User talk:4idaho/Archive 1

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italian general election, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luigi de Magistris (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) 11:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Italian general election, 2013 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --RJFF (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RJFF. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Civil Revolution, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 4idaho,

Wikipedia is based on the principle of WP:Verifiability which means that every article and all information has to be based on independent, secondary, WP:reliable sources. If Wikipedia editors analyse the manifesto of a political movement by themselves or observe and classify its ideology this is considered WP:original research, which is deprecated on Wikipedia. What we need are secondary (independent, third-party) sources that back up the statements. Thank you for your comprehension. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to blank the section at Martin O'Malley? If not, no problem. If so, please explain why on the article talk page. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left you some replies to pick over, when you're ready. Dolescum (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Progressive Party and Independence Party (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) 10:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Progressive Republican Party (Brazil), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark blue (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) 11:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you want to keep all the unnecessary coding in this table? We don't need to have 189 instances of align="center" when it can be put into the main table code with exactly the same outcome.

In addition, by having the {{clear}} function and insisting that the table be 100% width, you are creating a load of whitespace under the section heading that doesn't need to be there.

Also, the second wording in a heading should not be capitalised unless it is a proper noun. Cheers, Number 57 13:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that for some reason you have reverted my edits to the Italian elections in the 19th century, claiming "not or. self explanatory under Italian electoral law", and even worse, accusing me of vandalism

I think you must have misunderstood what the issue is here. The sources we have only give the percentage of seats held by each grouping, not the actual number. Nick.mon has calculated the seat totals himself using these percentages. This is why his graphs are WP:Original research.

In addition, he has also misused the infoboxes by putting the % of seats as the % of votes received, even though they are clearly different things. Cheers, Number 57 13:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But thanks for the Ecuadorian seat totals. Number 57 14:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets address one thing at a time. First, lets talk about the polling table for gr-leg. The coding is the same as used as the table for the next danish election, german election, icelandic election, the italian election we've just seen, and that's just off the top of my head. It's basically the same table as is being used everywhere else, which is in and of itself a good reason not to change it.

There's also a better reason in my opinion, but, first of all, the {{clear}} should definitely be kept, whichever table we end up agreeing upon, as it takes up vastly more space in the article without it. No one but a few users will see the coding, but a vast number of eyes will see the article. You talked about white space, but if you compare there's far more white space in the version without {{clear}} -- it's just located within the table itself, making it harder to read.

As to the other effects of the current coding, I like that it keeps every column the same size, which both makes it easier to read at first glance, and has a certain fairness to it.

You mentioned wanting to narrow the polling table to reduce the white space, but I don't think that's a big issue, as it's only temporary. The sections above the polling table will increase in size quickly once the election begins to approach, so the entire opinion polling section will be below the infobox, erasing the white space.

However, I can see your point, so here's two different ideas to narrow the polling table. If you look at the page for opinion polling for the Spanish election, there's a column for "Undecided/Abstained", but instead of writing that out, its been condensed to "U/A" with a note at the bottom of the table explaining what that means. I suggest we take this format to greatly reduce the size of the "Undecided/Other" column in the gr-leg article. Secondly, we can take a cue from the article for the next Icelandic election and used abbreviated dates to substantially reduce that column as well.

These two reforms should reduce the size of the table by more than your coding simplifications, thus eliminating white space above the table, while also largely maintaining the current coding, which eliminates white space within the polling table and creates congruency with other wikipedia articles. Do you find this an acceptable compromise?

Finally, I apparently wasn't clear on what vandalism means. I did not mean to insult your motives, I just meant to indicate the edit I was reverting was wrong.

(P.S. No problem. ^_^)--4idaho (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response, but I'm not really clear on what you propose. Perhaps we should compare here? I've started below. Regarding the whitespace, I don't see any whitespace with the current version (I can e-mail you screenshots if you'd like). Number 57 15:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the table I'm proposing. I'm very confused if you're not seeing white space; do you have an unusually large computed monitor? The white space is being caused by the polling firm and dates column, as since they don't have a defined size anymore, it caused long polling firm names as well as the dates to wrap into a second line that makes the entire table twice as tall as it was previously. This table uses abbreviations for the dates to let it stay both horizontally slim (no long columns to keep them in one line) and vertically slim (no two lines required for the date columns.) --4idaho (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What resolution are you viewing on? Have the changes I've just made to the article helped? I think the debt crisis infobox was causing problems as well for people viewing on IE (I use Chrome so couldn't see any problems). Number 57 16:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use safari, and that fixed the white space problem, so good job. :-) But lets move on to the fundamental issue here. Is the proposed table an acceptable compromise for you? And if not, what changes do you think should be made? --4idaho (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Yes, I think the new table is good. I've made some changes in the example below simply to remove unnecessary coding (which reduces the bandwidth needed to view the table on the article) but doesn't change the appearance at all. One thing I can't see though is how the Polling firm heading has been forced into two lines. Number 57 16:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I'm OK with this. If there are no objections lets insert this new table... ? --4idaho (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - have done! Number 57 17:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original

Polling Firm	Date	ND	SYRIZA	PASOK	ANEL	XA	DIMAR	KKE	Undecided/Others
Marc	27 February 2013	22.8	23.1	5.3	5.3	10.0	4.4	4.5	18.6

Current

Polling Firm	Date	ND	SYRIZA	PASOK	ANEL	XA	DIMAR	KKE	Undecided/Others
Marc	27 February 2013	22.8	23.1	5.3	5.3	10.0	4.4	4.5	18.6

Proposed table

Polling firm	Date	ND	SYRIZA	PASOK	ANEL	XA	DIMAR	KKE	U/O
Marc	27 Feb 2013	22.8	23.1	5.3	5.3	10.0	4.4	4.5	18.6

Note: U/O refers to undecided or other.

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.

Brazilian parliamentary election, 2010 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Democratic Labour Party

Serge and Beate Klarsfeld (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Free Democratic Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I esteem this website as the most comprehensive database of European political parties and election data. It is very well-kept, neatly arranged, correct and up-to-date. However, it is a self-published website and not a peer-reviewed publication, and therefore not a reliable source in the narrow sense. I find it acceptable to use it as a source to assess the ideology and/or positioning of newly-established parties or minor parties from smaller countries, where there is no other literature available. However, it is not preferrable over scholarly books published by university presses or expert publishing houses.

Moreover, you made a mistake: Nordieck nowhere describes the CDC as Christian democratic. CDC is the liberal part of Convergence and Union, while UDC is the Christian democratic part. Therefore, I reverted your edit. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I appreciate your work on articles about political parties and elections. Thanks a lot. --RJFF (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Next Danish parliamentary election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish (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) 14:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making such sweeping edits at the Sofia article. You are removing sourced content and images without prior discussion. Thanks. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add references to this article as soon as possible, or it is likely to be deleted.Deb (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 April 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 23:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

--BDD (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully decline; I don't know what it would involve, but I have very limited time on wikipedia. Good luck with your group. --4idaho (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Swedish general election, 2014 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
]. This will be the second election since the centre-right [[Alliance for Sweden]] coalition (comprised of the [[Moderate Party]], [[Liberal People's Party (Sweden)|Liberal People's Party]], [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Socialist Equality Party (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalism (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) 22:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You little rascal. First breaching the rule and then asking me to help... ;) --RJFF (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I am honest, I cannot report the IP without reporting you. The admin will look into the page history anyway and see that you were the other party in this edit war. Of course, I can understand you. But everyone has to play by the same rules, and edit-warring is against the rules, whether we are on the right side or not. Do you want to take the risk of getting blocked, too? Otherwise, I would not do anything, but hope for the IP to stop. Page protection might be an alternative solution. But again, there is the risk that the deciding admin will look into the history and want to block both edit warriors. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would not draw unto Norsieck's website too strongly. I very much esteem his work, but it's still a self-published website and not a peer-reviewed journal or academic book. He is not a professor of political science, but rather categorises political parties as his hobby (doing a pretty good job at it, if you ask me). But he cannot be a profound expert on the politics of every single European country. So it might be possible, that Nordsieck assesses the Spanish nationalism-unionism-centralism-you-name-it thing differently from, say, the mainstream of Spanish political scientists. And from time to time, he changes the labels, which might be an indicator that he had to revise his initial classification. --RJFF (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and recognize that, which is why I added in newspaper citations where I could find them. Nordsieck's archive is better then no citation though. As to me being blocked, it doesn't matter that much, it seems apparent to me the page needs protection, and I did violate the 3RR. --4idaho (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the IP has not done anything for the last hours. If the anonymous user has stopped, we don't need administrative action. --RJFF (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to start a thread at Talk:Citizens – Party of the Citizenry? The IP does not seem to be an aggressive POV warrior who disrespects policies and guidelines. I think that he/she is just unexperienced and does not know our customs yet. I have good hope that you can get into discussion with this user and find a compromise solution. Why don't you explain your position on the talk page and invite the anonymous user to answer? If he/she does not react despite being warned and invited to discussion, we can still report him/her. Then, it will be clear that you tried to play a constructive role, and the other side not. Blocking users or full-protecting pages (you are an autoconfirmed user, so the page would be full-blocked!) should always be the ultima ratio. Every other means should be exhausted first. --RJFF (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the table, as per the problems discussed on User talk:Impru20, but you may want to recheck your understanding of WP:BRD - the B part applies to Impru20 changing the table, whilst I was implementing the R and the D parts. Cheers, Number 57 15:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I didn't remove the graph - I just moved it below the table (as you can see in this version). Cheers, Number 57 15:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite shocked that you've reverted again. Can you not see how awful the current version is? All I did the second time was fix the coding. Number 57 15:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion with Impru20. He never responded to your messages. I don't object to your edit per se (although I do think your version is more visually confusing), I primarily object to your methods. Please take it to Talk and attempt consensus. --4idaho (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you explain how this is more confusing than this? Number 57 15:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no visual cues, so it makes it harder for people to keep track of which column is which mentally while reading the table. For the record, I would accept the compromise version Impru20 proposed on his sandbox page, it preserves the visual look of the original version while also answering your concerns. Is it acceptable to you? It actually uses less code then your version and takes up no more space. --4idaho (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What do you mean by visual cues? The latest version he has created is ok (apart from the date formatting), although I wonder why the text size has been reduced when we can have it at 100% without any width issues? Number 57 16:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I was out to lunch. The discussion is finally getting kicked off on the actual Talk page, so I'll elaborate there. --4idaho (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the furore has died down, I just wanted to make some comments re conduct on this matter. As mentioned above, I was concerned about your misuse of BRD when initially reverting my edits to the article. However, your next revert (the one which I was genuinely shocked by, as mentioned above) claimed "You're out voted." This concerns me greatly on two levels - firstly that once you realised that BRD was no longer an option, you were happy to continue reverting anyway (thus ignoring a guideline which you had previously used as justification), and secondly that you believe voting is how Wikipedia works (you also mentioned someone being outvoted on the talk page when discussing which version to implement).

Re your comment on visual clues and it being harder to keep track of the columns, this was never explained. As far as I could see, there was no difference between the two tables except the width of the columns and the text size.[1][2] There would have been no difference to readers as far as keeping an eye on which column was which. Was this just an ficticious excuse to revert?

I'm not trying to be rude or create any problems as previously we've had cordial interactions, but the attitude taken here was very concerning. I hope this was a one off, perhaps due to a bad day at the office? Thanks, Number 57 12:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I said that, you were a one man minority in favor of reverting back to the old version. Since there were three people involved at that point, 2/3 of the editors were in favor of Impru20's new table. That would seem to meet the threshold of consensus (In most political systems, that's what you'd call a supermajority) and I was trying to politely point that out. In retrospect, "you're out voted" doesn't sound very polite, but it did in my head when I wrote that. Similarly, when I said that to Rruis, I was referring to an issue where three editors were opposed to him, which means he was an even smaller 1/4 minority.

The aesthetic reasons I disliked your version were that the column sizes were too similar, and that you bolded the polling firms' names. If someone is reading the table, rather then remember the complete table, which you would find impossible to do, their brain will grab onto some small piece of information and uses that to navigate. I felt your version of the table was too monochrome.

Anyways, the point is moot, since it was easy to greatly simplify the coding while also remaining close to Impru20's original design. I also thought our interactions were cordial. I certainly thought the way you treated me was mannerly, and I'm sorry if I didn't give you the same impression. --4idaho (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for explaining. I would just be a bit more cautious with the 2 v 1 thing, as I'm fairly sure that's not a consensus! And just an FYI (the pedant in me feels the need to point this out), the polling firms were also bolded in the version you reverted to, but as the text is so small, it was difficult to see. The column widths were also identical for each party in both tables. Anyway, we have a decent version now. Cheers, Number 57 14:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bavaria state election, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secessionism (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) 11:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portuguese local election, 2013, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Crato and Nisa (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) 11:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Portuguese local election, 2013 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(Click show ⇨)
|} |} |} |} |} |} Municipal Councils [[Elections in Portugal|elections results]]} in [[Coimbra District|Coimbra]]}} |} |} |}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Portuguese local election, 2013 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(Click show ⇨)
|} |} |} |} |} |} Municipal Councils [[Elections in Portugal|elections results]]} in [[Coimbra District|Coimbra]]}} |} |} |}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Czech legislative election, 2013 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(Click show ⇨)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left;" | <small><2</small> politickych-stran-v-zari-2013-285822 |title=STEM – PREFERENCE POLITICKÝCH STRAN ZÁŘÍ 2013)}}</ref> podpora-mimoparlamentnich-stran-a-levice |title=V ČR sílí podpora mimoparlamentních stran a levice)}}</ref> documents/c1/a7064/f3/pv130924.pdf |title= Stranické preference a volební model v září 2013 )}}</ref> >{{cite web|url = http://www.stem.cz/clanek/2801 |title=Stranické preference září II. 2013)}}</ref> pokracuje |title=Dosavadní trend pokračuje, podpora nových a neparlamentních stran mírně posiluje)}}</ref> | <small><2</small> | <small><2</small> | <small><2</small> documents/c1/a7102/f3/pv131021.pdf |title= Stranické preference a volební model v říjnu 2013 )}}</ref> cz/docs/preference_2012_03.pdf |title=Tisková zpráva Sněmovní Volební Model za březen-duben 2012) |language=Czech}}</ref> cz/docs/preference_2012_04.pdf |title=Tisková zpráva Sněmovní Volební Model za duben-květen 2012) |language=Czech}}</ref> preference_2012_05.pdf |title=Tisková zpráva Sněmovní Volební Volební Model za květen-červen 2012) |language=Czech}}</ref> | 7.9 <small>(<1%)</small> | 6.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 4.4 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><3</small> | <small><3</small> | 16.8<small>(<3%)</small> | 5.6 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 7.0 <small>(<2%)</small> | 4.1 <small>(<1%)</small> | 5.6 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 5.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 3.6 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><3</small> | 14.7<small>(<3%)</small> | 4.1 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 7.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | 2.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 10.6<small>(<3%)</small> | 4.1 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 2.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 7.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | 3.6 <small>(<1%)</small> | 9.O<small>(<3%)</small> | 1.2 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.0 <small>(<1%)</small> | 4.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | 4.2 <small>(<1%)</small> | 9.2<small>(<3%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 5.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | 4.7 <small>(<1%)</small> | 4.3 <small>(<1%)</small> | 8.7<small>(<3%)</small> | 5.4 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.0 <small>(<1%)</small> | 3.6<small>(<2%)</small> | 2.8 <small>(<1%)</small> | 5.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | 3.4<small>(<2%)</small> | 6.0 <small>(<2%)</small> | 4.8<small>(<2%)</small> | 7.7 <small>(<1%)</small> | 9.0 <small>(<2%)</small>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Czech legislative election, 2013 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(Click show ⇨)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left;" | <small><2</small> politickych-stran-v-zari-2013-285822 |title=STEM – PREFERENCE POLITICKÝCH STRAN ZÁŘÍ 2013)}}</ref> podpora-mimoparlamentnich-stran-a-levice |title=V ČR sílí podpora mimoparlamentních stran a levice)}}</ref> documents/c1/a7064/f3/pv130924.pdf |title= Stranické preference a volební model v září 2013 )}}</ref> >{{cite web|url = http://www.stem.cz/clanek/2801 |title=Stranické preference září II. 2013)}}</ref> pokracuje |title=Dosavadní trend pokračuje, podpora nových a neparlamentních stran mírně posiluje)}}</ref> | <small><2</small> | <small><2</small> | <small><2</small> documents/c1/a7102/f3/pv131021.pdf |title= Stranické preference a volební model v říjnu 2013 )}}</ref> 21-10-2013/ |title= Volební preference - předčasné volby- říjen (publikováno 21.10.2013) )}}</ref> cz/docs/preference_2012_03.pdf |title=Tisková zpráva Sněmovní Volební Model za březen-duben 2012) |language=Czech}}</ref> cz/docs/preference_2012_04.pdf |title=Tisková zpráva Sněmovní Volební Model za duben-květen 2012) |language=Czech}}</ref> preference_2012_05.pdf |title=Tisková zpráva Sněmovní Volební Volební Model za květen-červen 2012) |language=Czech}}</ref> | 7.9 <small>(<1%)</small> | 6.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 4.4 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><3</small> | <small><3</small> | 16.8<small>(<3%)</small> | 5.6 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 7.0 <small>(<2%)</small> | 4.1 <small>(<1%)</small> | 5.6 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 5.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 3.6 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><3</small> | 14.7<small>(<3%)</small> | 4.1 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 7.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | 2.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 10.6<small>(<3%)</small> | 4.1 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 2.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 7.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | 3.6 <small>(<1%)</small> | 9.O<small>(<3%)</small> | 1.2 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.0 <small>(<1%)</small> | 4.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | 4.2 <small>(<1%)</small> | 9.2<small>(<3%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.5 <small>(<1%)</small> | 5.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | 4.7 <small>(<1%)</small> | 4.3 <small>(<1%)</small> | 8.7<small>(<3%)</small> | 5.4 <small>(<1%)</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | <small><1</small> | 4.0 <small>(<1%)</small> | 3.6<small>(<2%)</small> | 2.8 <small>(<1%)</small> | 5.5 <small>(<2%)</small> | 3.4<small>(<2%)</small> | 6.0 <small>(<2%)</small> | 4.8<small>(<2%)</small> | 7.7 <small>(<1%)</small> | 9.0 <small>(<2%)</small>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economic Freedom Fighters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radical left (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) 09:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Communist Party of Denmark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revisionist (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, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't time to address this immediately, but I would gently point out that the edit was not a matter of content removal. It was the replacement of one descriptor with another, slightly less particular descriptor. Both descriptors have been applied to Golden Dawn, and have substantial overlap. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your last comment on my talk page, fyi. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Indeed, it was quite outdated. I seemingly forgot to update it, so sorry for that. Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this series of edits of yours based on this link, I would like to comment that the link only states that EEK decided to cooperate with ANTARSYA and participate in an initiate called "Συμπόρευση" along with Plan B (Alavanos), KOA and some other groups. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I was working with a machine translator. --4idaho (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You reverted some content in Serbian elections 2014 posted by another user, but that content is incorrect. Just look at last election page on elections 2012, and all will be clear (how many seats some party/coalition won and other things). (User:Nikgudz) 17:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC

I reverted a removal of content. The content was also not incorrect, it was the same information as is in the 2012 infobox. Cheers, --4idaho (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I afraid, you violate WP:OR rule about original research in election's articles. Please show a discussion where is a consensus about such "recalculations". I think you must show only exact figures from sources with notes below, "polling was made with/without abstaining/undecided votes". NickSt (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I accept in some way that these polls can be used in the EP article, we can't still ignore the fact that they can also be used in the next Greek election article. Not only does the poll itself compare its poll results with legislative polls of its own; it is also stated, in the link of the poll] (scroll all the way to the bottom): Μέθοδος δειγματοληψίας: Πολυσταδιακή δειγματοληψία με χρήση quota ως προς τη γεωγραφική κατανομή του πληθυσμού, το φύλο και την ηλικία. Τα αποτελέσματα είναι σταθμισμένα με την ψήφο του 2012 (Rough translation: Sampling Method: Multi-stage sampling using quota as to the geographical distribution of population, sex and age. The results are weighted by the vote of 2012). This says that the poll takes the 2012 national election results into consideration for weighting the poll data. Thus, all of this would mean that the data of these polls is, in fact, comparable not only to the 2012 national election results, but also to other national polls (the poll itself does that same comparation, after all), so I believe they should also be present in the next Greek election article (this would mean they would be present in BOTH articles, however, but I don't see how this would be a problematic issue).

This is important, because for the graph trend lines I only use the averages of those polls found in that article. If those Kapa polls are comparable to the 2012 results, that would mean that they can be used in the graph calculations, but I can't do that so long they are not there for others to see (otherwise I would be doing something close to data manipulation). I'm, however, not reverting anything until you can express your opinion about this, though. Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the pollster is ambiguous, and doesn't explicitly say it is an European poll. In this other article of the same newspaper (focusing more on the polls and showing them in a more orderly fashion), they are regarded as "public opinion ahead of the European election", but not as European polls as such (it is left as somewhat ambiguous; I'm not sure if unintentionally or not). Moreover, aside from the one article you posted saying they are European polls (which is an opinion article, by the way, and thus not fully objective), the fact that in the 3comma14 page there is no explicit reference to the polls being European or legislative places both of them in some kind of limbo regarding their belonging to one or other type of election (as you can see, poll results are presented under the question If next Sunday we had elections, which party would you vote for? This isn't in any way explicit, as it can be interpreted both ways. Both EP and legislative elections are usually held on Sunday, and both are obviously elections). Thus we can say that there is an opinion article in a newspaper where it is said that they are European polls, but seeing as how there seems to be no clear statement about it neither by the pollster nor by other articles of the same newspaper, we can't say it is explicitly said they are EP polls. There is simply not consensus among the sources.

Secondly, we are not really talking here about if they are national or European polls, because eventually that is secondary. We are talking about if those polls are comparable to others made by the same pollster for other type of election (which would make them eligible to be put in the same table than other polls with which they can be compared). From the data we have right now, we can say they use the same methodology than other polls, explicitly NOT European, made by the same pollster (see Dec 13 poll); they are weighted by the 2012 vote (something quite peculiar; European polls usually are weighted based on previous European results, not national ones (or not only, anyway)); and they are compared with the results of another poll made in December 2013, which (again) was definitely NOT an European poll.

And there are many cases of voters expressing vastly different results in European elections and national elections. Yes, there are, and I know it, but sometimes some pollsters just skip over it and make one type of poll which serves for both type of elections (effectively mixing both), even if this does sound weird and is not correct. That's why I used the example of Sigma-2 in Spain back in the talk page of the next Greek election. Seeing how Kapa Research is using a weight based on national election results, I guess that it is already mixing both kinds of elections (this if we suppose they are really saying those are European polls, anyway).

Eventually, we will need to discuss this matter again soon, because we are seeing how some pollsters, just 1 month ahead of the election, don't seem to be making any EP poll but many legislative ones (Alco being the most notorious case), and we will have to decide whether those pollsters have decided to not make any EP poll or if their polls are just 'generic' ones intended to represent the "general state of the public opinion" rather than the voting intention of one or other election. Impru20 (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my fault then. All translations to English I found about that word give "election" as a result, but it looks like, indeed, in Greek that word is used for that type of elections (i.e. European election articles of the Greek wikipedia use that word instead of the other). So this closes the issue of the poll's ambiguity, which isn't as such, really. We, however, are still left with the issue of the polls being compared with other polls for national elections. I agree that if they are European polls they can't be placed in the next Greek election article as mere national election polls (because they aren't); however, if they can be (and indeed ARE) compared to other national polls of the same pollster, I think they should have the option of being represented in both the graph for the national elections and the table itself, but maybe in a different way. I can think of them being highlighted in some other color and with a note saying explicitly that they are European polls but that, due to comparative purposes, they are included there. As per the original research Wikipedia policy, there is room to do this because there is undoubtely a reliable and published source which makes this comparation. Maybe something like this:

Date	Polling Firm	ND	SYRIZA	PASOK	ANEL	XA	DIMAR	KKE	POTAMI	Others	Lead
3–4 Apr	UoM[a]	23.5	26.0	6.0	3.5	9.0	2.5	9.0	10.5	10.0	2.5
3 Apr	Kapa Research[a][b]	25.8	26.7	5.7	5.0	9.6	2.1	7.7	10.5	6.9	0.9
27 Mar–3 Apr	Metron Analysis	25.1	26.5	5.8	3.7	7.9	3.2	6.1	14.2	7.5	1.4
1–2 Apr	Kapa Research[a][b]	26.8	24.2	6.7	4.8	8.5	2.6	7.2	11.3	7.9	2.6
24–27 Mar	Alco[a]	25.1	24.6	6.4	5.2	9.6	3.2	9.0	10.9	6.0	0.5
22–27 Mar	Palmos Analysis	25.2	26.8	5.2	4.2	10.3	2.7	6.1	10.3	9.2	1.6
17–18 Mar	Pulse RC[a][c]	24.5	26.5	7.0	5.0	12.5	2.5	7.0	8.0	7.5	2.0

Notes

1. ^ ^{a b c d e} This poll shows its results without disregarding those who are undecided or said they will abstain from voting (either physically or by voting blank). In order to obtain results comparable to other polls and the official election results, the result shown in this table will be that obtained, with a simple rule of three, from disregarding undecided and/or abstaining voters from the totals offered in the poll.
2. ^ ^{a b} This is an European election poll. However, this pollster has explicitly compared this poll with other legislative polls of its own. For comparation purposes, this poll has been included here.
3. ^ Pulse RC opinion polls round their data so that in the end up showing a .0 or a .5 value. This practise is maintained for these polls when disregarding undecided and/or abstaining voters from the totals so as to avoid different interpretations of the same value.

I believe that this way we can highlight the fact that these are European polls while at the same time not closing the door to compare several polls which, in the end, are comparable between themselves. Not only that, but this solution could also be applied in the future to other polls if we found the same problem again (European polls being compared with legislative ones). This way we can be both accurate and practical. What do you think? Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Because it makes it easier to people to directly compare two polls which, I repeat, are perfectly comparable (the sources are there), and show trends which people should be able to check on the same place. 2) It is related to the article as long as the other Kapa Research poll, the one of December 2013, to which these two are compared with, is related to it. As long as that poll is there, and as long as these 2 polls' source relates all of three them, there is a relation between them, and thus, with the article.

Trends are very important in opinion polling, and from the very moment all three of these polls are shown to form the same trend, by removing a part of it we would be effectively breaking it.

And about this: and if people want to compare them, they can. The issue is that I must decide whether I should add them to the graph or not (and the graph is, obviously, in the article). As these 2 form a trend with another earlier, legislative poll of the same pollster, they are, theoretically, eligible to be added to the graph (because the graph shows trends, after all). But I don't want to add to the graph polls that are not in the table shown in the article (that would be cheating). And yet, if I don't add them to the graph, it is not complete. See the issue here. Impru20 (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot have a "trend" between two different questions about two different elections, and it does not say anywhere that it is a trend.

Here is the trend. Questions number 3, 4, 5 and 6. The charts showing all three polls connected and forming a trend are there. It's the pollster the one which makes the trend between two different kinds of election, not me. So, even if you say it can't be, there is a reliable and published source which says that it can.

And a table that is supposed to show opinion polling for the national election is not "incomplete" because it doesn't contain opinion polls for a different election.

The graph/chart in the article would be incomplete, not the table. If the polls are connected, then they should appear in the chart as part of the same trend.

They have some degree of relation. Well, the pollster directly relationates all three polls, so of course there is relation.

Whether some pollster made a chart that showed the differences between a poll of a European election to a poll of a national election has no relevance whatsoever, as far as I can see.

Well, the pollster did it, so for them must have relevance. You could use this argument if I was just deciding to add those polls to the legislative election table because I wanted without any basis to support it, but the issue is that the pollster Kapa Research has directly and explicitly related all those polls, and not only regarding voting intention, but also in other questions as well, such as the chances of victory for ND and SYRIZA, best government and best PM (which, by the way, are questions which are more in relation with a legislative election than with an European one). The connection between polls is clearly there. If the pollster has done it, knowing that those are separate elections, if must have been for something. We can think they did it wrong to mix both kinds of elections or something, but what matters is that they did it (and it does seem like they did it purposedly), so we can't say it has no relevance.

If you remain convinced they should be included, I suggest you start a discussion on the Talk page Well, I actually did it, but then we moved here. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 charts, showing varying information, comparing the 3 polls. One with vote intention, other with a question about which party would people believe to win the election, other about which one party would make the best government and other about which one would make the best PM. All of the 4 charts use data from the three polls and compares them. How is it possible that, after seeing this, you say there is no relation between the polls? The relation is there, the pollster is doing it, and it's obvious to the naked eye. Kapa Research is clearly comparing all three polls, meaning that they can be compared. Just look it the other way round: did Kapa Research explicitly say, anywhere, that they can't be compared? Because seeing as how I've already presented evidence showing how they can, you don't show me where they do say they can't. In fact, you seem to assume that because the polls are European, they can't, in any way, be compared to a legislative poll even when the pollster itself is doing it! So, if we are going to enter in a war about what did they say and what they didn't, then yes, they did say they are European polls, but at the same time, by comparing results between polls, they are also saying that these results are comparable. Are they wrong in doing this? Maybe, but we can't take this into consideration (otherwise we would enter speculation territory, or isn't the fact of pointing out that European elections results and legislative ones are usually a little different and thus they will in the future speculation in its essence? Specially if you use this as an argument to reject something a valid, reliable and published source states) and must stick to the sources and to what they say. And in this case, they say that the polls can be compared, either we like it or not, or whether it is logical or not. Impru20 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Left (Spain), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque Country (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) 08:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Sgouros is PASOK, but since PASOK candidates chose not to be shown as they are, what exactly can we do? For ND: All claim to be independents supported by ND. For PASOK: All claim to be independents supported by... none. - Magioladitis (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the previous formats too. Same problem: Original research. Parties only support candidates and do not support in the local elections. Then candidates choose if they want to be shown as members of a party and if they want to show a party's support. This year the problem of the Wikipedia pages was shown more clearly since PASOK did not officially support anyone. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I postponed to pose any disagreements on the previous articles because I suspected things would become clearer this year and I was right. In 2010 we had the problem of LAOS supporting half of ND's candidates which should mean that LAOS should appear with large percentages of the voting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Labour Party (UK) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Richard BB 17:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war is 3+ reverts. I made two distinct (albiet similar) edits. That's not a edit war. >_> --4idaho (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of the three revert rule; the two aren't synonymous. Besides, as I said above, you do not need to violate 3RR to be blocked from editing. Please just discuss changes to their ideology on the talk page. — Richard BB 17:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point being, the edits were distinct (one adding Third Way as an ideology, one removing Democratic socialism.) It was a bold edit which was reverted, totally consistent with WP:BRD. I hardly think it qualifies as an edit war. --4idaho (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you removed democratic socialism both times. You pointed out WP:BRD: the core principle of BRD is that after you are reverted, you then discuss. You didn't, you simply removed it again. — Richard BB 17:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no way for me to know that's why I was reverted. I looked at the edit history and saw someone else had been reverted for adding Third Way, so I suspected that was the contentious part of my edit. Also, there was no explanation of why my edit was reverted. After someone pointed out there was a discussion on Talk, which I hadn't see, I stopped. Again, not edit warring, on either side. Totally normal BRD exchange. --4idaho (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK EP election box 2014

Hello, you have made an edit to the article; European Parliament election, 2014 which I have reverted. Your edit was unjustified as it removed relevant information backed by reliable sources. The information you removed is included in every preceding article and this article is no exception. I am going to assume good faith but may I please ask you to refrain from such edits. I notice that you have had several warnings, most recently by Richard regarding the nature of your edits, as Richard says, if this behaviour continues,you could be blocked from Wikipedia. Owl In The House (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit didn't remove any information. If you're talking about the information that UKIP is the largest party, that is in the infobox.

The part of the infobox that I changed is used for *title's*. I.e. Prime Minister, ect. That's why it's literally called "title." "Leader of the largest party" is not a title, in the sense that, say, Prime Minister is. Furthermore, using it to show the leader of the largest party is completely redundant, since the results of the top parties are shown much prominently in the infobox.

Making what is essentially an aesthetic edit to the infobox regarding something which was not, as far as I saw, discussed on talk, can not possible be construed as vandalism. In fact, it's basically the core of WP:BRD. --4idaho (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right now it's somewhat difficult to say what ideology has each one due to the confusion arising from Rubalcaba's decision to step down. Pérez Tapias may be regarded as the most left-wing candidate of all of them. Chacón may be regarded as somewhat left-wing-leaning at times too. She belongs to the party's sector opposing Rubalcaba's leadership (specially after she lost the last PSOE Congress to him by a few votes). Eduardo Madina and Pedro Sánchez seem to be more moderate, but this is more of a personal opinion based on what I see than a truly contrasted fact. Madina is, of all candidates, the closest to Rubalcaba's sector right now (after Patxi López decision not to run for the party's leadership). They all, however, share the idea that the PSOE leadership must be renewed in primaries as open as possible, in an attempt "to try to reconnect the party with the citizens".

Still, there is a fact that must be highlighted above all: Susana Díaz, while not postulating herself as candidate (as of yet, at least), is the current de facto leader of the PSOE (in the sense that no decision is now taken without her influencing it in some way) and may remain as such even after a new Secretary-General is elected (in fact, I believe she may be named as the new PSOE President in the July Congress, but this is a personal opinion of my own yet to be confirmed). Her power within the party has grown enormously in the 9 months since she became President of Andalusia.

Hope this has helped. Cheers Impru20 (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in PSOE-related issues, I believe you should pay attention about what happens these weeks, because it may very well determine the future and even the survival of the party. As a result of Podemos' surge in the European elections and after PSOE's leader Rubalcaba acquiescence to unconditionally support the monarchy after Juan Carlos' abdication (remember that the PSOE is, in origin, a republican party), there has been a major public outcry, even among the party's own militancy, against what is perceived as PSOE's last betrayal on its voters. I don't know what will happen now, but the term PASOK has been extensively used in the last days in social networks to describe PSOE's possible future. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

you usually do a good work to make the polling tables prettier and readable, but I think as a methodology we need to put ourselves in the shoes of the Finnish or whatever country. As for Finland, you chose to bundle the opposition parties with the governing parties, highlight the first of them and produce a differential. However, Finland has always had a Coalition government (Coalition government#Finland) composed of parties not necessarily including the one in first place. This contrasts with The Netherlands, which have a tradition of giving the First party the prime ministership, or other Scandinavian countries, where the first alliance forms the government, whether a minority or a majority one.

Finland forms their government after backroom deals. Elections seem to be quite useless given that the trends don't change past a few percentage points and the final results have little influence on the makeup of the coalition. In this light I suggest to come back to the more intelligible type separating government and opposition, and if you like, highlight the top party. However, a differential is almost useless. Kahlores (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Denmark and Sweden need a sum and a highlight because they have pre-disclosed alliances. But does the fact that Finland does not have this type of alliance mean we should make it as if it were a US Primary type contest, with 8 folks running? No, let's take a decision: the reader will like it that he does not have to wonder which parties are governing and which are not, a task made longer for those who aren't acquainted to the poetic abbrevations in Finnish. Kahlores (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Swedish general election, 2014 page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the election article. Appreciated ;-) --Tone 15:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thank you for your contribution as well. :) --4idaho (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much you know about political views, or about Kosovo politics, but putting that aside let me explain my point.

Vetvendosje is a political party in Kosovo whose ideology is based on the Center-Left. I cited interviews from chairman and vice chairman of the party that have stated that the party is center-left as well as social democratic. D4D the NGO that does research on politics in Kosovo and Balkans also based on their research have found that Vetevendosje is a party from the center-left. Citation [1] and [2] are from the same research and are complementary. Citation [1] explains how they define and see political views, while citation [2] where they see Vetvendosje fit in it.

Your argument based on two newspaper articles that have no research nor base on their claims to use as citation seems incorrect. There are thousands of newspaper articles that state wrong information, which does not allow us to use it for our personal reasons.

So in conclusion if the interviews of the two main figures of the party, the research of D4D and central-left politics basics are not credible enough compared to a newspaper article, then am I allowed use selective newspaper articles (like you did) and publish their work on wikipedia even though it does not fit with the reality? check the citations [11][12] which you selectively accept for the center-left argument, but not for the social democratic argument. Both citations mention it. Timmey31 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brazilian general election, 2014 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. 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(Click show ⇨)
44-aecio-26-e-marina-24.html "Datafolha, votos válidos: Dilma tem 44%, Aécio, 26%, e Marina, 24%"]. 04 October 2014. Retrieved 04 October 2014.</ref> | <1% | <1% | <1% | <1% | <1% |<1% |<1% |<1% |<1% |<1% |<1%

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Democrat Socialists' Movement a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. --PanchoS (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been on wikipedia for a couple years, and I know how to move an article. Sorry for the oversight. --4idaho (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That's been a standard Twinkle message. ;-) --PanchoS (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for pointing out my error. ;) -- --4idaho (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now why did you move the article again to Movement of Democratic Socialists (Greece) if there's no need for disambiguation? I'm not absolutely opposed to the translation "Movement of Democratic Socialists" though I think that it should have been discussed on the Talk page first, as I stated in my revert edit message. But a needless disambiguation makes no sense and doesn't comply with our naming rules. Would you please take care of reverting to Movement of Democratic Socialists. Thanks, --PanchoS (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few similarly named parties. Movement of Democratic Socialists was, for example, prior to this was a re-direct for a different Socialsit Democrat Movement, and there were a hopelessly large number of articles like that, so I do think there's some reason for disambiguation (if you want to move it back to Movement of Democratic Socialists, I'm fine with that.) As to the name, that's what I was seeing in the English-language Greek media (Kathermini's english edition, ect.) When I went to create the article, I saw it was already created -- but the name was sourced to a British tabloid, so that's why I moved it.

I don't have strong feelings about the subject, however, so if you think it was too controversial you can move it back (that's what WP:BRD is all about.) Just make sure you're moving the related templates (color, shortname, ect.) --4idaho (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent is a respected British newspaper. Tabloid format or not – it's not tabloid journalism. Anway, both versions are around and we'll see. I'd say that the move was a bit premature, as things will settle within the next days, but then again we can also move the article around again and again and again... --PanchoS (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you replace a redirect with a new article (as you did at Living Wall), please add a WP:HATNOTE linking to the original articles. You left at least a dozen gardening articles pointing at Living Wall with no way for readers to reach the Green wall article that it previously redirected to. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, my bad. Don't know what I was thinking. --4idaho (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Communist Party of Greece page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]