team" makes no sense, as the section that it's in is called "Club information". Either the entire thing should refer to club and we have a special section for international managers, or the heading should changed too. I'll start a discussion on the talk page tomorrow. Number 57 23:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You're right, that doesn't make sense. Either the documentation for the template needs changing to make it clear it's only to indicate a current player's club, or the section header needs changing as you suggest. – PeeJay 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: I've proposed a fix on the template talk page, which I hope is the way forward. Cheers, Number 57 16:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Close

Hello. I wonder if you could take another look at the !votes here, and reconsider your close. Four of the five editors indicated that they did not think that the footballer, who played 80 years ago, was the primary topic. And only one of the five thought the fellow born in the 1800s from the British partition of India was a primary subject. Under the circumstances, and especially given the wikipedia principles (since this is not a vote), I wonder whether reexamination might not lead to the conclusion that the fellow who garners 8x the views of either of the other candidates is in fact the primary subject. Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche. I read that discussion a few times, and I still believe no consensus was the correct decision. Yaksar made the entirely valid point that the page views for the politician had only increased since his nomination, and that making him the primary topic would be a case of recentism. I also think your comments fail to paint the whole picture. Four other editors commented on your proposal, and were split 50/50 on supporting and opposing. The opposers both had entirely valid arguments, so there's no way I could have closed it in favour of the supporters. If I had to come down on either side, I would have closed it in favour of the opposers, as I feel they made the more convincing arguments (one of the supporters gave no rationale, so their comment would be disregarded). If you still disagree, feel free to take it to WP:Move Review. Cheers, Number 57 21:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. What do you feel qualifies as "recentism"? This trend is well over a year. And the view count is dramatic -- 10x as many views. And all four other editors in the discussion do not share that view. I'm not sure how that makes it either an "entirely valid argument", or one supported by more than one lone editor. And I don't see a 50-50 split. I see three editors supporting the living fellow being the primary. One editor supporting a footballer who played 80 years ago (nobody else agrees). And one editor supporting a fellow born in the 1800s (nobody else agrees). If you were to open it up for more comment, perhaps greater clarity could be provided about the views of Project editors, but as I see it for now there were five editors commenting, and their comments are as I indicate. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think you've misread the discussion: No-one said the footballer or the colonial governor were the primary topics. What the two opposers actually said was that the politician was not the clear primary topic ahead of the other two. You've also misread my comments, as I said the 50/50 split was between the four editors who commented on your proposal. Number 57 21:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Fine ... so understand my comment to be that only one editor supported the target not being a primary topic over a footballer who played 80 years ago (nobody else agrees). And only one editor supported the target not being a primary topic over a fellow born in the 1800s (nobody else agrees). And as to your comments -- of course I expect you to be weighing the consensus of all five editors in the discussion, including the nom (a nom's nomination is a !vote, which is why he does not have to !vote below his nomination) ... so of the editors in that conversation there were five (three of whom agreed that the target was the appropriate target, one of which believed he was not because of a dead footballer (nobody agreed), and one of which believed he was not because of a dead fellow born in the 1800s (nobody else agreed). If you extend discussion, of course it's possible that someone may agree with the lone fellow citing the dead footballer, or the lone fellow citing the fellow born in the 1800s, but as of now none of the other four editors in that discussion agreed with them. Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think you're still missing the wider point that the two did not believe the politician was the primary topic (as well as overlooking the fact that Yaksar mentioned both the footballer and the governor in their responses). As I suggested originally, if you disagree with the close, WP:Move review is the place to go. Cheers, Number 57 04:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Bolivian general election, 2014

I'm saddened and disturbed by your behavior at Bolivian general election, 2014. You continue to undo other people's hard work, just because they don't seem to comply with your "set of guidelines" for election articles. We've been through this already. I'm sorry to say that if you continue to show such intolerance towards other people's contributions, I will have no choice but to call for mediation. Have a good day. Pristino (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Pristino: I'm equally saddened and disturbed by how you have approached this issue. I would have had no problem with you adding the figure for registered voters and turnout to the existing table, providing you had sourced it. I'm a bit more ambivalent about the use of voting age population, but again, if you'd added that to the existing table, I'd have been ok with it. However, I will start a discussion at WP:E&R on its use.
What did cause a problem was you changing the table format. You're not stupid, so given our previous debate, you must have known that what you were doing was likely to cause a problem. The question is why you still did it? I have actively tried to avoid coming into conflict with you since then – I saw you added your table format to Brazilian general election, 2014, but as you were the first person to add a results table, I avoided changing it. It would have been appreciated if you had taken the same approach.
I do not enjoy these types of dispute (it cause me rather a lot of anxiety), so I'd be more than happy for mediation to happen if it means that I no longer have to worry about this type of situation reocurring. In the meantime, the original table format should remain in place, along with your additions. I will make that edit now. Cheers. Number 57 04:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
PS - I've started a discussion on voting age population here. Based on the comments so far, I'm inclined to say that the voting age population should be removed from the table, as your source appears to be from 2012, and Rami R has a point about WP:SYNTH. Number 57 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The UN data was released in September 2013, but the figures I added here are for 2014. Pristino (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've restored Null, Blank and Valid votes. I don't see why we should lose important information. When the source of the data dies we might never know which votes were blank and which were null. Also, "valid votes" is a figure used in social sciences to determine the actual level of engagement in an election, as is the "voting age population" turnout. Please allow some flexibility. PS: I haven't touched the code this time, as you seem to dislike spaces and quotation marks. Pristino (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to make a compromise here. I'll accept a consolidated "invalid/blank votes" row as you like, if it includes a footnote with the votes for each, or, an "invalid/blank votes" row with the details hidden by default. What do you think, and if you agree, which one would you prefer? Pristino (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Page move

Heya 57,

Not going to ignite a 'FC vs F.C.' debate here but the other S.League clubs all go by 'FC' with the exception of Warriors F.C., which obviously seems out of place. I couldn't move the page to Warriors FC so could you kindly do the honour? I would also like to thank you for your input at Talk:ASEAN Football Championship#Requested moves even if the RM is at a stalemate as there doesn't seem to be any resolution regarding the name to use. Have a great football weekend. cheers. LRD 06:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@LRD NO: Page move done. Cheers, Number 57 19:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:ASEAN Football Championship#Requested moves

Your input is appreciated at the revised RM for the article and its associated pages. Thank you. LRD 03:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Czech Senate election

Hello Number 57, the numbers weren't wrong, just incomplete - I listed only parties and subjects affected by the election result (parties that lost or gained seats). I admit that it could be confusing. The most important point of the election is that the social democrats lost their majority in the senate. Christian democrats and ANO 2011 gained a lot. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Vejvančický: No problem, and I see another editor has added back in the +/– figures. Do you know a source that shows how many seats each party has now in total? Cheers, Number 57 09:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Here (Czech Radio) are the tables before and after the election. It would take some time to find out more about the political affiliation of 13 Senate members listed as "others" (the grey part of the table after the election - PO volbách 2014). Unfortunately, the list of senators at the official website of the institution isn't updated yet. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Vejvančický: Thanks - that's a start! I remember it was almost impossible at the last elections. Number 57 21:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian Workers' Party vs. Workers' Party of Hungary

Hello! Magyarországi Munkáspárt literally means Workers' Party of Hungary, while Magyar Munkáspárt means Hungarian Workers' Party. Don't let them be confused just because of the wrong translation here. Oppashi (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Referendum Project

How active is the project on elections and referendums anyway? Comemitmier (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Comemitmier: You can judge for yourself on the Project talk page! Are you planning on joining? There are several editors active in the field - you can see a list of new articles created daily at User:AlexNewArtBot/ElectionsSearchResult. Cheers, Number 57 14:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Nathan121212 (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Be KIND. For everyone you know is fighting a battle you know nothing about ;)

Lihaas (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lihaas: I appreciate your attempt to de-escalate the situation, but let's also be clear about this: I did not blind revert at any point. I edited the version of the article you have reverted to in order to try and add some lost content (and made a mistake in doing so), but I did not hit undo or use rollback at any point. If you disagree, provide the diff (like I did above) showing no change between two edits. If you can't, please withdraw your accusation and apologise. I'm more than happy to engage productively - it's a very interesting subject, and good that you created the article on the court case. However, it does look like Scott doesn't want to run anyway. Number 57 01:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not intentionally do so either. agree to disagree ot apologise all around? im game both ways ;)
Im gonna wor k on the case and have a good few links open if you wanna work on it. It may be delayed by a few days because of BF today, but ill get go it...reading legal documents is [unnecessarily] dense ;)Lihaas (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

NPA

Watch your own action and attacks as it was your clear blind revert that removed my addition that you then blamed me for! YOU removed and YOU accused for your own failures and incompetnece. Its all on record!Lihaas (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Someones actually being productive and adding content (incidentally based on ANOTEHR persons addition) instead of whinging. Hve you read that page? The base is there and its under construction which WP policy gives 7 days to do. were not roobots!
Instead of threatening blind reverts and doing so yourself, manage those affairs!Lihaas (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
And for the recors if you see my edits I did re-add the DM sourfce..check that in thehistory tooLihaas (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Lihaas: Your response is beyond parody. Yes, I made a mistake when trying to fix your removal of reference formatting from the article, and I apologise for saying I was fixing your blind revert in that specific edit summary. However:
  1. you did remove that information in this blind revert, so to claim it's a personal attack to accuse you of a blind revert is farcical
  2. you don't appear to know what a blind revert is – a blind revert is when you simply hit "undo" or rollback on another person's edit. What I did was try and restore lost formatting to the version of the article you had last edited - I did not use the undo or rollback buttons, otherwise I would have also removed the unreliable material/copyvio you readded to the article. This edit summary of yours makes no sense whatsoever.
  3. yes, you did re-add the DM source, but you readded it as a duplicate reference
As for the question of "have I read the page", have a look at the edit history. As I said on your talk page, I've seriously had enough of your blind reverts, and the next one will result in an ANI report. Number 57 01:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Youre turning into a laughing stock. You say YOU made a mistake but I blind reverted? Maybe I made a mistake too. Or are you god and everyone else your serfs? AGF is a two-way street.Lihaas (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The point is, per the talk page of the article, im working on it and you did fine with the ta.
If youw ant to hold grudges for the rest of your life do so. im working and cooperating.Lihaas (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
And don't resport to threats because im the one engaging in conversation instead of arguing and threatening!Lihaas (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)q
Ive seen the edit history and pyuore not there eitherLihaas (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lihaas: Yes, you clearly blind reverted in this edit – the proof is quite clear – this is the difference between your initial edit, my intervening edits and your revert - you've reverted back exactly to what was there before. You then realised that you messed up and tried to restore some of the lost content, but the fact was that you blind reverted as a first response.

I would be more than happy to AGF, but this is probably at least the tenth time I've asked you to stop making blind reverts, so any good faith went out of the window some years ago.

I have absolutely no idea what your final comment is meant to be about - I'm talking about the presidential election article. Number 57 01:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And so did you blind revert. just as much as I did. we BOTH made mistakes.
AGF is a 2-way street
if you want to spend your life holding grudges and threatening everyone with your power behind the wall of the internet then theres nothing I can do to help! (try chanting maybe?) im out engaging people in discussion (as per the talk page). you've also had your way on everything often times without consensus...I don't argue with those.
It was the other article. How can the other be the same one? the one this discussion is about per the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Anwyays, in not arguing incessantly here. I would rather read and learn and work on the page productively. if you want to call a truce and engage (and work on that), then im game.Lihaas (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.
Ive mention the comment of "then" in tal;k page.
Also theres someone who asserts todays events were not riots (?). ifyou could come over to that page, itd be nice to get a 30 ;)Lihaas (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Update: election is by next 1 November-ish.
you could nominate the election for ITN..Lihaas (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
[re]-friend, can you see Talk:2014_Burkinabè_uprising#Move someones moved the page in contradiction to the accent mark of election [ages w/o discussion.Lihaas (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

BVI Political History

Just a quick "thanks" for your recent edits on BVI political history. I was starting to think I was the only person in the world who cared! --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warrington Town F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liam Watson. 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) 13:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Community Charge

Hey, just wanted to let you know that an editor has reverted your move of Community Charge, in case you wanted to consider an WP:RM.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yaksar: Thanks for letting me know - very disappointing given the overwhelming common name argument. Number 57 20:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@Yaksar: I've started a RM. Number 57 20:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary embellishments

Was it necessary to close George Clooney RfC by posting a note about my early removal? I don't post many RfCs, so after three weeks of responses, with all except for the original editor agreeing the material didn't belong, I assumed it was OK to close it. Was that minor error such a BFD that you needed to post it? Please note also that your comments on that close were not exactly neutral, as those agreeing to remove the material said it was cleary undue, something you didn't mention, and not simply your impression that it was "probably worth mentioning in passing." --Light show (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Light show: Yes, I think it was. Once an RFC has started, you should not be touching the text in question until the RFC is closed – it's a fairly basic behavioural standard. I think the fact that you deleted the whole section when there was clearly consensus to give some mention of it in the article simply proves the point that you were not well-placed to take such a decision.
As for your "non-neutral" comment, eleven editors contributed to the discussion; almost all agreed that there should be no "Controversy" section (only Epeefleche said yes to it), and I clearly stated this in the close. Howevr, eight of the 11 noted that the incident should be covered somewhere in the article (NeilN, Meatsgains, Ugog Nizdast, SmokeyJoe, Tryptofish, NickCT, EBY, and Epeefleche after it became clear that there was no support for their preference), hence my second comment about mention it in passing. If you still disagree, you should take it to WP:AN. Cheers, Number 57 12:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

Can you please move lock the Burkinabé uprising page? Theres unilateral moves there now without discussion. Also move it back? Thx.Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved back, but itll need a lock please.Lihaas (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Lihaas: Done. Number 57 15:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, do you think the background section need trimming? The details are on the uprising page. Mayabe a 2nd pair of eyes (from mine) needs to trim?Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW

Now that our rapproachment is on , if you don't mind, ill reach out to you since we edit similar pages. And, like the ireland election page, we don't even agree on topic but on consensus. good to see those days coming back. feel free to reach out to me too ;)Lihaas (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think its a little odd to have the article title as singular and the lead/main section as plural, but im fine for that. I believe it was you who once tried out "election day" for the actual election part, I think that's fair enough. Im not so sure about conduct because the monitoring is separate from the actual days event (former being more generic). but we can work through this.
i notice you don't do sub-national elections because places like india have this on pretty high importance. But we do need a MOS and if others aren't bothered than nothing can stop us from agreeing on it (of course in future someone can ask for revision with debate)
Reading the part, I would suggest "formation of new parties since the previous election etc." be a separate section, but I can also see your point of view. I would add reaction as a subsection of the result/s and aftermath/government formation as a section succeeding the result?
Im still in favour of result/s being a subsection of the actual voting day sonsidering the previous part is the process and this is the actual election.
Appreciate the dierection this is moving in ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
One more thing, we need to consolidate and harmonise legislative/parliamentary/general election titles that simply stay on per precedence but deivate across te board.Lihaas (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. hmm, tough. I would say a section on its own, but either way.
  2. Conduct is about the events leading up to the election (and is much the same as monitoring), but that's my point about having something for the actual election day. Reactions are almost immediately after results (fair enough that it comes after the actual day)
  3. Fair enough
  4. True, but most are about the results. We could retitle not result reactions into a separate section?
"#yep.
Im also on parliamentary as the preference. what about sub-national elections? they are technically parliamentary (sub national parliaments) but just Orwellian named legislative. Also as you pointed out Sweden would need to be harmonized with others as parliamentary too?
As it turns out I think were mostly agreed on all aspects except for the election day itself, which ash been bone of contention, but at this rate we can work it out.Lihaas (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Also since youre good with getting the results and im focusing on the campaign section/formation but, we can delegate ourselves to respective sections? (not solely biut largely managed)Lihaas (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sikkimese general election, 1974

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of RFC

With all due respect and no offense intended, your comments in the RFC show that you aren't familiar with its purpose.[19] RFCs aren't used to solicit the opinions of people involved in the dispute, but the exact opposite--to get input from people outside the dispute. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Help with translation

Hi, Number 57. As far as I understand it, those two rows should be totalled to get the overall figure for blank and invalid votes. Cheers, --Sundostund (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

Colombian presidential election, 1825
added a link pointing to Pedro Gual
Stafford Borough Council election, 2015
added a link pointing to Local Government Boundary Commission

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion Feedback

Your feedback in this discussion would be greatly appreciated. Warren Cassell, Jr. is up for deletion. Can you share your thoughts in the discussion? Caribbeanbio (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Evan Jenkins (politician)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Evan Jenkins (politician). 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. Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

National Archives

Today I had an unusual parcel in my postbox - a collection of unpiblished maldivian constitutions. An interesting case, as the maldivian electoral history is both interesting as well as unsolved yet here. The 1937 one (the most important) including the 1944 revision was missing, it seems that the institute from where I got them lost that one. But this is also the only one I know were you can find it: In the UK National Archives! As you are in London at the moment, would it be possible for you to go there at some time? Their catalogue is well kept, I am rather sure which is the correct file.--Antemister (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Antemister: Sure, I can try. Can you identify from the catalogue exactly what it is I need to request? It does appear they may also be able to scan it for you if you would prefer? Number 57 21:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Forgot the save the links as I searched it some days ago. Most likely is [20], but [21] is also possible. I remember a third one, I'll find it later. I know there is a copying service - for £3.50 per page, excluding the research fee. Self-copying is £0.25 per page, still extremely high by german standards.--Antemister (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

next UK General Election description of polling shifts

Hi, I notice you on the next United Kingdom general election talk page. Bondegezou and I have been discussing the possibility of a prose summary of the major shifts and trends in public opinion over the Parliament (where that can be seen reported in reliable sources) on the article page. I have started to draft, but would like others' views before I put too much work into it. Please comment! DrArsenal (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

local election articles

Hey N57. Thanks for the edits. I was massively hungover yesterday morning, I'm impressed that I only got the date wrong tbh! doktorb wordsdeeds 08:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: No problem, happy to help – it's one advantage of being teetotal I guess! Number 57 15:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

Mauritian general election, 2014
added a link pointing to Block vote
National Union of Independents (Upper Volta)
added a link pointing to Upper Volta
Voltaic Progressive Front
added a link pointing to Upper Volta

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Football categories

Nope, that's fine! GiantSnowman 19:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing Israel 1967 six day war and similar articles

I am interested in Israel 1967 six day war and similar articles. I have noticed your knowledgeable writing here , and wanted to ask you if may be interested in contribution to this article, as the article need high level editors. Ykantor (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor: It does need high level editors, but until the low level ones are all topic banned (and there's several that should be but will never be), I don't see any point in contributing to this area. Whilst it's not something I'm particularly interested in, even if it was, it's more trouble than it's worth, and I'd rather do something more productive with my time. Number 57 11:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are not particularly interested in, than of course it would be better if you continue with articles you like, and doing a good job there. Sorry if I bothered you. Ykantor (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solomon Islands general election, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Alliance Party. 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) 10:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC notification

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting thanks. Collect (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi #57. Can you kindly delete this page that I've accidentally created with the wrong title? Cheers. LRD 01:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi,

I need someone to review my Gadi Eisenkott#Early life, which I wrote. I'd like to see if I have translated it smoothly as it should be, including the refs in Hebrew etc. it short - can you have a look at it? --Midrashah (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge

Hi Number 57, friend, please help, Rafael Baiano and Rafael dos Santos are the same, please help re-direct ? User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk) 2 December 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro. I can do the merge, but which article title is correct? Number 57 12:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Number 57 ! Hi, friend, sorry, as far as the Soccerway.com indicate, the Rafael Baiano is correct. User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk) 3 December 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro: No problem. I've combined the two articles. Number 57 09:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks friend User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk) 3 December 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey

I have copied some stuff from your user page for my own. I hope you dont mind. Feel free to pass a comment. Btw can you help out on this article Constituency PK-01 (Peshawar-I). I was trying to add reference Here to the election result section but for some reason it shows up under the template. I cant improve the other cons. unless i understand this. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Saadkhan12345: To insert a reference correctly, you add it at the end of a sentence like this:
Text that needs to be referenced.<ref>[http://elections.com.pk/resultsdetail.php?constId=3206&st=1&toggle=3 Detail Result of Constituency "PK-1"] Pakistan Election Commission</ref>
You then also need to add {{reflist}} to the references section. The references will then show up automatically. I would strongly advise adding the reference to the section heading though. Cheers, Number 57 12:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks you so much lol done ;)
@Saadkhan12345: No problem. I have also edited the article to include the full results and formatted it in the normal way. Cheers, Number 57 12:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Number of votes in NC parliamentary elections

How can it not be? The total is 120k, but the top party got 478k? 213.7.22.7 (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, so the total isn't of votes but of ballots. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@213.7.22.7: Yes, they have a multiple vote system, whereby voter can cast multiple votes on a single ballot paper (we have something similar in local elections in the UK – in my area we can vote for three candidates), which means the total number of votes cast exceeds the number of voters. I have updated the results table on the Northern Cyprus parliamentary election, 2013 with more detail from a different source, and formatted in a more logical way (we have used this layout for other countries using the same type of system). Cheers, Number 57 16:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd made similar changes to the table here. Feel free to merge the two as you see fit. [I did that now. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)] 213.7.22.7 (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burkinabé presidential election, 2005, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philippe Ouédraogo. 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) 09:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

deletion

Now do you see why I see all this as bullying.....I now have another person trying to delete a photo which has been on there for about 16 months....all because our website states "copyright all rights reserved" which is to stop any external source from using info off the website....but I am part of the club...I have permission to use the squad photo from the photography. Its like a never ending battle to maintain this site.....and yes I know I don't own the gne page....when someone comes along and messes with it...its not fair. Any assistance in resolving this issue would e greatly appreciated...maybe you could help set the licensing law bit out so its correct User:GNEbandit 14:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@GNEbandit: No, I don't see why you think it's bullying. It's normal practice (and completely fair) for other editors to remove stuff they believe violates guidelines from articles, or to try to delete images with unclear copyright. When this kind of thing happens, we end up discussing them, and usually get to the right decision in the end. A discussion on the photo has now been started here, so you need to comment there about having permission to use the photo, and hopefully the matter will be sorted – I'm afraid I have no idea about copyright releases, and to me it's not clear whether what you've done is allowed or not. The problem is that you've licensed it with the statement that all copyright has been waived, but that is inconsistent with the club's website - if the image is released on Wikimedia Commons, then it is now a free resource in the public domain for anyone to use, so either (a) the club does not have copyright and should remove that statement from its website, or (b) it does, and you have incorrectly released it. Number 57 18:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Shimon Garidi

I responded to your request for explanation on the article talk page. Thank you, Contributor613 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we start a new article for the "Zionist Camp" of Livni-Herzog?

There is a new article in the Hebrew wikipedia [22] on the "Zionist Camp" list of Livni-Herzog, do you think we shpuld start such an article in the English Wikipedia? --Midrashah (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Midrashah: Good question. I hadn't realised that the alliance had a separate name. If this is going to be like One Israel, then yes, I think it should. However, if it's just a slogan used by the two parties, then not. Number 57 22:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not clear about it. Let's gather more sources and than decide. --Midrashah (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Mauritian general election, 2014

Putting the long table of results doesn't make the article look good (It might be better if it was collapsable) and the small table is better for readability. Find me another general election article which list results whereby each and every party (even those with 0.001% and 0% of total votes) are listed. Also, if you want to put all parties, please edit the template.

Also, please don't translate the name of the political parties. Even in English media, their name remains as they are. For example, Front Solidarité Mauricienne (FSM) is not Mauritian Solidarity Front; Mouvement Mauricien Social Démocrate (MMSD) is not Mauritian Social Democratic Movement; Mouvement Rodriguais (MR) is not Rodrigues Militant Movement. Find me an English source which proved they are translated and then we can translate. Already the official source is in English and their names are not translated. The name of the parties should be as they are mentioned in the Electoral Commissionner's website unless you find an English language source which showed they are translated such as for the Mauritian Labour Party which is the exception here (Even then, not all English sources translate the Parti Travailliste) . Thank you. --174.95.128.224 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thirty-third government of Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meir Cohen. 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) 10:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

Just realized that the place for others to add barnstars was here, rather than directly on your user page. Sorry for the blunder. Contributor613 (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Contributor613: No problem, and thank you :) Number 57 09:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the understanding. And you certainly earned it.
By the way you wrote "This user supports the ban on smoking in public places." Just curious if you know of countries that ban smoking in public places? I agree that it should be banned. Why should people walking in the street have to be exposed to second hand smoke? Is no one concerned about cancer! Contributor613 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Contributor613: I'm not sure if it's banned in all public places anywhere, but as you say, it would be nice. I certainly support the ban on smoking in indoor public spaces in England, which IMO was one of the best policies introduced in the last 15 years (and also pleasing how well observed it is). Number 57 17:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

French Somaliland

Hello Middayexpress. A few years ago you edited French Somaliland constitutional referendum, 1958, adding the claim that the French authorities had expelled thousands of Somalis before the vote. This is sourced to page 360 of the Encylopedia of African History. However, page 360 of that book is about South Africa. There is a brief mention of the referendum in the book (on page 616), but it says nothing about expulsions. Could you clarify why this source was used? Thanks, Number 57 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Number 57. 360 was a typo; the expulsion is noted on the following page, 361 [23]. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm being blind, the source says nothing about expulsions for the 1958 referendum. The only mention of expulsions is regarding those that happened after the 1967 one. Number 57 17:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems that we were both mistaken. The Shillington page is on Djibouti (not South Africa), but the explusion is on the 1967 referendum. I'll fix it shortly; please leave a response if any here. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Middayexpress: The issue is that we were looking at different versions of the same book. In this version, page 360 is about South Africa. It is rather annoying when this happens... Also, what's the problem with using your talk page? Number 57 17:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no problem; I had just finished formatting it. On Shillington, the books are apparently the same, but the publishers are different. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Scott Card racist?

(Note: Per wp:CANVASSING I am "non-biasedly" advertising a topic for discussion by posting a notice on the ten most recent users who commented on the page in question's talkpage and also the ten most recent users who edited the article in question.)

Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?

(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)

See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian electoral code referendum

Hi Number 57: Are you privy to a merge of Bulgarian electoral code referendum? In your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian electoral code referendum, you suggest the potential for a merge to either Elections in Bulgaria or National Assembly (Bulgaria), but don't state it directly. It seemed that you were more for deletion of the article (per the nomination). A user on my talk page stated that a merge close would have been "a better reflection of consensus". However, in your nomination, you alluded to two different merge targets. NorthAmerica1000 05:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: I reckon a merge to Elections in Bulgaria is more appropriate, specifically in the Parliamentary election section. Ideally there would be an electoral system section (like Elections in Botswana, which I worked on recently) in the article, so perhaps it could be reworked to feature that. Cheers, Number 57 21:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Check out Talk:Elections in Bulgaria#Merge proposal. NorthAmerica1000 21:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dean Court

I think your cleanup of Dean Court may have removed too much information. Former names of stadiums are surely relevant to the article, both as a matter of historical record and because those names (e.g. Fitness First Stadium) redirect to the article. I wondered if you could revisit your edit and let me know your thoughts. Many thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jameboy: I've expanded the history section significantly, and detailed the former sponsor names. I can't seem to find out when Fitness First stopped sponsoring it though, as this seems to have happened around 2009. Number 57 23:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, that's really good work. I will see if I can find a source for when Fitness First stopped sponsoring it. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jameboy: Good stuff. I have a book detailing the history of all the grounds ever to have hosted Football League or Scottish Football League matches, so if you ever want any help expanding anything, let me know. Cheers, Number 57 22:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Danish general election, 1966

I was just about adding the source, when you reverted my edit. I would really appreciate it, if you (and anyone else) would be a little slower with reverting.--2001:A60:19D7:1701:301A:5645:8FBD:195D (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)--2001:A60:19D7:1701:301A:5645:8FBD:195D (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Samoan general election, 2014, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fofo and Sua. 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) 09:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Number 57, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

there is no "next" election

please provide sources that there will be a next election or possibility of a new election, that article is about the cancelled election in 2013 Dannis243 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, please do a favor

Please edit my IP talk page with a simple hello or some such message so I may test the IP experience in being notified of a talk page posting. Thank you. 2601:0:4680:105:308F:7086:563F:ABE5 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for thinking of me, but no thanks. You're the latest of some very reputable people who've suggested it, and I did agree once, so long as we waited until some RL issues had settled down, but by the time they did I'd changed my mind. There are times when I wish I had certain of the tools, but I don't think my tendency to either over-react or disappear under pressure makes me particularly suited to the role in general. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notification

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bnai Zion

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

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

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Bnai Zion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. George8211 / T 20:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check the page history. George8211 / T 20:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

1944 Assembly election

If you had figures for that election, why was there no article? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Intelligent Mr Toad: I didn't actually find them until I saw you had created the article – the yearbook uses an odd transliteration which I wouldn't have googled unless I had seen it in the JTA article you used to reference the first version! Thanks for starting it though! Number 57 08:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

New leader for Hadash instead of the retired Mohammad Barakeh

His name is Ayman odeh [24] (or Aiman Ouda[25]), and he was elected after Barakeh announced he will retire from politics . There is a need start an article on him, (Link to the Hebrew wikipedia article he:איימן עודה) --Midrashah (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Midrashah: Done – Ayman Odeh. Number 57 15:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Dallow Lane and Dunstable Road

Thanks for splitting these up. It's better and tidier now. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zambian general election, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plurality. 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, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Greek presidential elections

Dear Sir could you give me some information on the following:

I would be grateful. Mr Hall of England (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mr Hall of England: Unfortunately I don't have any data on them – the book I used only details direct elections. However, I can tell you the winners: Pavlos Kountouriotis in 1924, Alexandros Zaimis in 1929 and 1933, Konstantinos Karamanlis in 1980 and 1990 and Christos Sartzetakis in 1985. Some more data here and no doubt you can find more if you Google it. Number 57 18:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The River's political alignment

Hi, I'm wondering if you could take a look here. Alakzi (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Antonio Brown

It seems you didn't move the talk page. Talk:Antonio Brown (wide receiver, born 1988) -- Calidum 17:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Calidum: Thanks for letting me know - now done. Number 57 17:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Dates

Is this in relation to Vincent Péricard? I believe it's accurate to say that "he signed in January and made his debut on the 27th" as we can't say "he signed in January and made his debut on 27" and to say "he signed in January and made his debut on 27 January" is too repetitious. Never mind, I'll go with your suggestion. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Number_57/Archive_6&oldid=1143202625"