User talk:Aréat

Because they are the correct photographs corresponding to each of those presidents, what is the problem with that?

Please stop adding data for Hawaii to the table at List of countries and dependencies by population. Hawaii is neither a country nor a dependency. It's a state belonging to the United States. If you want to add Hawaii, then all US states need to be added, as well as all the Australian states and so on, but this is not the purpose of the article. You are already aware that "areas that form integral parts of sovereign states" are not included, so I do not understand why you are adding Hawaii at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to delete France's five Overseas Regions -Guyane, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Reunion - with exactly the same arguments - they're neither countries nor dependencies but full part of a listed country, yet the changes were removed by differents people, so I thought adding them was indeed "useful information".

If you thinks otherwise for Hawaii, can you do the same for the above regions? Or post your opinion on the matter in the talkpage. It would be helpful.--Aréat (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of countries and dependencies by population. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 08:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've given you this warning because you are clearly edit-warring. Your edits have been reverted and yet you continue to reinsert them. It is up to you to convince other editors to accept your changes by discussing the matter on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD. Simply forcing your edits into the article will lead to only one conclusion - you will find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia at all. Per WP:STATUSQUO, the unmodified version of the article rules until discussion is complete. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted a request for help and the answer was that the discussion hasn't been fully completed. The other parties aren't contibuting anymore. How long should I wait without an answer for an eventual change to be accepted as not being an edit war?

Beside, if you removed Hawaii on the ground it's neither a country nor a dependencie, would my removal of the above mentioned french regions on the same ground be considered an edit war?

I updated Mali TFR map, per your request. (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg ) Thanks for noticing the mistake. Innab (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aréat. Has the referendum been confirmed? I've seen a few news stories saying that the President wanted one, but none that it's been officially called. Cheers, Number 57 23:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been confirmed, voted on during a Council of Minister and officially scheduled for 15 july 2017 by the government, yes.--Aréat (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! Number 57 15:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source does give a date, but the article I linked reports the electoral commission's chairman as being "silent on when the second and final round will be held". [1] Also, if you object to only part of an edit, could you try to avoid reverting the entire edit? Everyking (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that if you got a source to back your change, include it in the article, not in your edit description.--Aréat (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Alternative for Germany ‎. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you on the talk page. I added a full source for the handful of words I added to the back of a sentence to further clarify it. I believe I've been sourcing more thoroughly than most. As for the edit war, I'm rather surprised. Did you read the source ? It contain what I added. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Next Japanese general election. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Japanese general election, 2017. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Japanese general election, 2017. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —Guanaco 15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This notice is because the duplicated article was created on top of your redirect, from when you moved the page. —Guanaco 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I was getting a bit confused here.--Aréat (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say I know how difficult it can be to contribute in a non-native language. It takes a special kind of willingness and dedication. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks you for the message. It look a bit infantilizing to me, to be honest, but I sure appreciate the intention.--Aréat (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just wondering where you got the seat figures from? I can't find them on the TSE website or on any of the Salvadoran news websites I checked. Cheers, Number 57 21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got them from the spanish page. I assume the users here know how many seats these numbers represent once 100 % of the votes have been counted, or have access to Salvadorian medias. Not that it wouldn't be better to eventually have a precise source, but it will do in the meanwhile. --Aréat (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The results on es.wiki are now different (they have ARENA on 37 seats not 39), but still unsourced. I am quite wary of using unsourced seats as I've seen a few editors miscalculate them over the years... Number 57 21:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just wondering if you got the ping I gave you yesterday? I pinged a few editors but got no responses, which made me wonder whether it worked (it can be quite tempremental). BTW, in the Bhutanese results, I saw one candidate was elected with only 13% of the vote (in Mongar District); I wonder whether this is a record for the lowest amount received by a winning candidate for a national parliament seat... Number 57 12:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for the lack of message. I'm a bit busy these days and honestly found myself a bit confused by the matter at hand, so I refrained from giving my opinion on a question I don't fully grasp. As for the Bhutanese election, that's quite the original result indeed. With this many candidates it look like there's a growing eagerness to participate in the political life in bhutan. I sure hope so, anyways. Seeing a democracy blooming over the past decade was fascinating. With both wins and struggles. I recall that in the previous election there was a constituency in which there simply was only one candidate, with the vote there turning into a direct yes or no referendum for the candidate. ^^ I find these sort of relatively small sized election very interesting, like the ones in the Falklands or in many of the pacifics islands. Imagine having your representative simply campaign door to door, and the vote being won over a handful of convinced electors. Very neat.--Aréat (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were noticeably more candidates this time around, and I thought it was also notable that several of the incumbents were heavily beaten, so presumably not impressing the electorate. I wonder whether some of the low vote shares for winning candidates will make them think again about FPTP. I contacted the chap who runs the Election Passport website and he mentioned that candidates used to win regularly with less than 10% of the vote in Papua New Guinea before they moved away from FPTP. Number 57 15:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here, in the Wikipedia, the colour of the Jobbik is black since the 2010 parliamentary election. See, for instance tables and maps. There were/are numerous parliamentary parties which were marked with green in different shades (MDF, KDNP, FKGP, LMP, PM etc.) --Norden1990 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But none use the distinctive darker shade, and most are <1% very minors parties, while the MDF went extinct before Jobbik was created, so they're not on a page at the same time. If we want to make distinctive colors, it is logical to use either one of the three color used by the aprty instead of a different unused one, or change the colors of the benign parties, don't you think so?--Aréat (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Months (June, July etc) are written with a capital letter! Thanks for all your recent work :) Number 57 21:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aréat. Would you please explain this edit. You offered no edit summary and it's not obvious to me why you made the change you did. Thank you. Dayirmiter (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't neutral enough for an intro. That's the sort of details you must add in the article further on. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, thank you for the reply. I am very much in favor of maintaining a neutral point of view. I do not, however, believe that this includes or should be understood to allow the suppression of facts. The material you excised ("Researcher Angie Heal, herself hired and then ignored by local officials"), in addition to identifying the source of the quotation, contains the facts that

(1) Angie Heal was a researcher,

(2) Angie Heal was hired by local officials, and

(3) Angie Heal was ignored by local officials regarding child exploitation.

The first two facts, well attested by the sources, are surely uncontroversial.

I understand you might feel the assertion that Angie Heal was ignored by local officials seems condemnatory and thus non-neutral. But this is one of the fundaments of the article: the scandal of local officials ignoring evidence of child abuse over many years. Local officials did, in fact, ignore Angie Heal's warnings, again as is well attested in the sources. To state that this occurred is not non-neutral. To illustrate this ignoring of evidence by local officials with concise reference to a central actor in that aspect of the case is, in my opinion, completely appropriate and desirable at this point in the article. If I have missed something here, please let me know.

In the meantime, I will replace the identification of the source of the quotation. Thanks again for your work on this article.

By the way, at a slightly different level of analysis, I would respectfully suggest further consideration of the idea that material may be "not neutral enough" for one part of an article but okay somewhere else in the article. It seems to me that if it violates neutrality in the lead, it will violate neutrality anywhere it appears. Conversely, if material is sufficiently neutral to appear anywhere in the article, then lack of neutrality cannot be a condition on which to exclude it from the lead.

Dayirmiter (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. It was listed at the African Elections Database at the time I created the article, but was later removed. It was a mistake on the AED's behalf – they had confused it with Republic of the Congo constitutional referendum, 1973. I've deleted the article as I was the only significant contributor to it, and it was clearly incorrect (no other source lists it). Cheers, Number 57 21:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. The page had left me rather confused as I couldn't find mention of it. These damn two congos always inducing quiproquo. :P While we're at it, thanks for your tremendous works on election articles and templates. They've been of great help over the years.--Aréat (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. If you're interested Antemister and I did some work a long time ago to try and ensure that all the national election templates were complete. There are still quite a few outstanding, so if you have anything to add, please do! Cheers, Number 57 16:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be sure to give a hand if I find things to improve. --Aréat (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sam Sailor. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Russian regional elections, 2018. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sam Sailor 13:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

My bad. I do know it should not be done. It was an error while editing several tabs. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Without a consensus, you've moved and rewritten the article more than 3 times in one day. It's "Bold, Revert, Discuss", not "Bold, Revert, Bold, Revert, Bold, Revert, Bold." Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page so y'all can discuss. Be advised that a block for edit warring would also stop the disruption while not inconveniencing uninvolved editors, so consider this is boon.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does you change the colour of Bangladesh Awami League. Ehsan2186 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bangladesh Awami League/meta/color. --Aréat (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Caribbean Elections website is wrong. Their totals for Regions 7 and 8 do not match the GECOM reports (7, 8, Overall), and this is the difference between the two vote tallies. Cheers, Number 57 21:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! --Aréat (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Aréat,

I'm a little leery of just changing the color of the map per your comment without any indication from you that you think my suggested color would be an improvement, since I just changed that color and I don't want to make things too chaotic. Although, what I came up with in response to you comment does strike me as an improvement. Do you agree?

Please ping me if you answer, or reply on the SSM talk page. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I like it. Although imo the green coukd use a less flashy shade. Help:Using colours --Aréat (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the green, but since the argument was about the distingishability of the colors, I wanted to be sure it was distinct! I'll copy your answer to the SSM talk page and upload the purple map since no-one else has commented one way or the other. (With pigments, purple is a blend of blue and red, so it's an iconic match as well.) — kwami (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could still use green but simply chose a dimmer shade. --Aréat (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mauritania Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for your contributions at Flag of Mauritania, which solved a year-long question regarding which version of the new flag is to be displayed on Wikipedia! Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrendonTheWizard: Thank you Brendon! My pleasure, really. Speaking of flags, is there any way you could help me or advise me on how to make Template:Country data New Caledonia fit with the consensus we had on Flags of New Caledonia. The standard template should really be the one with the "both" qualifier, now. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could start a Request for Comment on the talk page Template:Country data New Caledonia where we mention that a previous consensus was reached to display the two flags together on the main article, therefore to ensure consistency we also make the "both" qualifier the default setting for the template? Since we don't have the Template Editor permission to do it ourselves, I'm sure we could get someone to agree to do it per the consensus we reached. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sadly quite inexperimented with such a procedure. Even more so on the english wiki. Is there any help page in which I could learn how exactly I could do this? --Aréat (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at Template talk:Country data New Caledonia. For information on the procedure for getting a consensus, there is helpful information on the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful. Thanks a lot!--Aréat (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aréat. Are you able to fix png files so that the background is transparent? As you can see, the ones used in 1989 Polish legislative election#Results don't work! Cheers, Number 57 17:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Ah, learning how to make .svg is actually pretty far up on my to-do list, as I have run in the same problem with electoral maps in the past. So I can't help you directly there, sorry. BUT I can recommend you the Parliament tool website [2] which I frequently use. It's pretty straightforward, but if you have any question on how to use it, don't hesitate to ask me. The tool add parties starting from the left. ;) The polish article doesn't seem to fit the color template, though, and I don't know about the left/right positions of these parties. --Aréat (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aréat, I've had the 2019 Moldovan constitutional crisis on my watchlist for a while, great work. I'll add more to it soon. Could you take a look at the Talk page to discuss the Reactions section? Many thanks.

PS: also, don't forget to write a few words after each edit, it really helps out to understand who is doing what. A très vite. Pilaz (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but while I wrote the french article, I didn't add much to the english one. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2009 Uruguayan general election into 2009 Uruguayan referendum. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

My bad, I will be more careful in the future. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what is exactly your problem with the color changing? Maps nor even use yellow and most diagrams didn't use it either before I made them with yellow, which is almost never associated with the Broad Front and there are other Uruguayan parties that use yellow. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All sources I've seen for years have been coloring Frente Amplio with the yellow shade of color [3], [4], [5], [6]. There's been no change of logo or use justifying changing it on a whim.--Aréat (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For years? All thse examples are from 2019. I choose the yellow color for FA for the last election, the polls just started using after me. I also made the polling diagrams using yellow. Before that dark blue was used. And I can proved it in case you wonder. In any case, it never took off in Spanish, the graphics use for Senate and Chamber always used dark blue and also the new graphics for the current election. The maps also were made in blue because I never did them. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please not revert me while I prove that your cherry picking about the yellow color is wrong? Just wait a little, nothing is going to happen just because blue is use for a while. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for years. I didn't collect random article for an argument a few years down on color. Those are sources of the yellow color use. If you believe a blue shade should be used, then present sources for it. And as I said, on wikipedia if people are disagreeing it's the previous situation which should remain. As you said, nothing is going to happen if you can't add your changes until proving it.--Aréat (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, if you don't want to co-operate keep the wrong yellow color while I prove you whu yellow is wrong. First, this is the Broad Front oficial flag, do you see any yellow? Second, do you have any evidence of the use of yellow before 2019 for the FA? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this is its logo.I'm cooperating right now by having this discussion. Don't start being unpleasant just because you can't force your changes and only then explain it. I've provided sources of use in medias, where are yours? Listen, I don't intend to discuss this for ages over a color. Add sources, and/or have others users comment to agree with you, and it will be settled.--Aréat (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

• The idea that FA’s more representative color is blue (whilst PN is lightblue) is old, as you can see here since 2009.
• Blue has being the color for the party’s article in Spanish since at least 2014 (although originally was [red)
• No election map of Uruguay uses yellow for FA, generally the color is red or blue
• Yellow is use only in poll’s graphics made by me btw.--Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. These are colors used by others users here and there, with not one agreeing with the other. Please use real sources.--Aréat (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't finished. Diagrams made by Uruguayans for each one of the legislatures, use blue

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVII_C%C3%A1mara_de_Diputados_del_Uruguay.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVII_C%C3%A1mara_de_Diputados_del_Uruguay.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVII_Legislatura_de_la_C%C3%A1mara_de_Senadores_de_Uruguay.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_C%C3%A1mara_de_Diputados_del_Uruguay.svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_Legislatura_de_la_C%C3%A1mara_de_Representantes_de_Uruguay.svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_Legislatura_de_la_C%C3%A1mara_de_Senadores_de_Uruguay.svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_Senado_del_Uruguay.svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C%C3%A1mara_de_Representantes_de_Uruguay_(2015-2020).png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C%C3%A1mara_de_Senadores_de_Uruguay_(2015-2020).png

What is for you a "real source"? I choose yellow for FA, no one else used it before I suggested. Is not even part of its official flag. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also we can hold a vote and maybe call the Uruguayan users and/or hold a vote in Uruguay's Wikiproject talk page by the way. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing sources That's the basic. Sources are from external medias, like the four I provided above. You have provided none so far. And different language version of wikipedia don't have to follow each other in any way. As I said, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source : works by others wiki users aren't valid sources. The example above don't even use your shade of blue! --Aréat (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact @Jopevidal: and @Santga: both have English accounts. Maybe they can help to resolve the issue giving us their input. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any one can cherry pick, if those are your “sources”, I can find sources that show FA in another color, for example:

• Green http://radiouruguay.uy/fa-lidera-intencion-de-voto-con-un-34-segun-ultima-encuesta-de-cifra/ https://planetapolitico.com/elecciones-en-uruguay-ultimas-3-encuestas-dan-resultados-diferentes/ https://www.cifra.com.uy/index.php/2019/09/12/intencion-de-voto-en-las-elecciones-nacionales/
• Darkblue https://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2019/10/encuesta-de-opcion-por-primera-vez-cabildo-abierto-se-coloca-en-tercer-lugar-por-encima-del-partido-colorado/
• Torquise https://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2019/7/encuesta-de-grupo-radar-posterior-a-las-internas-el-fa-venceria-al-pn-en-las-elecciones-nacionales/
• Orange https://www.montevideo.com.uy/Noticias/Encuesta-de-intencion-de-voto-situa-a-FA-y-PN-en-situacion-de-empate-uc717656
• Blue http://www.perfiles.uy/texto-diario/mostrar/1410658/encuesta-opcion-consultores-empate-entre-frente-amplio-partido-nacional --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to have sources for the shade you're proposing.--Aréat (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's the case your shade is not the exact yellow that appears in your sources. I have no problem to change the shade to another shade of blue if that's what worries you. One that -I guess- corresponds with the graphics of whatever source you like. But the truth is, there's no way to establish which is the right color for FA, as different news reports have use all sorts of colors from blue, dark blue, green, orange and red. So, we have to choose one but certainly would not be by checking polls' graphic as there's no such thing as one. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seem to me the sources I gave all use a goldish shade of yellow. Anyways, if you believe there isn't one shade, even adding sources for green or orange, why are you insisting so much on changing it in the first place?--Aréat (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm convince that yellow is not the most representative color, is dark blue. I myself suggested yellow in 2017 but my rationale was that as no one objected, there was consensus. Now, I should be all for keeping yellow as was my suggestion, however I came to realize that most graphics and maps use dark blue, and is easier to switch yellow to blue than the other way around. Besides there are other relevant parties that use yellow, for example Cabildo Abierto. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense. Fine, then, let's go with the shade of blue you're proposing. I will make the according change on the french wiki. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I am very sorry if I acted too rude, I sometimes let me carry away. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't throw you the first rock, it's not like it didn't happen to me as well in the past. But the wikipedia's way of doing those is pretty solid in the end. After the few first back and forth edit, just freezing it and discussing, with sources and arguments, bringing in others users if needed. It work out way more often than not. Have a good day. ;)--Aréat (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Papua conflict shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please do not edit war in a source which does not support the claims being cited to it. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. I'm not in an edit war. I did one revert, and another later on with the addition of a ^{[citation needed]}. R3R does not apply. Please don't hastily put such a message on my page. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have edit warred this material into the article twice. There's no kind of opt-out for adding a citation needed tag - if anything, this makes it worse as you can't prove that what you are re-adding is actually true. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you see something wrong, you prove it or ask for a source. Don't recklessly delete entire sections on a whim. I already provided sources after a short timed search. I know it take some minutes doing so, but don't go the lazy way. --Aréat (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding sources which support the material. It's a much better thing to do than restoring faked references which do not (which is both lazy and unhelpful to readers). Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes. You're absolutely. Now stop bothering me.--Aréat (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you removed this from a few articles. In some cases it was added because the results were not final (e.g. 2019 North Macedonian presidential election is based on only a 98.63% vote count). Maybe worth checking before removing the category! Cheers, Number 57 13:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this. I will try to be more careful in the future.--Aréat (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it wasn't obvious! Number 57 13:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, please go to this source: https://www.izbori.hr/pre2019/rezultati/1/ and see that You have removed the correct percentages from the results table. Please check before reverting the correct changes. The percentages changed when 100% of the votes have been counted. Thanks in advance. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source always round down even when the next number is 9, leading to a total of 99.93. On Wikipedia we round up when it's above 5, as to have a total of 100. As for the boldening, we've been several users telling you it's unecessary. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. According to the Croatian electoral code, in the first round of the Presidential elections the percentage is calculated with the number of voters who have gone out to vote, so the votes a candidate got are divided with 1.904.461. That is why, for example, Milanović has 29,55% and not 29,56%. Please stop reverting. Please read this: https://www.zakon.hr/z/358/Zakon-o-izboru-Predsjednika-Republike-Hrvatske it is the law regulating elections for the president in Croatia. If You don't understand Croatian then please don't revert, ask what You don't understand here and I will try to answer or open a topis on the talk page of the article, just please stop reverting with wrong percentages. Thanks in advance. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you agree that the current percentages, once added together, make 99,93 and not 100? And that for example 562783/1903861 make 29.56 and not 29.55?--Aréat (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you don't divide the votes for Milanović with 1.903.861 but with 1.904.461. Thanks in advance. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what these two different numbers refer to?--Aréat (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pristupilo glasovanju = 1.904.461 means those who have gone to the polling stations.

glasovalo birača (prema glasačkim listićima) = 1.903.861 means those who have actually voted (according to the ballots) Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could you update the table with the proper total and add a line for these missing votes, then?--Aréat (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is necessary, but OK. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this whole discussion is a consequence of that lacking info leading users to think there's an error in the data, isn't it? Thanks, anyways. ;) --Aréat (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just to let you know, as I'm an admin, I can recover deleted articles if they need to be reinstated. If the Malagasy referendum does come back, I can undelete the article exactly as it was (including the full history). Cheers, Number 57 12:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that would sure come in handy. I didn't knew. --Aréat (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2020 Irish general election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're also doing the calculations, I've totalled the figures from the CEC website for both president and parliament, although the CEC did not have party details for the presidential candidates. The number of registered voters is different due to the results from one district for the president being slightly different to the others (this one, which has two fewer registered voters than the parliamentary election and is in a different colour, which may mean it is even more preliminary??). Cheers, Number 57 21:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You went way farther than I did. Thanks! Luckily there's good sources in french about Armenian and Artsakhian events because of the diaspora there, so I think it won't be too hard eventually getting the full results. ;) --Aréat (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: This source here [7] has an explanation for the difference in votes, as well as giving the party affiliation of the candidates. ;)--Aréat (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also questioned this when Fadesga added them. However, they are actually national elections, where every citizen is entitled to vote (see this story). I did wonder, however, whether they could just be included in the main general election article articles, although I guess they are several months apart. What do you think? Probably defintely worth a discussion with Fadesga as he does some good work on Uruguayan elections. Number 57 12:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every citizens being able to vote in a party's primaries doesn't seem unusual to me. It's what happen in France, 2016 The Republicans (France) presidential primary for example, and we don't include them in the french template. I don't question the existence of the articles, and they definitely earn to be more than mentioned in the related elections pages, but they don't belong in a template national elections, in my opinion. They're not elections for a governing mandate in itself.--Aréat (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also how we don't have a separate line of primaries for Argentina.--Aréat (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As long as they are linked to in the general election article, that should be fine. Cheers, Number 57 13:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can i be your friend TonkarLike (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to reach out and see if we can reach an understanding about Template:Zimbabwean elections, my edit of which you reverted. I definitely don't want an edit war, so I just want to talk to you privately and share why I think they should be removed, at least until even one (1!) is not still a red link.

First, I'm guessing you're not Zimbabwean (correct me if I'm wrong) but local elections in Zimbabwe are not on the same scale as in countries like the US and UK, for instance. There are mayoral elections, city council elections, and things like that, but overall Zimbabwe has a very centralized political structure and many local/regional offices are appointed by the national government. So to say "local elections" really refers to a scattering of municipal elections, and not much else. I think it would be better to have that content on individual city articles for clarity. I doubt the user who added those links to the template is Zimbabwean, and he probably does not realize this either. Looking at his contribs it appears almost all of his edits are to election-related navboxes. In good faith of course.

Second, removing them would be in accordance with WP:REDLINK, which states, "Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template" (emphasis mine). The user who added them is clearly not actively working on building those articles. Furthermore, the user neglected to add red links for all years, even though local elections (however small!) happen every year and not just every time there is a parliamentary/presidential election. If as in your words, there's "no reason to remove them. They happened, the article simply hasn't been created yet," should we add red links to the template for every year since 1980 -- and even before? I think that would be far too cluttered.

I think I've made a good explanation of why they should be removed. Feel free to let me know if you have thoughts on this. If I don't hear back, I will assume you understand what I'm saying and I'll remove them. Best, Jgefd (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm more of a secondary user here, as I'm mainly on the french wiki. @Number 57: would be way more capable than me in argumenting this. Still, in election templates, we usually add the elections even if none has a page for now. I understand your concern about election years not being national wide, but Zimbabwe is hardly the only country doing it this way, and we still add the years in their templates. Surely you can see that removing them entirely isn't helping ? There would be no difference from a country that doesn't hold local election.--Aréat (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the removal – I don't think the list is excessive, and it provides a record of the years in which they were held (if it's incomplete, the answer is to add the missing ones, not delete the ones we know). Also, it's very disappointing to see a 'you don't know because you're not from here' attitude taken. Number 57 19:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Aréat:, thanks for your response. @Number 57:, no offense intended, and sorry if it came off that way. It's just that I often notice people editing articles about Zimbabwe are not very familiar with the country's politics, especially with surface-level edits such as this. Large-scale local elections do happen in many countries and in those cases deserve articles - but I suggest you search up "local elections in Zimbabwe [year]" and you'll notice nothing comes up. I think in this case they will be red links forever. But if you both think we should leave them, I respect that. Jgefd (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my edit summaries, see MOS:TABLECAPTION, MOS:SMALL, etc. Please ping me if you have any questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you have done this again. Why are you doing this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's simply no reason to use such a table, with unecessary centering of party's names, greying of background, which make it more difficult to read on first glance.--Aréat (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, There is, which I have explained to you: accessibility. If you want to change stylistic things like the color grey, that can be done with style sheets. Did you even read the pages where I referred you? Do you know anything about accessibility and semantics? Did you consider users with disabilities at all when you reverted? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it, and seen nothing indicating the left column must be centered, bolded on dark grey background. It make it less easier to read in the first place. This is absurd.--Aréat (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, Centering, grey color, bold, etc. are all style issues as I have said multiple times. Have you ever read Help:Table#Scope? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the table you're proposing and honestly tell me it's easier to read a text that is black on dark grey? This is obviously wrote by people who don't use it. You can't make it less easier to read on a whim.--Aréat (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, If it's hard to read on a whim, then why don't you change the styles? You didn't answer my question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear here, even tho Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial explicitly says to use scopes for columns and rows and you have read this, you are refusing to do it? And that page makes it clear that this is for the benefit of our blind readers but you don't care because it makes bold text with a grey background? I just want to make sure that I've got the facts here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you have also read WP:3RR and yet you reverted four times on that page. Again, just want to make sure that I know that you know better. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't grand stand me. I have a very poor vision and I reverted the changes you made to a table that made it way more difficult to read, and that isn't used anywhere on the election pages I've been participating on for years, where the tables have been fine to read. I reverted the pages to the version they were before you went there, imposed your changes and kept reverting despite being asked to go to the talk page.--Aréat (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, So that is a "yes", you read those obligatory policy pages and refused to abide by them because you don't want to. And you did this in spite of the fact that it makes the site easier to use for the blind and refuse to use stylesheets in order to make it more appealing to you visually. And you reverted four times because you felt justified in making the site less accessible. Is there anything I'm missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously not here to discuss why your change is better. It's worse, but it's written somewhere it should be better, so you're applying it, and threatening those who alarm you that it is worse. That's not a good way to do things, you know?--Aréat (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, Please tell me the best way to make other editors care about accessibility for the blind and convince them not to edit-war to remove those features and I will do that in the future. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I have asked you several times now, why don't you use style sheets to change the styling of the cells that you want changed? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the current table.--Aréat (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, That in no way answers my question. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, there is project-wide consensus in MOS:DTT that data tables should be marked up with row and column headers and proper scopes for them. This is to benefit screen readers and is not something that may be changed at an editor's whim. It is unfortunate that you find particular colour combinations difficult, but even with my fading eyesight in old age, I am able to read the text against the standard row header's background quite well, and the combination passes WCAG 2.0 AAA standard. In your case, you could add something like

th { background-color:#FFF } 

to your personal user stylesheet to provide a white background for you. It is also possible to add the class "plainrowheaders" to the table, which will remove the bold and centring from the table row headers for everyone. The table needs to be updated for those using screen readers, and I'm happy to help you if you need any. --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from 2020 North Macedonian parliamentary election[edit]

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of one week for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 13:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is only a general election which determines both the National Assembly and the Resorts. The President then gets voted from the National Assembly and the Districts from the Resorts. You'll find the story on plenty of places. KittenKlub (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But the fact these election take place on the same day doesn't mean they shouldn't have a separate line on the template, which is used to show the different election that take place. They can very well lead to the same page, but they should be here all the same. As there is nothing on each general elections pages about these districts elections, we redirect to pages to be created. You can add pages with content about these district elections saying they took places as part of the general election, or add this content to the general election pages. Either way, links should remain on the template. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those links have no place on the template, because it refers to elections which do not exist. Just look at :nl there's no local there either. The elections could be mentioned on 2020 general page, but nobody cares about Resort Council members. You and your buddies loved to dominate that page, and you have missed a little fact. Just like some refs are missing. KittenKlub (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the elections of local councilors took place, as seen in the source you provided, why are you against including these elections on the template? Them being there doesn't mean they're not part of the general election. Let's continue this discussion on the talk page of the template, by the way.--Aréat (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare to go WP:3RR BTW, because you are close to a listing on AN/I for that edit war. KittenKlub (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen that I reverted only two times and opened a discussion on the template talk page? Tone down a bit and go there.--Aréat (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left this talk page message first and still you reverted, so you were edit warring.KittenKlub (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted two times with only in edit sentences, thinking this was a mere misunderstanding that wouldn't a full discussion on talk page to settle. Then went to this discussion once getting that it was more--Aréat (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. KittenKlub (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A news story with a complete overview: https://www.srherald.com/suriname/2020/05/25/suriname-kiest-vandaag-934-volksvertegenwoordigers/

Vandaag gaan meer dan 383.000 kiesgerechtigden in Suriname naar de stembus. In de Grondwet is het recht van elke burger verankerd dat zij elke vijf jaar volksvertegenwoordigers kan kiezen. In totaal stemt Suriname vandaag voor 934 volksvertegenwoordigers: 51 assembleeleden, 765 ressortraadsleden en 118 districtsraadsleden. De 51 leden van De Nationale Assemblee (DNA) kiezen binnen een maand na hun installatie de president en vicepresident.

google translate:

Today, more than 383,000 voters in Suriname go to the polls. The Constitution enshrines the right of every citizen to elect elected representatives every five years. In total, Suriname today votes for 934 representatives: 51 assembly members, 765 resort councilors and 118 district councilors. The 51 members of the National Assembly (DNA) elect the president and vice president within a month of their installation.

KittenKlub (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KittenKlub: Thanks a lot for the source, by the way! I didn't know the election via the Verenigde Volksvergadering had ever been used. Do you happen to have some sources about that specific election? Also, how exactly are the resorts and district councilors elected? I can't translate the pdf you posted on the template talk page. Is it a "First Past The Post" system? If there is only one ballot apart from the ballot for the national assembly, does that mean the candidates are elected as both resort councilors and district councilors or something?--Aréat (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aréat: The 1996 elections used the Volksvergadering, but it'll be hard to find any information about that one, because it was before the internet and a period which is not covered by newspaper archive sites because of copyright. Basically Wijdenbosch didn't make it in the Assembly, and a majority was needed. KittenKlub (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, too bad. And about the other question? :]--Aréat (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other question. It's like I described way above. The President and Vice President are elected by the Assembly, and the District is elected by the Resorts. So the District vote is indirect.

About 1996, Leidsch Dagblad had two pages in their archive, but that newspaper uses scans and is not userfriendly (however they do keep an archive unlike most)

6 September 1996:

https://leiden.courant.nu/issue/LD/1996-09-06/edition/0/page/1?query=wijdenbosch&period=1996&sort=relevance

It says that he was elected yesterday by the Volksvergadering and received 846 votes (31 more than Venetiaan)

7 August 1996:

https://leiden.courant.nu/issue/LD/1996-08-07/edition/0/page/5?query=wijdenbosch&period=1996&sort=relevance

That's about the National Assembly. It said that both Wijdenbosch and Venetiaan failed to gain 34 votes, and that the Volksvergadering was called. (also yesterday because it's a Dutch newspaper. Being a Dutch newspaper the news very much biased against Bouterse then again so was the Surinamese press this election)

KittenKlub (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Aréat (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Guyanese general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat. Please see User:Timeshifter/Sandbox114. Scroll down to the tables with the yellow background color for headers.

One of the tables with the yellow background color for headers is also at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS to left align the text in the first column of a table. It is at the bottom of that section. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Village Pump discussion that shows a table with yellow background color for header cells. See: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Expanding class=wikitable to make tables accessible to blind, and to align cell text. Section name may change. So see table of contents if link no longer takes you to the correct section. See also: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox115. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that you undid my edit re: by-elections on the Liechtenstein election template. I wonder if there is any way to include the 1930 Liechtenstein by-election in the template. Thank you. --Migs005 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry for reverting your change. Thank you by the way for your amazing work on all these past election pages of Liechtenstein. I had unsuccessfuly searched for a source on this matter when writting several of the french pages of the more recent ones some years ago, like the 1939 one. As for the template, we don't include them on the templates because they're not full renewal, concerning only a few seats. What you can do however is mention them on the previous full election page with an inner link. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is noted. Many thanks.--Migs005 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you must have spotted me adding this to articles. I had been thinking about trying to create something like this for years to try and get some kind of consistency across articles (as a template can't be reformatted, unlike the Wikitable versions), and had tried creating one in my userspace (which didn't go anywhere). It was actually Ythlev that created this one, but he only used it for presidential elections in Taiwan. However, I guessed it was possible to make it more flexible as it uses Lua code rather than usual Wikipedia code. Unfortunately he didn't return after being blocked for another 3RR violation, but Frietjes has been extremely helpuful.

There are still some improvements to make (currently it only does presidential elections and one-round parliamentary elections), but I thought I would start rolling it out to try and identify what exactly needs to be done to it. So far I have noted:

• Needs a function like invalid=unknown or electorate=unknown as at the moment it assumes the figure is zero and calculates accordingly if you don't enter a value
• Needs to have a manual override for party totals so that when the vote totals are unknown, it doesn't display a sum of zero votes.

If you fancy starting to add it to articles, I'm sure there are more things we can spot and add to the request list.

The big advantage of a central template for this, is that discussions on changing format will be held centrally, and any agreed change will immediately be implemented across all articles. Number 57 14:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Yes, I sure had noticed! When you started adding it to the Barbadian election page, I searched through your history and found the template discussion. I think it's a great idea and a very useful tool. I had looked into these semi-automatic templates a few years ago as well, but found myself completely out of my depth. Will have to thank again Frietjes for his amazing work on this.

Upon stumbling on the page, I had assumed the grey table bottom was an existent feature and that you would prefer the one without any separation and no blank/invalid votes percentages I'm used to see you use. You know, with that thin bar and detailled percentages the template is starting to look like the one I'm using everywhere on the french wiki for presidential and parliamentary elections, so that sure look already familiar ^^. In those, I use a different font color for empty cases as to portray them in a "this page left blank on purpose" way, I include the abstentions own numbers and %, make the total seats numbers in bold, as it is useful in tables in which there's two different system with seats, to make the total stand out, and I include the total of seats on the total of all votes line as to avoid having a large square empty. But those are all esthetics, and I think you were asking for more practical ones.

One very important thing I would request if possible is to be able to include a column for the difference of percentages by parties from the last election. I find it really add to the way election results can be read. For example, in a majoritarian system, a party can seemingly have only slightly changed its number of seat, when the number of votes actually dropped or shot up, and vice versa. Even in proportional system, a party can seemingly lose or gain seats, when its share of votes actually didn't change much or went slightly the other way, just becayse some others party that in the last election was just short of the electoral threeshold attained it this time, or inversely didn't but had last time, etc. I really think it's useful to see these +/-. Of course, it would need to allow for "New" or "N/a" content.

It seem it's way better to use the non automatic total seat change, as the automatic one simply make the math from the changes of the participating one. If a party which hold seats wasn't present in the following vote because it disappeared or boycotted it, the automatic count will make it appear like the total of seat got up even if it stayed the same.

There's the matter of running mates in presidential elections with vice president being elected on the same ticket.

Some particular tables would be the ones in which parties participate in one system and not the other, like here. It always happen with independents, who in paralel systems participate in the FPTP ones and not the PR. Does the table function with it? Same when there is appointed members.

There sometimes elections in which parties are together in one system and not the others like in the recent andorran ones

Some countries have large coalition of which the electors still vote for the inner parties indepently, like the sammarine ones, or the spanish ones.

By the way, for the latter, in the french speaking wiki we tend to show the inner parties with their own lines, name, color and seats, for example in Mauritius. I know it's not the way it's done on the english speaking wiki, but I thought it could be mentioned.

So, voilà. I know we're still going to need old school non templates tables for a little percentages of elections anyways, but I hope I was of help for you to identify some needed tweaks. Have a good day!--Aréat (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the swing column, I agree that is something that could be added. However, to start with I am focusing on trying to get the basics in place – for instance, getting the two-round/parallel voting format for parliamentary elections (Andorra would be an example of the latter) and some of the fixes I requested on the talk page today for when we don't have invalid votes or the electorate. I am also a bit nervous about asking too much of Friejtes, as she seems to be the only person willing to help (I asked at the Lua noticeboard a while back and got zero help).

The template does work with appointed members – see 2016 Kazakh legislative election#Results. If no vote figure is entered, it creates a two-column blank cell. Once the two round/parallel voting system parliamentary elections are possible, I assume it would work the same way where parties contest one part but not the other.

Running mates can already be entered using |vp1= – see 2020 Taiwanese presidential election#Results

The seat change figure is only entered manually and does not show up if |total_sc= is not used.

I am not sure how alliances would work yet, or whether it is too complex. If it cannot be done, I guess an option would be to manually list the alliance in the party name field. However, I think this is for a later discussion when some of the other things have been sorted out. Number 57 19:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look good to me. And yeah I'm always wary of asking too much, that's why I'm just mentioning it here in a discussion, not flooding the template talk page with request either. Anyways, it seem like it's pretty usable already. Very neat to see this progress take place. --Aréat (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the automatic totalling has proved to be really useful. I have come across several articles with mistakes in the table (or in the source) that I picked up by comparing the pre- and post-template totals. For example, 2012 East Timorese parliamentary election had an incorrect figure for the Democratic Party because the STAE website mixed up the 8 and the 5 in their total table (if you sum all the district totals below, you get the correct number). Also a few incorrect percentages (usually rounding errors) too. Number 57 22:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great to know! By the way, your recent edit on the East Timorese election made me realise I had completely forgot to point out that "Invalid votes" should be "Blank and invalid votes", and that it may be useful to be able to split the lines to differentiate them in the table. Some pages do it, and it may cause the template to be rejected on those by users who wan't to keep the details.--Aréat (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. One of the modifications could be to request the title of that row be editable, so the default is Invalid/blank, but it can be changed to simply "Invalid" for elections where blank votes are counted as valid ('against all'/NOTA) votes. Number 57 22:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand how the template work with colors, to be honest. For exemple in the East Timorese page, the Frenti-Mudança party doesn't have the yellow one it should have, like on the french wiki page. Before, I would just change the colorcode or fix the link to the proper party color template, but now ? --Aréat (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the swing function, could you ask Frietjes for it to be added to the template? The last couple of times I've asked for some more work on the template, nothing has happened. I am hoping the more articles it is used on, the more apparent it will be that it is something worth spending time on. Cheers, Number 57 18:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ;)--Aréat (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I might have managed to add it to the code for the rows with parties – see the table on the right at Template:Election results/testcases#Parliamentary. However, I am not sure where in the code you can add it to the bottom (although all you'd need is a dash). Number 57 19:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I don't see a way in which I could help, halas.--Aréat (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit on this page, changing Vladimir Uyba from United Russia to independent.

I think you're right here. this article describes him as "self-nominated", notwithstanding his background as being (a) appointed by Putin, (b) a former federal Health Minister of Putin and (c) unopposed by United Russia.AndrewRT(Talk) 19:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being self nominated isn't relly a proof of independence. It has been very often used in the last few years by candidates of United Russia, even by Putin himself. It only mean their candidacy was registered on paper as self nominated, not that they're an independent candidate. It was this way in most of the past years regionals elections. But usually they're still members of United Russia.--Aréat (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think this might have an error in it as it doesn't match the results (2005 Aruban general election). Cheers, Number 57 16:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, looks like the original file was correct, and the replacement is actually the result of the 2009 Aruban general election? Number 57 16:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I modified it. --Aréat (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums § Proposed merger of articles about elections in the Caribbean Netherlands and Netherlands Antilles. ― Ætoms ^[talk] 13:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I haven't followed that question. Have a good day.--Aréat (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your tagging names of initiatives like [8] and [9] as unreferenced. Can you please explain? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm not used to the practise of having sources of an Infobox at its bottom, and hadn't seen there is a source provided for those results. --Aréat (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone else is going to participate in the discussion on the talk page. If you want to go ahead and add a separate section, I'll back you up against anyone who tries to delete it without making a serious argument. Also I was wondering if at your convenience you could add it to a few of the calendars from past years. I've been trying to improve the calendars going back to 2010 (completed through 2013); if you add indirect election sections to the past few years I would add them to the others. Sladnick (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sound all good to me. Thanks! And sure, I will look into it asap. --Aréat (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the Libertarian section from the info box. Because they held one seat at the time of the election, they are entitled to be included regardless of their performance last cycle. This has been the standard for other Elections for past US Elections. Also do not chance the net status. It's been the standard that vacant seats are not included in the net change since the net change reflects the net seats that flipped.-RayNavy — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaySwifty18 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I work on many election pages and we always do these comparison from elections to elections. As far as I can see it also was done this way in the previous pages. Please dicusss this on the article talk page. --Aréat (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article moved, you can use the WP:RM process. It looks like the mistranslation may be so widespread that the current version is the common English name (there are about ten times as many Google Hits for the current title as opposed to the direct translation)... Cheers, Number 57 12:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Aréat (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2020 United States presidential election; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what current practice are you alluding to? There's no consistency among these articles. Some use the numbers of the previous election, some use the numbers right before the next elections & some do both with the same article. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me previous United States House of Representatives elections pages were showing swing related to each other, not in between changes. I have only checked a few recent pages, though. I'm not going to revert it again if you insist, but it seem to me that considering there is an ongoing discussion on whether or not to do this, it would be better to keep what was used in the previous few pages, until the discussion lead to something. I do agree with the way I reverted to, though, so I can see how it may look interested. Again, push with the change if you feel it's needed. I simply don't. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objections to removing the Seats before section from the infobox, if it's deleted from all them. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That seem to be the direction of the discussion (on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, by the way).--Aréat (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Where did you get the seat figures from? Cheers, Number 57 16:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the seats were added by another user. I can't find a source.--Aréat (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re your question in the edit summary on the Tobago article, the template only picks up colours if the name used (linked or not) matches the template name exactly. Because 'Unity of the People' is not a link to Unity of the People (Trinidad and Tobago), it doesn't pick up the meta template. To get it to work, you'd either have to link it (a redlink, and I'm not sure the party is notable) or you could use {{Unity of the People (Trinidad and Tobago)/meta/color}} in the colour field of the code. Hope that makes sense? Cheers, Number 57 00:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thanks!--Aréat (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just spotted that the number of seats is wrong in this diagram (it should be 100). Cheers, Number 57 20:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. I edited. Funny how for some countries such big errors can remain unnoticed for years. Thanks for notifying me.--Aréat (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think File:Îles Turques-et-Caïques Assemblée 2012.svg is also wrong. There only seem to be 15 elected seats and I cannot see any mention of appointed members in the article? Cheers, Number 57 21:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I saw it mentioned in another article. Are you sure that the numbers (4 nominated, 2 ex officio are correct; the House of Assembly article mentions a split of 3/3...). Cheers, Number 57 21:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 4/2 split since the 2011 constitution. I don't know how it was before, but I imagine it was the mentioned 3/3, hence some sources being a bit outdated. Note that the four are all appointed by the governor, but two are on his own decision while the two others are on the advice of the PM and chief of the opposition. The two ex officio members are the Attorney general and the speaker. Glad I could help. --Aréat (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, the difference is between independents who were nominated by the Fatherland Front and unaffiliated (self-nominated) independents. The difference is mentioned in the text of the source ("The successful candidates included 475 Communist Party members and 21 non-party members among which 2 were self-nominated candidates"). Cheers, Number 57 16:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you know why the Monaco election commission does not appear to count blank votes in the total number of voters? For example, in 1968, the number of voters is the total of the valid votes and void votes, ignoring the 23 blank votes. The same is true for the 1998 elections. And yuo can see an official example of it here (right hand side of page 132), where bizarrely they clearly count them as ballots cast, not not in the number of voters...

Are the 'blank' votes actually spoilt votes (i.e. ones with an error that were cancelled and voters given another ballot paper), or do the Monegasque authorities consider people who cast blank votes not to have participated? Cheers, Number 57 11:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The electoral law of Monaco consider blank votes as non valid votes, but take them into account for the calculation of the absolute majority, which is half of valid+blank votes (but not void ones). Maybe that's what's causing these inconsistencies.--Aréat (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so it looks like the 'total voters' they report is more for the calculation than actually being the total turnout. Number 57 15:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to remove your comments? What you said was correct. Number 57 21:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I answered it on the Welsh election talk page in which the matter was raised. ;)--Aréat (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2020 New Caledonian independence referendum into 2021 New Caledonian independence referendum. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aréat. Why did you restore this blocked user's addition? [10] It clearly falls outside the scope of the article and doesn't constitute a partition plan. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed like an error in edits.--Aréat (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Moldovan parliamentary election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article July 2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you it feels so nice that my edits are appreciated thank you

You're very welcome!--Aréat (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Saint Lucian general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aréat! Thank you for your edits to House of Representatives of the Philippines. It looks like you've copied or moved text from 2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections into that page, and while you are welcome to do so, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted Beat about the spoilt vote issue. Do you also correspond with him? Cheers, Number 57 21:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent timing. I was right in the process of opening my mails to notice him. Yours should be enough, I imagine. He speak english as well as french, if I recall well. And he's very nice.--Aréat (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he always lets me know if we've missed a referendum on here! Number 57 21:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth keeping an eye on that Lithuanian article – I suspect they'll keep attempting the same edit. Something tells me this might not be a new editor, but we'll see. Hope you've been keeping we'll anyway! Cheers, Number 57 21:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doing quite well these days. I will try to keep an eye on it, although I'm less present on the en wiki.--