User talk:Μαρκος Δ

Polling graphs
Well, I must thank you all for praising my work so far, but I don't consider it nothing special. :)

Anyway, I don't care that much to tell about how I make the graphs. I do them through Excel by using a series of different formulas whose purpose is to work as some kind of moving average, but showing much more smoothed and streamlined trends than what would result from using a pure moving average method. While I don't consider it being a secret so as to not tell anyone, however, I do recognize that I'm probably the only one who does fully understand the rationale of the system I use. Not only that, but mine's only one out of many ways to represent an opinion polling graph. That said, I'm afraid to tell anyone about how it fully works out of fear they may try to do their own without fulling understanding it, resulting in screwed graphs. I believe that if other people want to do a polling graph of their own, it'd better for them to design and discover a system of their own which they can, later on, fully handle.

That said, I don't have any problem with making as many graphs as people ask me to do. I'll have one for the next Norwegian election ready within a couple hours at most. Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, I really appreciate it! Μαρκος Δ (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Next Brazilian general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Congress. 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) 10:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Podemos - United Left merger?
Hi.

If you check the sources, you'll see those are opinion polls showing data specifically for a hypotetical Podemos+IU scenario, thus showing data for a joint list of those two parties. Even if those have not merged yet, that doesn't prevent pollsters from asking on such an scenario. I've not merged anything. I think that counts as a good reason. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Cristina Kirchner
Hello. One of the main problems of your draft is the use of the word "alleged" to describe the cult of personality and the attacks against the press. Perhaps you suspect that the Kirchners deny it, and that we are neglecting their point of view on the matter. Far from it. The supporters of the Kirchners are proud of their blind loyalty to their leaders, and give themselves fancy names like "soldiers of Cristina" or "lads for the liberation". The only difference between supporters and critics is whether that loyalty is a defect or a virtue, and whether to embrace those fancy names or address this people with impartiality. Similarily, they do not conceal or deny at all their attacks against the press, they think that they are well justified, because of a number of conspiracy theories. Note as well that, regardless of the way the BBC organizes the info of their news articles, our article should be focused on CFK' cult of personality, not that of Eva Perón, which should be described elsewhere. Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Inadmissible accusation
This. That it is easier to read in that way is YOUR opinion. You've no authority role over others, so I'll not stand by your accusation. I see no difference from a reading viewpoint, yet using a "center" align style clearly distorts the table, as makes comparison more weird (specially for polls having a decimal to other having none). I've not accused you of anything nor have I been unpolite to you. I could very well say it is YOU the one acting as if this had to be done your way. You've not even considered to discuss anything before making your accusation. I edit whatever I see fit under WP:BOLD, and that doesn't mean I own anything. Impru20 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I could say the exact same thing for you. I made an edit and explained it, while you failed to come up with a single argument against – and just plainly reverted it. While it's clear that you took my "ownership" accusation personally – for that, I'm sorry – I was referring to a previous edit war we've been through on the French polling page, where you also repeatedly altered the layout of the table to suit what appears to be your preferred layout. Hence my accusation. Though like I said, I take it back as it was needlessly blunt. I stand by my point that the new version is easier to read, and unless you have major objections, and a better argument than "it makes comparison more weird", I'll change it back. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What did you explain? You just say that it can be better read that way. On which basis? I just reverted it saying it isn't. Btw, you did not explain anything in the Next Irish general election article, and the first serious response I have from you is you outrightly insulting me, accusing me of ownership.
 * In the French polling page I was just being WP:BOLD. Being bold just doesn't justify accusing another guy of "ownership", because I could very accuse you of trying to impose your preferred layout with the center aligned text. And as you may see, I did not use that argument right away as you did. "My preferred layout" is the layout being used most extensively in several opinion polling articles, and it is taken from Canadian election articles, where it has been used uninterruptedly for years now, with so far good results. In the French case I did not press the case further because I understood than the French specific case with opinion polls (which can't be compared to other countries due to poll numbers publication issues) was special and could justify for it. But I don't see any of it here. Instead, I see you making opinion-based changes and outrighly attacking others who revert you (revertions which "could" mean that the issue should need discussion because someone doesn't agree with you).
 * Yes, I have major objections. You can't raise any argument supporting that it is more easily read that way, and I could just use a similar case than you do by saying that I disagree with it. For the German specific case, it makes comparison between opinion polls more difficult (as I took care to explain you above; you seem to have ignored it) as some polls use decimals and others don't. Having those with a centered aligned text makes numbers to be in different places between polls, breaking any armony that could be accomplished with the previous version. So, unless you can prove that it is factually better for it to be read that way, I'll just have to consider that it is just your opinion and not a proven fact, and thus, mildly ask you to revert it.
 * Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Had you stated a reason right away, as one is supposed to, we would have avoided the edit-warring altogether. One could even argue that it wouldn't be necessary to have to argue for the minor edit that is aligning the data to the center (unless there is a discussion on it, as there is now), as very few users would find it objectable at all. Hence no explanation on the Irish article. When you simply revert an edit to a table to which you are the major/main contributor, without an explanation, it gives off vibes along the lines of "no, this is mine, don't edit it" – especially when you've been a diehard pusher of the same layout on other pages. Anyway, it's not a big issue to me, I'd simply have preferred it if you would've explained your view rather than saying "it looks worse", when I've already come up with a reason for my own change. But since you have, as you say, major objections, I'll therefore leave it be. As for my "attack" on you, I already apologized. Twice. Do you want me to say it again? Μαρκος Δ (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cambalachero
Yes, Cambalachero and Jetstreamer are very biased editors favoring their opinions over facts. I personally don't have the time/energy to constantly police them. I don't think there is any recourse, but if you find one, let me know! Sushilover2000 (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The dispute was resolved some time ago, luckily; I managed to get some outside help in the end. But thanks for the response. :) Μαρκος Δ (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muslim female political leaders, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Justice and Development Party and Republican People's Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Left Party (France)
The infobox already contains fields that are specific to both the Infobox political party and the Infobox French political party. If it is kept as a general political party then all of the parameters EPseats, RCseats, SENseats and NAseats are lost. What do you feel is lost by changing it to the Infobox French political party?Naraht (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Composition bar
Hello Markos. You'll have seen I reverted your addition of the composition bar to a few election results tables as I really don't think it's suitable for these, and I think if you really want to make this change, you need a centralised consensus at WP:E&R. However, I saw in a few places you had added it to the infobox instead – I don't think this is such a bad idea, so perhaps you could do that instead? Cheers, Number   5  7  22:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Brazilian general election, 2018 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brazilian general election, 2018 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Brazilian general election, 2018 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Holy Goo (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the type of treemap
Hello Μαρκος Δ. There is a discussion going on about using which type of treemap for 2016 United States presidential election in each state articles. Please join the discussion, so the dispute can be resolved. Thank you. Ali  03:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islam in Greece, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Dawn. 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) 10:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Maltese general election, 2017
Hello,

I've noticed that you were the one who has reverted my most recent change to the wiki page on the latest Maltese general election. Just curious, but could you perhaps explain (and/or possible show) to me how you would improve that 'Results' table (e.g., What new columns, footnotes, or sources would you would add to it?)?

Thank you and I await your response.

KLO2015 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, KLO2015. I'll get back to you later today when I have time. :) — Μαρκος Δ  05:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017
German: Wieso sollen die beiden Blöcke nicht aufgenommen werden das werden sie in den Umfragegrafiken und -seiten doch auch?

English: Why the two blocks are not to be included in the survey graphics and pages but also?

Braganza (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey. We have already established that on the talk page. The two blocs have effectively broken up. The Ap+Sp+SV coalition broke down about two years after their defeat in 2013, with SV formally leaving the cooperation in January 2016. This year, they announced a series of ultimatums to Ap and Sp, that would need to be met if they were to run a joint campaign. They were not met, and the three parties ran separately, and were not a clear government alternative. Thus, placing the three of them together would be like placing SPD, GRÜNE and LINKE together, even though everybody knows they are not going to form a coalition together.
 * When it comes to the government parties, it was made clear that the Christian Democrats would not necessarily promise to support the H+FrP coalition for another term. Indeed, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals have now joined the opposition parties, but passively allow H+FrP to govern. Therefore, with 2/4 center-right parties in the opposition, and the other 2 in government, it makes equally little sense to include them in the same bloc.
 * That being said, most newspapers tend to group the parties together in a center-left and a center-right coalition for the sake of simplicity, which is where you might have seen the two "blocs" grouped together like that. But that's actually a little misleading, considering one of the most widely expected outcomes of the 2017 election was an Ap+Sp+KrF coalition, breaking that bipartisan bloc model completely. — Μαρκος Δ  12:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

MHP
Hi Should we create articles for "Conservative Party" (Turkish: Muhafazakar Parti). and "Nationalist Task Party" (Turkish: Milliyetçi Çalışma Partisi) ? For CHP, we have articles for SHP and SOAP. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think we should create articles for the both because it is not the same parties. But we should begin with the DP. Also, we have National Liberal Party (Romania, 1875) and National Liberal Party, and also Democratic Party (Turkey) and Democratic Party (Turkey, 2007). We could have same articles for MHP/CHP in a third time. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We have also True Path Party (2007).--Panam2014 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We could also create two articles for ANAP party. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Composition bar classic
Template:Composition bar classic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Daask (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

TR Polls
Hi Markos, all the information I have added are provided on that set of polling company research tweets. Seat projections as well are there and there are explanations to graphs below them. I think you may have misevaluated since I take it you are not capable of understanding the Turkish below. However you can count on me that all the information, including seat projection is there and it is all endaxi. Take care. Berkaysnklf, May 2, 2018, 11:27 (UTC)


 * Another thing which could have confused you is “kararsızlar dağıtılınca”. That one is the one we take into account as it stands for “when indecisive votes are dispersed” (to the exact party projections proportionally) Berkaysnklf, May 2, 2018, 11:32 (UTC)


 * Check the explanation below; I did not calculate, the research simply states as 49.5 vs 50.5. I think that is what we should stick to. Berkaysnklf, May 2, 2018, 13:32 (UTC)


 * PIAR is owned by AVAM, Eurasian Research Center, as far as I know. I would say no polling organization in Turkey is a legitimate or reliable one. However since our current Führer does not allow any neutral foreign/global organization to conduct polls in Turkey as they are "terrorists" or "foreign agents who want to destroy Turkey", I would say the best option is to include all the research done even when it is almost clear that they are all biased. Berkaysnklf, May 2, 2018, 15:57 (UTC)

BBP
Hi Have you got sources that BBP have joined people's alliance ? We should update the main article. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also National Alliance was the name of a project in 2015 between BBP and Felicity Party. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But why we should wait for adding BBP but we haven't wait for AKP/MHP and the four component of the new coalition ? --Panam2014 (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * [www.haberturk.com/mahir-unal-cumhur-ittifaki-bu-miletin-ta-kendisidir-1947228 We could add now]. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Vecdet Öz
Hi Could you create a new article about the new DP ? Also, could you create a graphic for the presidential election ? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * in 2015 --Panam2014 (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Felicity Party candidate
As of today, the Felicity Party's candidate crossed the threshold of 100,000 signatures, while Perinçek and Öz are at ~28,000 and ~800 respectively (both unlikely to qualify). I think it's now worthy to add Karamollaoğlu because he is qualified to run for President compared to the other minor candidates.

Bibilili (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Good Party
Hi Why IYI, who have a parliamentary group, have not nominated Meral Akşener without signatures ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the electoral law, it is necessary to have a parliamentary group to participate for both presidential and parliamentary election ? Or for only for presidential or parliamentary election ? Also, if it is a form of populism, is it the same than Vladimir Putin in 2018 ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

BRD
Given that you changed the table to your preferred format, you aren't in a position to tell people not to revert. Especially in all caps. Number  5  7  20:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your unnecessarily aggressive attitude is really unhelpful. I've started a discussion, so please hold off on the reverting. Thanks, Number   5  7  20:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please respect the BRD cycle and self-revert. Leaving the results section out completely is disruptive and seriously unhelpful for readers. Number   5  7  20:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Number  5  7  21:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Markos, you seem to have broken WP:3RR at Turkish presidential election, 2018. There may still be time for you to avoid a block if you will promise to stop warring. You should agree to take a break from the article. Though you already responded to the complaint, I see no assurance that the problem won't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Sieges won and sworn in
Hi Have you got the date of Yildirim's resignation, the date of the beginning of Erdogan's sworn in and the number of seats won by BBT, DP and SP? --Panam2014 (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the Turkish general election, 2023
I moved this article to Draft:Opinion polling for the Turkish general election, 2023 because there is no information for it yet. Move it to the main article area when the first polls actually happen and are detailed in the article. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Turkish cabinet
Hi Do you think that we should create the article now?--Panam2014 (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Next elections
Hi If in Turkey, the parliament will be dissolved, presidential and parliamentary will be organized or only parliamentary?--Panam2014 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Grand National Assembly of Turkey
Ok, First if it is not parliamentary groups in opposition, it shows that for example, BBP sits with AKP. People’s Alliance currently exists so its a parliamentary group/alliance, which contested in the previous election. Opposition-Nation Alliance dissolved, not on there, but SP sits with CHP, and DP sits with İYİ. - Social Studies Rules (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Erdogan IV
Hi Did you know the party's membership of each new minister? --Panam2014 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Innlegget ditt her
Hei!

Jeg så dette innlegget: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldiskusjon:Infoboks_parti/plasser

Er du fortsatt interessert i å fikse det? :) Jeg har prøvd, men mislykkes :P

--Politikk (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Future Party
Hi Why sources on August 2019 said that Davutoglu will launch an islamist party? In truth, the party is not islamist. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Albert Rivera
Yes, sorry, a wrong revision version led me to believe you were actually adding "President" instead of reverting it; from my edit summary it is obvious I mean for using "prime minister". What the hell is this, though? Impru 20  talk 14:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it was an edit conflict with Asqueladd, who removed "cocainoman" from the page; you may have accidentally re-inserted it. It was a previous IP editor who actually added such a label into the page. Impru 20  talk 14:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017
Template:Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

August 2022
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Dan Schneider. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Please do not make comments like this one. You can criticize specific edits based on their content, but do not accuse other editors of things like "defending sexual predators."'' Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Next time I will make sure to say he is defending an  alleged  sexual predator instead, to avoid confusion. Cheers.  Μαρκος Δ   12:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

2025 Danish local elections moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to 2025 Danish local elections. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and it may be too soon to publish this page. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Significa liberdade (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the heads up. I just revisited this now and am not quite sure I undertand the reasoning here. Local elections are happening and are a major national political event, inherently. So additional citations for establishing their notability seems strange? And as for it being too soon, it's just 2 years off, which in politics in a short time. It's literally the next election. Opinion polls and similar will be published until then, which most likely would be included here in the months leading up to it. Articles have already been made for elections elsewhere that are 4-5 years off from now. The article for the 2024 United States presidential election was created in October 2015, man. Obviously a different league than some Danish local elections, but seeing as this is an election in 2 years, I think questioning whether it's "too soon" is a bit silly. So I'm not entirely sure what it is you're asking for here.
 * Yes, the article is a stub (I marked it as such with the correct category), and I was planning on expanding the text bit by bit, as I just did with the 2023 Norwegian local elections, which I have almost single-handedly written. But not all in one go. And for the time being, for as long as it has 2 sentences, I don't see how a lot of extra citations would be needed. I think what you should have done, instead of moving an article stub into drafts, is simply expand it yourself. Because this article will be written no matter what. And yet now it seems you are forcing me specifically to do all that work myself in one go, and then politely apply for it to be approved, otherwise what has already been written will simply be scrapped. Not a very friendly or constructive way to encourage improvements, is it? On the contrary this is a pretty exhausting approach and just discourages contributing. I am not going to add anything to this draft, just for your information. Having a stub be moved to drafts so I can "prove" why this election, which as we both know inevitably will have an article anyway, is notable seems like a waste of my time, and it's a weird move. I'll simply make a new article about it later once it's closer.  Μαρκος Δ   22:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)