User talk:Aréat

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

October 2016
Please stop adding data for Hawaii to the table at List of countries and dependencies by population. Hawaii is neither a country nor a dependency. It's a state belonging to the United States. If you want to add Hawaii, then all US states need to be added, as well as all the Australian states and so on, but this is not the purpose of the article. You are already aware that "areas that form integral parts of sovereign states" are not included, so I do not understand why you are adding Hawaii at all. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tried to delete France's five Overseas Regions -Guyane, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Reunion - with exactly the same arguments - they're neither countries nor dependencies but full part of a listed country, yet the changes were removed by differents people, so I thought adding them was indeed "useful information".
 * If you thinks otherwise for Hawaii, can you do the same for the above regions? Or post your opinion on the matter in the talkpage. It would be helpful.--Aréat (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of countries and dependencies by population. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I've given you this warning because you are clearly edit-warring. Your edits have been reverted and yet you continue to reinsert them. It is up to you to convince other editors to accept your changes by discussing the matter on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD. Simply forcing your edits into the article will lead to only one conclusion - you will find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia at all. Per WP:STATUSQUO, the unmodified version of the article rules until discussion is complete. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I already posted a request for help and the answer was that the discussion hasn't been fully completed. The other parties aren't contibuting anymore. How long should I wait without an answer for an eventual change to be accepted as not being an edit war?
 * Beside, if you removed Hawaii on the ground it's neither a country nor a dependencie, would my removal of the above mentioned french regions on the same ground be considered an edit war?

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

Mauritanian referendum
Hello Aréat. Has the referendum been confirmed? I've seen a few news stories saying that the President wanted one, but none that it's been officially called. Cheers, Number   5  7  23:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been confirmed, voted on during a Council of Minister and officially scheduled for 15 july 2017 by the government, yes.--Aréat (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Number   5  7  15:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Second round date
Yes, the source does give a date, but the article I linked reports the electoral commission's chairman as being "silent on when the second and final round will be held". Also, if you object to only part of an edit, could you try to avoid reverting the entire edit? Everyking (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that if you got a source to back your change, include it in the article, not in your edit description.--Aréat (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Alternative for Germany ‎. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I answered you on the talk page. I added a full source for the handful of words I added to the back of a sentence to further clarify it. I believe I've been sourcing more thoroughly than most. As for the edit war, I'm rather surprised. Did you read the source ? It contain what I added. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Next Japanese general election


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

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —Guanaco 15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This notice is because the duplicated article was created on top of your redirect, from when you moved the page. —Guanaco 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I was getting a bit confused here.--Aréat (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

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

Salvadoran legislative election, 2018
Hello. Just wondering where you got the seat figures from? I can't find them on the TSE website or on any of the Salvadoran news websites I checked. Cheers, Number   5  7  21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I got them from the spanish page. I assume the users here know how many seats these numbers represent once 100 % of the votes have been counted, or have access to Salvadorian medias. Not that it wouldn't be better to eventually have a precise source, but it will do in the meanwhile. --Aréat (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The results on es.wiki are now different (they have ARENA on 37 seats not 39), but still unsourced. I am quite wary of using unsourced seats as I've seen a few editors miscalculate them over the years... Number   5  7  21:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. Just wondering if you got the ping I gave you yesterday? I pinged a few editors but got no responses, which made me wonder whether it worked (it can be quite tempremental). BTW, in the Bhutanese results, I saw one candidate was elected with only 13% of the vote (in Mongar District); I wonder whether this is a record for the lowest amount received by a winning candidate for a national parliament seat... Number   5  7  12:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for the lack of message. I'm a bit busy these days and honestly found myself a bit confused by the matter at hand, so I refrained from giving my opinion on a question I don't fully grasp. As for the Bhutanese election, that's quite the original result indeed. With this many candidates it look like there's a growing eagerness to participate in the political life in bhutan. I sure hope so, anyways. Seeing a democracy blooming over the past decade was fascinating. With both wins and struggles. I recall that in the previous election there was a constituency in which there simply was only one candidate, with the vote there turning into a direct yes or no referendum for the candidate. ^^ I find these sort of relatively small sized election very interesting, like the ones in the Falklands or in many of the pacifics islands. Imagine having your representative simply campaign door to door, and the vote being won over a handful of convinced electors. Very neat.--Aréat (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were noticeably more candidates this time around, and I thought it was also notable that several of the incumbents were heavily beaten, so presumably not impressing the electorate. I wonder whether some of the low vote shares for winning candidates will make them think again about FPTP. I contacted the chap who runs the Election Passport website and he mentioned that candidates used to win regularly with less than 10% of the vote in Papua New Guinea before they moved away from FPTP. Number   5  7  15:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Jobbik
Here, in the Wikipedia, the colour of the Jobbik is black since the 2010 parliamentary election. See, for instance tables and. There were/are numerous parliamentary parties which were marked with green in different shades (MDF, KDNP, FKGP, LMP, PM etc.) --Norden1990 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But none use the distinctive darker shade, and most are <1% very minors parties, while the MDF went extinct before Jobbik was created, so they're not on a page at the same time. If we want to make distinctive colors, it is logical to use either one of the three color used by the aprty instead of a different unused one, or change the colors of the benign parties, don't you think so?--Aréat (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a little tip
Months (June, July etc) are written with a capital letter! Thanks for all your recent work :) Number   5  7  21:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding your deletion of quotation attribution
Hi Aréat. Would you please explain this edit. You offered no edit summary and it's not obvious to me why you made the change you did. Thank you. Dayirmiter (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't neutral enough for an intro. That's the sort of details you must add in the article further on. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Aréat, thank you for the reply. I am very much in favor of maintaining a neutral point of view. I do not, however, believe that this includes or should be understood to allow the suppression of facts. The material you excised ("Researcher Angie Heal, herself hired and then ignored by local officials"), in addition to identifying the source of the quotation, contains the facts that
 * (1) Angie Heal was a researcher,
 * (2) Angie Heal was hired by local officials, and
 * (3) Angie Heal was ignored by local officials regarding child exploitation.
 * The first two facts, well attested by the sources, are surely uncontroversial.


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


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


 * By the way, at a slightly different level of analysis, I would respectfully suggest further consideration of the idea that material may be "not neutral enough" for one part of an article but okay somewhere else in the article. It seems to me that if it violates neutrality in the lead, it will violate neutrality anywhere it appears. Conversely, if material is sufficiently neutral to appear anywhere in the article, then lack of neutrality cannot be a condition on which to exclude it from the lead.
 * Dayirmiter (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Zairean constitutional referendum, 1973
Good spot. It was listed at the African Elections Database at the time I created the article, but was later removed. It was a mistake on the AED's behalf – they had confused it with Republic of the Congo constitutional referendum, 1973. I've deleted the article as I was the only significant contributor to it, and it was clearly incorrect (no other source lists it). Cheers, Number   5  7  21:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. The page had left me rather confused as I couldn't find mention of it. These damn two congos always inducing quiproquo. :P While we're at it, thanks for your tremendous works on election articles and templates. They've been of great help over the years.--Aréat (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. If you're interested Antemister and I did some work a long time ago to try and ensure that all the national election templates were complete. There are still quite a few outstanding, so if you have anything to add, please do! Cheers, Number   5  7  16:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I will be sure to give a hand if I find things to improve. --Aréat (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Hello, I'm Sam Sailor. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Russian regional elections, 2018. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sam Sailor 13:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
 * My bad. I do know it should not be done. It was an error while editing several tabs. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Your recent editing history at Flag of New Caledonia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''Without a consensus, you've moved and rewritten the article more than 3 times in one day. It's "Bold, Revert, Discuss", not "Bold, Revert, Bold, Revert, Bold, Revert, Bold."'' Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've protected the page so y'all can discuss. Be advised that a block for edit warring would also stop the disruption while not inconveniencing uninvolved editors, so consider this is boon.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Bangladesh General election 2018
How does you change the colour of Bangladesh Awami League. Ehsan2186 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Template:Bangladesh Awami League/meta/color. --Aréat (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

2015 Guyanese general election
I think the Caribbean Elections website is wrong. Their totals for Regions 7 and 8 do not match the GECOM reports (7, 8, Overall), and this is the difference between the two vote tallies. Cheers, Number   5  7  21:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! --Aréat (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

color on SSM map
Salut Aréat,

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

Please ping me if you answer, or reply on the SSM talk page. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I like it. Although imo the green coukd use a less flashy shade. Help:Using colours --Aréat (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the green, but since the argument was about the distingishability of the colors, I wanted to be sure it was distinct! I'll copy your answer to the SSM talk page and upload the purple map since no-one else has commented one way or the other. (With pigments, purple is a blend of blue and red, so it's an iconic match as well.) — kwami (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you could still use green but simply chose a dimmer shade. --Aréat (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * Thank you Brendon! My pleasure, really. Speaking of flags, is there any way you could help me or advise me on how to make Template:Country data New Caledonia fit with the consensus we had on Flags of New Caledonia. The standard template should really be the one with the "both" qualifier, now. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could start a Request for Comment on the talk page Template:Country data New Caledonia where we mention that a previous consensus was reached to display the two flags together on the main article, therefore to ensure consistency we also make the "both" qualifier the default setting for the template? Since we don't have the Template Editor permission to do it ourselves, I'm sure we could get someone to agree to do it per the consensus we reached. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm sadly quite inexperimented with such a procedure. Even more so on the english wiki. Is there any help page in which I could learn how exactly I could do this? --Aréat (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at Template talk:Country data New Caledonia. For information on the procedure for getting a consensus, there is helpful information on the page Requests for comment Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very helpful. Thanks a lot!--Aréat (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

PNG files
Hey Aréat. Are you able to fix png files so that the background is transparent? As you can see, the ones used in 1989 Polish legislative election don't work! Cheers, Number   5  7  17:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, learning how to make .svg is actually pretty far up on my to-do list, as I have run in the same problem with electoral maps in the past. So I can't help you directly there, sorry. BUT I can recommend you the Parliament tool website which I frequently use. It's pretty straightforward, but if you have any question on how to use it, don't hesitate to ask me. The tool add parties starting from the left. ;) The polish article doesn't seem to fit the color template, though, and I don't know about the left/right positions of these parties. --Aréat (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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

PS: also, don't forget to write a few words after each edit, it really helps out to understand who is doing what. A très vite. Pilaz (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but while I wrote the french article, I didn't add much to the english one. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2009 Uruguayan general election into 2009 Uruguayan referendum. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)
 * My bad, I will be more careful in the future. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Color
Ok, what is exactly your problem with the color changing? Maps nor even use yellow and most diagrams didn't use it either before I made them with yellow, which is almost never associated with the Broad Front and there are other Uruguayan parties that use yellow. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All sources I've seen for years have been coloring Frente Amplio with the yellow shade of color, , , . There's been no change of logo or use justifying changing it on a whim.--Aréat (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For years? All thse examples are from 2019. I choose the yellow color for FA for the last election, the polls just started using after me. I also made the polling diagrams using yellow. Before that dark blue was used. And I can proved it in case you wonder. In any case, it never took off in Spanish, the graphics use for Senate and Chamber always used dark blue and also the new graphics for the current election. The maps also were made in blue because I never did them. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please not revert me while I prove that your cherry picking about the yellow color is wrong? Just wait a little, nothing is going to happen just because blue is use for a while. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, for years. I didn't collect random article for an argument a few years down on color. Those are sources of the yellow color use. If you believe a blue shade should be used, then present sources for it. And as I said, on wikipedia if people are disagreeing it's the previous situation which should remain. As you said, nothing is going to happen if you can't add your changes until proving it.--Aréat (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you don't want to co-operate keep the wrong yellow color while I prove you whu yellow is wrong. First, this is the Broad Front oficial flag, do you see any yellow? Second, do you have any evidence of the use of yellow before 2019 for the FA? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And this is its logo.I'm cooperating right now by having this discussion. Don't start being unpleasant just because you can't force your changes and only then explain it. I've provided sources of use in medias, where are yours? Listen, I don't intend to discuss this for ages over a color. Add sources, and/or have others users comment to agree with you, and it will be settled.--Aréat (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Continuing:


 * The idea that FA’s more representative color is blue (whilst PN is lightblue) is old, as you can see here since 2009.
 * Blue has being the color for the party’s article in Spanish since at least 2014 (although originally was [red)
 * No election map of Uruguay uses yellow for FA, generally the color is red or blue
 * Yellow is use only in poll’s graphics made by me btw.--Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. These are colors used by others users here and there, with not one agreeing with the other. Please use real sources.--Aréat (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I havn't finished. Diagrams made by Uruguayans for each one of the legislatures, use blue
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVII_C%C3%A1mara_de_Diputados_del_Uruguay.png
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVII_C%C3%A1mara_de_Diputados_del_Uruguay.png
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVII_Legislatura_de_la_C%C3%A1mara_de_Senadores_de_Uruguay.png
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_C%C3%A1mara_de_Diputados_del_Uruguay.svg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_Legislatura_de_la_C%C3%A1mara_de_Representantes_de_Uruguay.svg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_Legislatura_de_la_C%C3%A1mara_de_Senadores_de_Uruguay.svg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_Senado_del_Uruguay.svg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C%C3%A1mara_de_Representantes_de_Uruguay_(2015-2020).png
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C%C3%A1mara_de_Senadores_de_Uruguay_(2015-2020).png

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


 * Also we can hold a vote and maybe call the Uruguayan users and/or hold a vote in Uruguay's Wikiproject talk page by the way. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Citing sources That's the basic. Sources are from external medias, like the four I provided above. You have provided none so far. And different language version of wikipedia don't have to follow each other in any way. As I said, Wikipedia is not a reliable source : works by others wiki users aren't valid sources. The example above don't even use your shade of blue! --Aréat (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


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

Any one can cherry pick, if those are your “sources”, I can find sources that show FA in another color, for example:
 * Green http://radiouruguay.uy/fa-lidera-intencion-de-voto-con-un-34-segun-ultima-encuesta-de-cifra/ https://planetapolitico.com/elecciones-en-uruguay-ultimas-3-encuestas-dan-resultados-diferentes/ https://www.cifra.com.uy/index.php/2019/09/12/intencion-de-voto-en-las-elecciones-nacionales/
 * Darkblue https://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2019/10/encuesta-de-opcion-por-primera-vez-cabildo-abierto-se-coloca-en-tercer-lugar-por-encima-del-partido-colorado/
 * Torquise https://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2019/7/encuesta-de-grupo-radar-posterior-a-las-internas-el-fa-venceria-al-pn-en-las-elecciones-nacionales/
 * Orange https://www.montevideo.com.uy/Noticias/Encuesta-de-intencion-de-voto-situa-a-FA-y-PN-en-situacion-de-empate-uc717656
 * Blue http://www.perfiles.uy/texto-diario/mostrar/1410658/encuesta-opcion-consultores-empate-entre-frente-amplio-partido-nacional --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea is to have sources for the shade you're proposing.--Aréat (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well if that's the case your shade is not the exact yellow that appears in your sources. I have no problem to change the shade to another shade of blue if that's what worries you. One that -I guess- corresponds with the graphics of whatever source you like. But the truth is, there's no way to establish which is the right color for FA, as different news reports have use all sorts of colors from blue, dark blue, green, orange and red. So, we have to choose one but certainly would not be by checking polls' graphic as there's no such thing as one. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It seem to me the sources I gave all use a goldish shade of yellow. Anyways, if you believe there isn't one shade, even adding sources for green or orange, why are you insisting so much on changing it in the first place?--Aréat (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I'm convince that yellow is not the most representative color, is dark blue. I myself suggested yellow in 2017 but my rationale was that as no one objected, there was consensus. Now, I should be all for keeping yellow as was my suggestion, however I came to realize that most graphics and maps use dark blue, and is easier to switch yellow to blue than the other way around. Besides there are other relevant parties that use yellow, for example Cabildo Abierto. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It does make sense. Fine, then, let's go with the shade of blue you're proposing. I will make the according change on the french wiki. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I am very sorry if I acted too rude, I sometimes let me carry away. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't throw you the first rock, it's not like it didn't happen to me as well in the past. But the wikipedia's way of doing those is pretty solid in the end. After the few first back and forth edit, just freezing it and discussing, with sources and arguments, bringing in others users if needed. It work out way more often than not. Have a good day. ;)--Aréat (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Your recent editing history at Papua conflict shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''Please do not edit war in a source which does not support the claims being cited to it. '' Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no. I'm not in an edit war. I did one revert, and another later on with the addition of a . R3R does not apply. Please don't hastily put such a message on my page. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have edit warred this material into the article twice. There's no kind of opt-out for adding a citation needed tag - if anything, this makes it worse as you can't prove that what you are re-adding is actually true. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you see something wrong, you prove it or ask for a source. Don't recklessly delete entire sections on a whim. I already provided sources after a short timed search. I know it take some minutes doing so, but don't go the lazy way. --Aréat (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding sources which support the material. It's a much better thing to do than restoring faked references which do not (which is both lazy and unhelpful to readers). Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes. You're absolutely. Now stop bothering me.--Aréat (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete results category
Hello. I noticed you removed this from a few articles. In some cases it was added because the results were not final (e.g. 2019 North Macedonian presidential election is based on only a 98.63% vote count). Maybe worth checking before removing the category! Cheers, Number   5  7  13:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this. I will try to be more careful in the future.--Aréat (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, it wasn't obvious! Number   5  7  13:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

2019–20 Croatian presidential election
Greetings, please go to this source: https://www.izbori.hr/pre2019/rezultati/1/ and see that You have removed the correct percentages from the results table. Please check before reverting the correct changes. The percentages changed when 100% of the votes have been counted. Thanks in advance. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The source always round down even when the next number is 9, leading to a total of 99.93. On Wikipedia we round up when it's above 5, as to have a total of 100. As for the boldening, we've been several users telling you it's unecessary. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. According to the Croatian electoral code, in the first round of the Presidential elections the percentage is calculated with the number of voters who have gone out to vote, so the votes a candidate got are divided with 1.904.461. That is why, for example, Milanović has 29,55% and not 29,56%. Please stop reverting. Please read this: https://www.zakon.hr/z/358/Zakon-o-izboru-Predsjednika-Republike-Hrvatske it is the law regulating elections for the president in Croatia. If You don't understand Croatian then please don't revert, ask what You don't understand here and I will try to answer or open a topis on the talk page of the article, just please stop reverting with wrong percentages. Thanks in advance. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, do you agree that the current percentages, once added together, make 99,93 and not 100? And that for example 562783/1903861 make 29.56 and not 29.55?--Aréat (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't divide the votes for Milanović with 1.903.861 but with 1.904.461. Thanks in advance. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me what these two different numbers refer to?--Aréat (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * pristupilo glasovanju = 1.904.461  means those who have gone to the polling stations.
 * glasovalo birača (prema glasačkim listićima) = 1.903.861   means those who have actually voted (according to the ballots) Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you update the table with the proper total and add a line for these missing votes, then?--Aréat (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is necessary, but OK. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this whole discussion is a consequence of that lacking info leading users to think there's an error in the data, isn't it? Thanks, anyways. ;) --Aréat (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Article deletion
Hello. Just to let you know, as I'm an admin, I can recover deleted articles if they need to be reinstated. If the Malagasy referendum does come back, I can undelete the article exactly as it was (including the full history). Cheers, Number   5  7  12:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would sure come in handy. I didn't knew. --Aréat (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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

2020 Irish general election - 3RR warning
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Artsakhian election
In case you're also doing the calculations, I've totalled the figures from the CEC website for both president and parliament, although the CEC did not have party details for the presidential candidates. The number of registered voters is different due to the results from one district for the president being slightly different to the others (this one, which has two fewer registered voters than the parliamentary election and is in a different colour, which may mean it is even more preliminary??). Cheers, Number   5  7  21:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You went way farther than I did. Thanks! Luckily there's good sources in french about Armenian and Artsakhian events because of the diaspora there, so I think it won't be too hard eventually getting the full results. ;) --Aréat (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This source here has an explanation for the difference in votes, as well as giving the party affiliation of the candidates. ;)--Aréat (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Uruguayan primaries
I also questioned this when Fadesga added them. However, they are actually national elections, where every citizen is entitled to vote (see this story). I did wonder, however, whether they could just be included in the main general election article articles, although I guess they are several months apart. What do you think? Probably defintely worth a discussion with Fadesga as he does some good work on Uruguayan elections. Number  5  7  12:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Every citizens being able to vote in a party's primaries doesn't seem unusual to me. It's what happen in France, 2016 The Republicans (France) presidential primary for example, and we don't include them in the french template. I don't question the existence of the articles, and they definitely earn to be more than mentioned in the related elections pages, but they don't belong in a template national elections, in my opinion. They're not elections for a governing mandate in itself.--Aréat (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's also how we don't have a separate line of primaries for Argentina.--Aréat (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As long as they are linked to in the general election article, that should be fine. Cheers, Number   5  7  13:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I think I've made a good explanation of why they should be removed. Feel free to let me know if you have thoughts on this. If I don't hear back, I will assume you understand what I'm saying and I'll remove them. Best, Jgefd (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm more of a secondary user here, as I'm mainly on the french wiki. would be way more capable than me in argumenting this. Still, in election templates, we usually add the elections even if none has a page for now. I understand your concern about election years not being national wide, but Zimbabwe is hardly the only country doing it this way, and we still add the years in their templates. Surely you can see that removing them entirely isn't helping ? There would be no difference from a country that doesn't hold local election.--Aréat (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the removal – I don't think the list is excessive, and it provides a record of the years in which they were held (if it's incomplete, the answer is to add the missing ones, not delete the ones we know). Also, it's very disappointing to see a 'you don't know because you're not from here' attitude taken. Number   5  7  19:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi,, thanks for your response. , no offense intended, and sorry if it came off that way. It's just that I often notice people editing articles about Zimbabwe are not very familiar with the country's politics, especially with surface-level edits such as this. Large-scale local elections do happen in many countries and in those cases deserve articles - but I suggest you search up "local elections in Zimbabwe [year]" and you'll notice nothing comes up. I think in this case they will be red links forever. But if you both think we should leave them, I respect that. Jgefd (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove accessibility features and make the site hostile to the blind
As I mentioned in my edit summaries, see MOS:TABLECAPTION, MOS:SMALL, etc. Please ping me if you have any questions. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And you have done this again. Why are you doing this? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's simply no reason to use such a table, with unecessary centering of party's names, greying of background, which make it more difficult to read on first glance.--Aréat (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , There is, which I have explained to you: accessibility. If you want to change stylistic things like the color grey, that can be done with style sheets. Did you even read the pages where I referred you? Do you know anything about accessibility and semantics? Did you consider users with disabilities at all when you reverted? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've read it, and seen nothing indicating the left column must be centered, bolded on dark grey background. It make it less easier to read in the first place. This is absurd.--Aréat (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Centering, grey color, bold, etc. are all style issues as I have said multiple times. Have you ever read Help:Table? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the table you're proposing and honestly tell me it's easier to read a text that is black on dark grey? This is obviously wrote by people who don't use it. You can't make it less easier to read on a whim.--Aréat (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , If it's hard to read on a whim, then why don't you change the styles? You didn't answer my question. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear here, even tho Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial explicitly says to use scopes for columns and rows and you have read this, you are refusing to do it? And that page makes it clear that this is for the benefit of our blind readers but you don't care because it makes bold text with a grey background? I just want to make sure that I've got the facts here. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And you have also read WP:3RR and yet you reverted four times on that page. Again, just want to make sure that I know that you know better. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't grand stand me. I have a very poor vision and I reverted the changes you made to a table that made it way more difficult to read, and that isn't used anywhere on the election pages I've been participating on for years, where the tables have been fine to read. I reverted the pages to the version they were before you went there, imposed your changes and kept reverting despite being asked to go to the talk page.--Aréat (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , So that is a "yes", you read those obligatory policy pages and refused to abide by them because you don't want to. And you did this in spite of the fact that it makes the site easier to use for the blind and refuse to use stylesheets in order to make it more appealing to you visually. And you reverted four times because you felt justified in making the site less accessible. Is there anything I'm missing? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're obviously not here to discuss why your change is better. It's worse, but it's written somewhere it should be better, so you're applying it, and threatening those who alarm you that it is worse. That's not a good way to do things, you know?--Aréat (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please tell me the best way to make other editors care about accessibility for the blind and convince them not to edit-war to remove those features and I will do that in the future. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, as I have asked you several times now, why don't you use style sheets to change the styling of the cells that you want changed? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the current table.--Aréat (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , That in no way answers my question. Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Aréat, there is project-wide consensus in MOS:DTT that data tables should be marked up with row and column headers and proper scopes for them. This is to benefit screen readers and is not something that may be changed at an editor's whim. It is unfortunate that you find particular colour combinations difficult, but even with my fading eyesight in old age, I am able to read the text against the standard row header's background quite well, and the combination passes WCAG 2.0 AAA standard. In your case, you could add something like  to your personal user stylesheet to provide a white background for you. It is also possible to add the class "plainrowheaders" to the table, which will remove the bold and centring from the table row headers for everyone. The table needs to be updated for those using screen readers, and I'm happy to help you if you need any. --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Partial block from 2020 North Macedonian parliamentary election
You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of one week for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 13:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no local election in Suriname
There is only a general election which determines both the National Assembly and the Resorts. The President then gets voted from the National Assembly and the Districts from the Resorts. You'll find the story on plenty of places. KittenKlub (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand. But the fact these election take place on the same day doesn't mean they shouldn't have a separate line on the template, which is used to show the different election that take place. They can very well lead to the same page, but they should be here all the same. As there is nothing on each general elections pages about these districts elections, we redirect to pages to be created. You can add pages with content about these district elections saying they took places as part of the general election, or add this content to the general election pages. Either way, links should remain on the template. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Those links have no place on the template, because it refers to elections which do not exist. Just look at :nl there's no local there either. The elections could be mentioned on 2020 general page, but nobody cares about Resort Council members. You and your buddies loved to dominate that page, and you have missed a little fact. Just like some refs are missing. KittenKlub (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the elections of local councilors took place, as seen in the source you provided, why are you against including these elections on the template? Them being there doesn't mean they're not part of the general election. Let's continue this discussion on the talk page of the template, by the way.--Aréat (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't you dare to go WP:3RR BTW, because you are close to a listing on AN/I for that edit war. KittenKlub (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you seen that I reverted only two times and opened a discussion on the template talk page? Tone down a bit and go there.--Aréat (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I left this talk page message first and still you reverted, so you were edit warring.KittenKlub (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted two times with only in edit sentences, thinking this was a mere misunderstanding that wouldn't a full discussion on talk page to settle. Then went to this discussion once getting that it was more--Aréat (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. KittenKlub (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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

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

google translate:

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

KittenKlub (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the source, by the way! I didn't know the election via the Verenigde Volksvergadering had ever been used. Do you happen to have some sources about that specific election? Also, how exactly are the resorts and district councilors elected? I can't translate the pdf you posted on the template talk page. Is it a "First Past The Post" system? If there is only one ballot apart from the ballot for the national assembly, does that mean the candidates are elected as both resort councilors and district councilors or something?--Aréat (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The 1996 elections used the Volksvergadering, but it'll be hard to find any information about that one, because it was before the internet and a period which is not covered by newspaper archive sites because of copyright. Basically Wijdenbosch didn't make it in the Assembly, and a majority was needed. KittenKlub (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, too bad. And about the other question? :]--Aréat (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


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

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

6 September 1996:

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

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

7 August 1996:

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

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

KittenKlub (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Aréat (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

One of the tables with the yellow background color for headers is also at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. It is at the bottom of that section. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There is also a Village Pump discussion that shows a table with yellow background color for header cells. See: Village pump (technical). Section name may change. So see table of contents if link no longer takes you to the correct section. See also: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox115. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: By-elections and Liechtenstein elections template
Hi! I noticed that you undid my edit re: by-elections on the Liechtenstein election template. I wonder if there is any way to include the 1930 Liechtenstein by-election in the template. Thank you. --Migs005 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. Sorry for reverting your change. Thank you by the way for your amazing work on all these past election pages of Liechtenstein. I had unsuccessfuly searched for a source on this matter when writting several of the french pages of the more recent ones some years ago, like the 1939 one. As for the template, we don't include them on the templates because they're not full renewal, concerning only a few seats. What you can do however is mention them on the previous full election page with an inner link. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is noted. Many thanks.--Migs005 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

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

There are still some improvements to make (currently it only does presidential elections and one-round parliamentary elections), but I thought I would start rolling it out to try and identify what exactly needs to be done to it. So far I have noted: If you fancy starting to add it to articles, I'm sure there are more things we can spot and add to the request list.
 * Needs a function like  or   as at the moment it assumes the figure is zero and calculates accordingly if you don't enter a value
 * Needs to have a manual override for party totals so that when the vote totals are unknown, it doesn't display a sum of zero votes.

The big advantage of a central template for this, is that discussions on changing format will be held centrally, and any agreed change will immediately be implemented across all articles. Number  5  7  14:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I sure had noticed! When you started adding it to the Barbadian election page, I searched through your history and found the template discussion. I think it's a great idea and a very useful tool. I had looked into these semi-automatic templates a few years ago as well, but found myself completely out of my depth. Will have to thank again Frietjes for his amazing work on this.
 * Upon stumbling on the page, I had assumed the grey table bottom was an existent feature and that you would prefer the one without any separation and no blank/invalid votes percentages I'm used to see you use. You know, with that thin bar and detailled percentages the template is starting to look like the one I'm using everywhere on the french wiki for presidential and parliamentary elections, so that sure look already familiar ^^. In those, I use a different font color for empty cases as to portray them in a "this page left blank on purpose" way, I include the abstentions own numbers and %, make the total seats numbers in bold, as it is useful in tables in which there's two different system with seats, to make the total stand out, and I include the total of seats on the total of all votes line as to avoid having a large square empty. But those are all esthetics, and I think you were asking for more practical ones.
 * One very important thing I would request if possible is to be able to include a column for the difference of percentages by parties from the last election. I find it really add to the way election results can be read. For example, in a majoritarian system, a party can seemingly have only slightly changed its number of seat, when the number of votes actually dropped or shot up, and vice versa. Even in proportional system, a party can seemingly lose or gain seats, when its share of votes actually didn't change much or went slightly the other way, just becayse some others party that in the last election was just short of the electoral threeshold attained it this time, or inversely didn't but had last time, etc. I really think it's useful to see these +/-. Of course, it would need to allow for "New" or "N/a" content.
 * It seem it's way better to use the non automatic total seat change, as the automatic one simply make the math from the changes of the participating one. If a party which hold seats wasn't present in the following vote because it disappeared or boycotted it, the automatic count will make it appear like the total of seat got up even if it stayed the same.
 * There's the matter of running mates in presidential elections with vice president being elected on the same ticket.
 * Some particular tables would be the ones in which parties participate in one system and not the other, like here. It always happen with independents, who in paralel systems participate in the FPTP ones and not the PR. Does the table function with it? Same when there is appointed members.
 * There sometimes elections in which parties are together in one system and not the others like in the recent andorran ones
 * Some countries have large coalition of which the electors still vote for the inner parties indepently, like the sammarine ones, or the spanish ones.
 * By the way, for the latter, in the french speaking wiki we tend to show the inner parties with their own lines, name, color and seats, for example in Mauritius. I know it's not the way it's done on the english speaking wiki, but I thought it could be mentioned.
 * So, voilà. I know we're still going to need old school non templates tables for a little percentages of elections anyways, but I hope I was of help for you to identify some needed tweaks. Have a good day!--Aréat (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re the swing column, I agree that is something that could be added. However, to start with I am focusing on trying to get the basics in place – for instance, getting the two-round/parallel voting format for parliamentary elections (Andorra would be an example of the latter) and some of the fixes I requested on the talk page today for when we don't have invalid votes or the electorate. I am also a bit nervous about asking too much of Friejtes, as she seems to be the only person willing to help (I asked at the Lua noticeboard a while back and got zero help).
 * The template does work with appointed members – see 2016 Kazakh legislative election. If no vote figure is entered, it creates a two-column blank cell. Once the two round/parallel voting system parliamentary elections are possible, I assume it would work the same way where parties contest one part but not the other.
 * Running mates can already be entered using  – see 2020 Taiwanese presidential election
 * The seat change figure is only entered manually and does not show up if  is not used.
 * I am not sure how alliances would work yet, or whether it is too complex. If it cannot be done, I guess an option would be to manually list the alliance in the party name field. However, I think this is for a later discussion when some of the other things have been sorted out. Number   5  7  19:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Look good to me. And yeah I'm always wary of asking too much, that's why I'm just mentioning it here in a discussion, not flooding the template talk page with request either. Anyways, it seem like it's pretty usable already. Very neat to see this progress take place. --Aréat (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, the automatic totalling has proved to be really useful. I have come across several articles with mistakes in the table (or in the source) that I picked up by comparing the pre- and post-template totals. For example, 2012 East Timorese parliamentary election had an incorrect figure for the Democratic Party because the STAE website mixed up the 8 and the 5 in their total table (if you sum all the district totals below, you get the correct number). Also a few incorrect percentages (usually rounding errors) too. Number   5  7  22:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Great to know! By the way, your recent edit on the East Timorese election made me realise I had completely forgot to point out that "Invalid votes" should be "Blank and invalid votes", and that it may be useful to be able to split the lines to differentiate them in the table. Some pages do it, and it may cause the template to be rejected on those by users who wan't to keep the details.--Aréat (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. One of the modifications could be to request the title of that row be editable, so the default is Invalid/blank, but it can be changed to simply "Invalid" for elections where blank votes are counted as valid ('against all'/NOTA) votes. Number   5  7  22:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand how the template work with colors, to be honest. For exemple in the East Timorese page, the Frenti-Mudança party doesn't have the yellow one it should have, like on the french wiki page. Before, I would just change the colorcode or fix the link to the proper party color template, but now ? --Aréat (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Re the swing function, could you ask Frietjes for it to be added to the template? The last couple of times I've asked for some more work on the template, nothing has happened. I am hoping the more articles it is used on, the more apparent it will be that it is something worth spending time on. Cheers, Number   5  7  18:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. ;)--Aréat (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think I might have managed to add it to the code for the rows with parties – see the table on the right at Template:Election results/testcases. However, I am not sure where in the code you can add it to the bottom (although all you'd need is a dash). Number   5  7  19:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I don't see a way in which I could help, halas.--Aréat (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 Russian regional elections
Thanks for your edit on this page, changing Vladimir Uyba from United Russia to independent.

I think you're right here. this article describes him as "self-nominated", notwithstanding his background as being (a) appointed by Putin, (b) a former federal Health Minister of Putin and (c) unopposed by United Russia.AndrewRT(Talk) 19:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, being self nominated isn't relly a proof of independence. It has been very often used in the last few years by candidates of United Russia, even by Putin himself. It only mean their candidacy was registered on paper as self nominated, not that they're an independent candidate. It was this way in most of the past years regionals elections. But usually they're still members of United Russia.--Aréat (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

File:États d'Aruba 2005.svg
Hello. I think this might have an error in it as it doesn't match the results (2005 Aruban general election). Cheers, Number   5  7  16:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, looks like the original file was correct, and the replacement is actually the result of the 2009 Aruban general election? Number   5  7  16:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. I modified it. --Aréat (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
==Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums § Proposed merger of articles about elections in the Caribbean Netherlands and Netherlands Antilles== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums § Proposed merger of articles about elections in the Caribbean Netherlands and Netherlands Antilles. ― Ætoms  [talk] 13:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I haven't followed that question. Have a good day.--Aréat (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
I don't understand your tagging names of initiatives like and  as unreferenced. Can you please explain? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm not used to the practise of having sources of an Infobox at its bottom, and hadn't seen there is a source provided for those results. --Aréat (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Indirect Elections
I don't know if anyone else is going to participate in the discussion on the talk page. If you want to go ahead and add a separate section, I'll back you up against anyone who tries to delete it without making a serious argument. Also I was wondering if at your convenience you could add it to a few of the calendars from past years. I've been trying to improve the calendars going back to 2010 (completed through 2013); if you add indirect election sections to the past few years I would add them to the others. Sladnick (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sound all good to me. Thanks! And sure, I will look into it asap. --Aréat (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 House
Please do not remove the Libertarian section from the info box. Because they held one seat at the time of the election, they are entitled to be included regardless of their performance last cycle. This has been the standard for other Elections for past US Elections. Also do not chance the net status. It's been the standard that vacant seats are not included in the net change since the net change reflects the net seats that flipped.-RayNavy — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaySwifty18 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I work on many election pages and we always do these comparison from elections to elections. As far as I can see it also was done this way in the previous pages. Please dicusss this on the article talk page. --Aréat (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

MNSD
If you want the article moved, you can use the WP:RM process. It looks like the mistranslation may be so widespread that the current version is the common English name (there are about ten times as many Google Hits for the current title as opposed to the direct translation)... Cheers, Number   5  7  12:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Aréat (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

American politics DS alert
― Tartan357  Talk 05:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2020 United States presidential election; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ―  Tartan357  Talk 05:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

2020 US House of Representatives elections
Exactly what current practice are you alluding to? There's no consistency among these articles. Some use the numbers of the previous election, some use the numbers right before the next elections & some do both with the same article. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me previous United States House of Representatives elections pages were showing swing related to each other, not in between changes. I have only checked a few recent pages, though. I'm not going to revert it again if you insist, but it seem to me that considering there is an ongoing discussion on whether or not to do this, it would be better to keep what was used in the previous few pages, until the discussion lead to something. I do agree with the way I reverted to, though, so I can see how it may look interested. Again, push with the change if you feel it's needed. I simply don't. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've no objections to removing the Seats before section from the infobox, if it's deleted from all them. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. That seem to be the direction of the discussion (on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, by the way).--Aréat (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Kosovo seats
Hello. Where did you get the seat figures from? Cheers, Number   5  7  16:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the seats were added by another user. I can't find a source.--Aréat (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Colour templates
Re your question in the edit summary on the Tobago article, the template only picks up colours if the name used (linked or not) matches the template name exactly. Because 'Unity of the People' is not a link to Unity of the People (Trinidad and Tobago), it doesn't pick up the meta template. To get it to work, you'd either have to link it (a redlink, and I'm not sure the party is notable) or you could use Unity of the People (Trinidad and Tobago)/meta/color in the colour field of the code. Hope that makes sense? Cheers, Number   5  7  00:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It does, thanks!--Aréat (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Lettonie Saeima 2018.svg
Hello. Just spotted that the number of seats is wrong in this diagram (it should be 100). Cheers, Number   5  7  20:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I edited. Funny how for some countries such big errors can remain unnoticed for years. Thanks for notifying me.--Aréat (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think File:Îles Turques-et-Caïques Assemblée 2012.svg is also wrong. There only seem to be 15 elected seats and I cannot see any mention of appointed members in the article? Cheers, Number   5  7  21:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha, I saw it mentioned in another article. Are you sure that the numbers (4 nominated, 2 ex officio are correct; the House of Assembly article mentions a split of 3/3...). Cheers, Number   5  7  21:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a 4/2 split since the 2011 constitution. I don't know how it was before, but I imagine it was the mentioned 3/3, hence some sources being a bit outdated. Note that the four are all appointed by the governor, but two are on his own decision while the two others are on the advice of the PM and chief of the opposition. The two ex officio members are the Attorney general and the speaker. Glad I could help. --Aréat (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam
Re this, the difference is between independents who were nominated by the Fatherland Front and unaffiliated (self-nominated) independents. The difference is mentioned in the text of the source ("The successful candidates included 475 Communist Party members and 21 non-party members among which 2 were self-nominated candidates"). Cheers, Number   5  7  16:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Are the 'blank' votes actually spoilt votes (i.e. ones with an error that were cancelled and voters given another ballot paper), or do the Monegasque authorities consider people who cast blank votes not to have participated? Cheers, Number   5  7  11:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The electoral law of Monaco consider blank votes as non valid votes, but take them into account for the calculation of the absolute majority, which is half of valid+blank votes (but not void ones). Maybe that's what's causing these inconsistencies.--Aréat (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha, so it looks like the 'total voters' they report is more for the calculation than actually being the total turnout. Number   5  7  15:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Results template
Did you mean to remove your comments? What you said was correct. Number  5  7  21:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I answered it on the Welsh election talk page in which the matter was raised. ;)--Aréat (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2020 New Caledonian independence referendum into 2021 New Caledonian independence referendum. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision
Hi, Aréat. Why did you restore this blocked user's addition? It clearly falls outside the scope of the article and doesn't constitute a partition plan. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seemed like an error in edits.--Aréat (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the message
Thank you it feels so nice that my edits are appreciated thank you
 * You're very welcome!--Aréat (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request)
Hi Aréat! Thank you for your edits to House of Representatives of the Philippines. It looks like you've copied or moved text from 2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections into that page, and while you are welcome to do so, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

St Helena
I have contacted Beat about the spoilt vote issue. Do you also correspond with him? Cheers, Number   5  7  21:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent timing. I was right in the process of opening my mails to notice him. Yours should be enough, I imagine. He speak english as well as french, if I recall well. And he's very nice.--Aréat (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, he always lets me know if we've missed a referendum on here! Number   5  7  21:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth keeping an eye on that Lithuanian article – I suspect they'll keep attempting the same edit. Something tells me this might not be a new editor, but we'll see. Hope you've been keeping we'll anyway! Cheers, Number   5  7  21:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doing quite well these days. I will try to keep an eye on it, although I'm less present on the en wiki.--Aréat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on People's Party of Canada. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Only two reverts, and I then went to the talk page. Not an edit war, thank you.--Aréat (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Guyanese general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Granger. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Manx election article
I see you've crossed swords with the Manx election IP. They also attempted to remove the results table from the 2011 and 2016 articles in the past (both articles had to be protected to stop them – the 2017 one twice), told me I shouldn't be editing Manx election articles as I wasn't from the island, and followed me to other articles to revert unrelated stuff I'd done. Good luck! Cheers, Number   5  7  09:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was quite relieved when it ended up being updated by multiple other users. It was turning into a bother. Luckily I haven't got the stalking either!--Aréat (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you every sleep? Your edits seem to be 24 hours! Number  5  7  17:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha, I just have a working schedule in which I alternate working mornings, afternoons and nights, followed by normal days, so my sleeping times are all off the charts. But I do have my sleeping hours, must still be big gaps in my edits list. Plus I'm lucky to have a job which is great and leave me a lot of free time to edits randomly.--Aréat (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Registered voters
I think you are right in this case (it is confirmed on the MEC website), but I would be wary of making assumptions. Sometimes there are different figures as people with certain residency status can vote for the president but not a local MP. Also, there may be uncontested constituencies, which means the effective number of registered voters is lower. Cheers, Number   5  7  16:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

?Oversized. Photoshop Image
Hey Aréat what do u mean by it? Check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_scale does this looks ok to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmaaned (talk • contribs) 11:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No it absolutely doesn't. Please don't add photoshoped pictures. --Aréat (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Any way how to create animated slider for an image to develope like the scale shown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_scale#/media/File:Male_genitalia_five_Tanner_stages.png somehow need to add our own selfie image face, height, weight and age to it seems like tabulated data but instead of we learning our own body developement as if it was our animated life seeing thru mirror. And it include other feature of our body to adjust and played with. Did u get it Aréat? Good for SexEd... --Unmaaned (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

2020 Surinamese general election
Full results now available! Cheers, Number   5  7  21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Finally! --Aréat (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

2018 Brazilian Senate
This edit means the total number of seats is 82... I assume there is an incorrect seat allocation somewhere else? Cheers, Number   5  7  20:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit I don't know where it's from. I will look it up. --Aréat (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
I thank you for helping me and your support. GBFEE (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Un-needed description
Howdy. We don't need "ceremonial" to describe the president of Barbados. It's already explained in the article, that Barbados is a parliamentary republic. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the problem if this description is added? It's in the source, and it's useful. Not every parliamentary republic has a ceremonial head of state.--Aréat (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you're determined to have your own way, on that particular page. I'm not gonna bother with it anymore. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Naturism
I had used the talk page on the Naturism page to suggest and justify a change of lead image. I waited and saw no objections, then made the change. I guess I should have mentioned the talk page in my "description" comment. I look forward to working with you in the page's talk section.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Your recent edit makes it worse. Now it implies that is just a normal group of nudists, when it is in fact an advocacy group trying to increase youth participation. A group that no longer exists. Because few youths participate in nudism.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We use it as a photo showing a group of naturists. Trying to take it down because of an alleged sociological discrepancy to replace it with a photo not showing what the page is about make no sense. On the Swimming page, would you be taking down a picture of black swimmers because the sport is majority white, or replace it with people walking in the water in the distance? Of course not. The photo has been on the page since years because it illustrate naturism well.--Aréat (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't illustrate nudism well. It illustrates it in a false light. The page has a problem with advocacy, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The picture I used shows a normal group of nudists engaged in nude recreation. It is far more representative of nudism. Your preferred picture shows atypical nudists simply posing. So mine illustrates the topic better, while yours does advocacy. It makes nudism look sexy and cool which isn't the point of Wikipedia.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring – September 2022
Your recent editing history at list of longest-reigning monarchs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Drevolt (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know the rules, and you made the same number of revert as me, two.--Aréat (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

SSM table
Since you won't accept corrections to the table, it really needs to be settled on the talk page before we move it to the article. Putting it in the article and then arguing about its inaccuracies will only be disruptive. At least, I'm assuming that although you say I should correct it, you won't actually accept my corrections. If you're willing to accept the corrections that you've previously rejected, per the talk page, then I could correct it in the article, but the previous editing history suggests that won't be acceptable to other editors, and we'll be back where we started. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Going back to where we started is to go back to the old table. You can see that the new one is highly divisive in the talk page, right? It obviously was pushed without a consensus.--Aréat (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Bulgarian elections
Thanks for the fixes. Unfortunately this IP is quite persistent and breached 3RR on the 2022 article (which annoyingly resulted in no sanction or protection). Worth keeping an eye on them as doubtless they'll be back... Cheers, Number   5  7  22:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

People's Freedom Party/Nagarik Unmukti Party
I see that you've renamed the page Nagarik Unmukti Party to People's Freedom Party (Nepal). The English language media in Nepal also uses the name Nagarik Unmukti Party as seen here here here and here. I think WP:OFFICIAL is relevant here and the page should be reverted bac to Nagrik Unmukti Party or Nagarik Unmukti Party. PenGear (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The website of the party does mention People's Freedom Party as a translation but the domain http://www.nagrikunmuktiparty.org/ uses Nagrik Unmukti Party. PenGear (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The same for National Independent Party (Nepal). It's more commonly referred to as Rastriya Swatantra Party. Including in their website and facebook page. We already have precedence for using the Nepali name for parties like Rastriya Prajatantra Party and Rastriya Janamorcha too. PenGear (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All these parties had sources using the english names, and as far as I know english names are always used on the english wiki as long as english sources do. I'm not 100% familiar with the rules, though. Do you mind if I ask the opinion of ? He's the user I know who's most in touch with such rules. Or maybe asking it on some wider page could help? I didn't intend to make a point with these changes. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to make it sound like you have an agenda something. The Nepali names are the more commonly used names and people are more likely to search for the articles using the Nepali names. I didn't want to revert those changes without good reason so wanted to know why you changed them. I'm fine with the opinion of more experienced users on this subject. PenGear (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello both. The (general) rule is that we use whatever the party's most commonly-used name is in English sources. In some cases it is the party's name in the native language (for example Likud or Venstre), but in others it is the English translation (e.g. Israeli Labor Party or Social Democrats (Denmark)). From a quick search on Google News, it does look like Nagarik Unmukti Party is the name most often used in English-language press (2,140 hits vs only two for People's Freedom Party). Cheers, Number   5  7  22:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. No problem with renaming, then. --Aréat (talk) 23:18, 24 November 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1124923707
You made this revert and also Special:Diff/1124923610, saying content is backed by mutliples sources. It appears you ignored the neutrality issue and inadequate use of sources which I outlined in edit summary (see Special:Diff/1115597237). 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:4D6C:2D0A:68F2:4A03 (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw your message. You only claim it is an inacurate use of sources, when the content is directly what the multiples sources pointed out, including the president elect himself.--Aréat (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * These two Wikipedia articles currently include a generalization that "the election received criticism and calls for electoral reform due to the absence of opposing candidates". Its first source in fact does not mention any criticism at all. Two other sources, which are actually the same text in slightly altered wording, quote one person's opinion piece criticizing "elections with one candidate", but one person's opinion alone can't be a basis for this generalization. Neither did the president in their first speech criticize elections for a single candidate, though in context of this Wikipedia paragraph is easily seems like it. The broader context, missing in this Wikipedia paragraph, is that there have always been calls for different electoral system(s) and accordingly different expections on what should be the the role (powers) of the president. These two cherry-picked short passages from two opinions on the other hand have been chosen to show that these particular elections were possibly rigged (as if other candiates were impeded or whatever) and that the level of criticism was particulary high. I'm not saying that such opinions or president's speech in particular couldn't be referenced, but then it should be in proper context and it should be made clear what is the actual basis of particular critical opinion. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:490C:DB19:1EC5:167B (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree, and the way you deleted the whole sections altogether instead of improving it if you deemed it necessary is not a good look. The sources does provide the basis for the text about the election being unusual for having only one candidate and criticised as such by multiple people, and Karis did reference the situation in his inaugural speech, talking about the possible reforms for a lenghty portion of it, as seen in the sources.
 * "Estonia is gearing up for an unusual presidential election in parliament. There will be only one candidate in Monday's vote, a situation unprecedented since the Baltic nation regained its independence 30 years ago."
 * "Holding a vote with only one candidate has flummoxed the country, and several politicians have called for a complete overhaul of Estonia's complex presidential election system. Some Estonians have even suggested that the small European nation, where the prime minister holds most political power, should abolish the head of state post altogether."
 * "Jaak Joeruut, a former defense minister and diplomat, said in a recent opinion piece that "elections with one candidate belong to the Soviet era. It is unethical, but, strangely enough, legal.""
 * "During the turmoil that surrounded the presidential selection process, it was said that the search was for a candidate for the whole nation. "
 * "It's not at all pointless to debate the most sensible path to selecting the president in modern-day Estonia. Though it had nothing to do with the candidates, the last two processes caused a great deal of public perplexity and disappointment.  "
 * There were also previous calls for reforms? Great, let's talk about it then, I will add a paragraph. That doesn't negate the way this one was a first and a criticised one, on the contrary.
 * I also disagree that it give the feeling it was a rigged election. No part of the text point to it. And again, if you feel that way, deleting everything certainly isn't the thing to do. --Aréat (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Earlier I examined the sources in relation to what is currently said in this Wikipedia paragraph in particular. Not all your quotes are relevant to it.
 * The first source that you quote indeed also claims there was an "unusual presidential election", but this may as well be in comparison to other elections and electoral systems of the world that are designed to produce a result without a large majority agreeing on a single candidate, too. Claim on "a situation unprecedented" in this source however is just factually wrong as previous Estonian president was also elected as the only candidate (who wasn't on ballot in earlier rounds). Also, it's one thing to be "flummoxed" and another thing to criticize the election for having one candidate in particular. The only such criticism in this source nonetheless is by one quoted person (Joeruut, actually Jõerüüt) and this contradicts generalization in this Wikipedia paragraph.
 * The president indeed criticized the elections (your last two quotes), as I also pointed out above. The problem however is that he did not say that having one candidate was the problem, as is currently implied in this Wikipedia paragraph. In his speech he doesn't specify what exactly was the "turmoil that surrounded the presidential selection process", other than noting that "last two processes caused a great deal of public perplexity and disappointment" and in future this could avoided if electoral system was altered. He also names various ways in which the election system could be altered but none of these directly relate to the number of candidates.
 * Why I removed the entire paragraph? Because it's simply misleading due to reason outlined above and there doesn't seem to be an easy way to fix or amend it without rewriting it from scratch. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:3077:3C71:28DF:BB2F (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's wrong, the previous election had three rounds of opposing candidates, and only after a failure to elect one did the parties agree on a consensus one in what was essentialy a fourth round. The sources directly address how the 2021 one was a first, how it caused criticisms, renewed calls for a change of the system, and prompted the elected president to address the situation. It's all well sourced, without the ambiguity you claim lead to a misunderstanding.--Aréat (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do acknowledge there were other candiates in earlier rounds. This is why in previous post I clarified that previous president "wasn't on ballot in earlier rounds". The relevant part is that all other candiates had been dropped by the time when new candidate was nominated in the last round and no other candiates were nominated for that round. This is why the passage "one candidate in Monday's vote, a situation unprecedented since..." in that source is simply wrong.
 * But more importantly, as evidenced in previous comments, Wikipedia paragaph's current generalziation that the criticism was mainly (or only) due to having one candidate still isn't backed by these particular sources. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:A1BC:95A9:E0B1:21AD (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
This is your only warning; if you move a page disruptively again, as you did at 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''You moved 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis to 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt, and commented that a self-coup is well sourced, but such a reference can't be found.

A self-coup requires abandoning the constitution, which never happened.

When you say the self-coup is well sourced, what sources can you point to? If you can't point to one your move is just vandalism, and reason for move a lie. Talk⁄Louis Waweru'' 16:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted a title change that was done unilateraly without even talking about it ô n the talk page. And no, the coup d'état and unlawfulness is well sourced. Who are you to menace me this way ?--Aréat (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!
Heyy thank you for reverting back the edit. Just so you know the history of West Papua is long more than just being a part of Indonesia. In the years of 1962-1963 it was a territory of United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA). Indonesia has committed a big genocide in West Papua region, where it has killed more than 500,000 people in Suharto’s new order alone. In its recently passed criminal code, the West Papuan people can face from 20 years in prison up to death penalty for raising their own West Papuan flag. Please let me know if the same user named Juxlos@ messed up the content and information again, so we could report him for distruptive editing and vandalism as he did multiple times. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Juxlos (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

List of presidents of Brazil
Because they are the correct photographs corresponding to each of those presidents, what is the problem with that? Oli (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you call the correct ones ?

fr:Élection présidentielle haïtienne de 2000
Hello - I just noticed that the French article on the 2000 Haitian presidential election looks like a hoax (at least according to the sources I've seen). Gourgue was not a candidate, let alone the runner-up?? Cheers, Number   5  7  20:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We've got a crazy serial hoaxer who did these sort of completely invented articles about Haitian election, with multiple accounts done and redone over the years. This one must have slipped in. --Aréat (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's the same person who kept adding fake opinion polls to Haitian articles (like this)... Number   5  7  20:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe. There's a list of the accounts and IP used here, if it can help.--Aréat (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to join discussion
Hi, I request you to join the AfD discussion about the article named "Alliances formed by left-wing parties in the states of India". Thank you. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. I don't know anything about this matter.--Aréat (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

2021 Honduran general election
Hello - re this edit, you also need to add the number of valid votes cast, otherwise turnout is 622%! This is because voters can cast multiple votes. Cheers, Number   5  7
 * Thanks ! I did it in a hurry and didn't notice. Sorry--Aréat (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, there isn't a number of valid votes available on the electoral commission website.--Aréat (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you might have to hold off on including the invalid and blank votes, otherwise it makes a mess. Is there a total votes cast figure, from which blank and invalid can be deducted to get a valid figure? Cheers, Number   5  7  00:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. I can't seem to find the number of valid ballots.--Aréat (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Re your question at Template talk:Referendum, why not use Referendum results instead? Cheers, Number   5  7  19:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to improve the table at 2011 Icelandic loan guarantees referendum and just wanted to do it quickly, to be honest. --Aréat (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

2022 Vermont Gubernatorial election
Removing blank ballots from the total number of votes It’s the only correct way to calculate the total number of votes cast in that election. It was done so for the VT senate race and I had miscalculated when I first originally posted Vermont governor figures their Secretary of State office calculates their numbers wrong from the standard. Zara1289191 (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right. I made the changes.--Aréat (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) Zara1289191 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

French results
Hello. I've been trying to clean up old French election articles, and noticed almost all of them have possibly made-up results in them (which didn't match the sources given, nor ones like Nohlen & Stöver or the Mackie almanacs. However, the sources are frustratingly vague, grouping quite a lot of parties. Also, they consistently refer to "Republican Union" and "Republican Left", which seem to be alternative names for Republican Federation and Democratic Republican Alliance, but I can't find any source that actually confirms this is the case.

Is there a reliable and detailed source for French election results that actually gives a proper breakdown by party? Cheers, Number   5  7  20:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * France has a history of not properly publishing election results. Even nowadays, only a handful of parties are picked by the governement as worthy of having their national total votes published. The rest are bundled together into groups such as "miscellenaous left" or "Ecological". I find this a shameful lack of democracy, and that's how it is. I have searched reliable sources several times in the past, but failed to ever find one. If you succeed, please send me a message ! --Aréat (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1159845720%7C2022%20Peruvian%20self-coup%20attempt%5D%5D Ask for help])

Hi There
I was recommended by Number 57 in regards to a question. What colour is usually associated with Gaullism? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. That's definitely blue. On the french speaking wiki, we use #0066cc. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptions
Please stop removing the map of 2021 Taliban offensive. Taliban captured Kabul and declared victory on 15 August. This is what the map covers. If you are concerned about Panjir, you can create a map on its separate article or request a creation by the original uploader of the map, Rr016 instead of disrupting the page. Ecrusized (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The map only show the situation on 15 August of a situation which evolved both before and after. It's seriously lacking in term of showing the taliban offensive, not showing what was conquered, and giving the false sense that it stopped at Panjshir.--Aréat (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to improve it then, instead of complaining about it and making it even worse. Ecrusized (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Tuvalu
Sorry, didn't see the "not confirmed" bit in the source. Tuvalu seems to have least online presence of any country in the world (perhaps ironically given the ubiquity of their .tv domain)... I don't think I've come across a country where it is so hard to find info. Cheers, Number   5  7  11:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. And yeah, a lot of pacific island countries are like that. Trying to find any info about Micronesia's recent referendum had me pulling my hairs.--Aréat (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

1962 French legislative election
Hello. I'm trying to clean up the French parliamentary election series at the moment (much of it is unsourced). As we've previously discussed, finding good sources is hard – many seem to ignore the non-metropole seats. With the 1962 election I am particularly stuck, as Quid gives vote figures (which don't add up for the second round) and seat figures separately, and in the seats section includes two groups (Centre Republicans and Others) that don't appear in the vote list (total 2 seats). Do you have any idea which group these two seats were part of? At the moment the results table looks a bit messy... Cheers, Number   5  7  13:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question. Do you happen to speak french? If so, this extremely lenghty source may be useful to you.--Aréat (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Milei crop
Can you explain to me why the current crop of Milei is "better" than the proposed version?

The current one is misleading as it suggests that he is standing up straight when in reality, he is leaning to the man on his right as you can see in the original image. Furthermore, no shipping container or canopy would naturally tilt like the ones you see in the current crop. Wow (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of having a close up photo is to have a good view of the person. It's not a problem to tilt it. I don't think many users noticed the background, I sure didn't.--Aréat (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm always happy when I can agree with you. :) Down with the tyranny of the horizon at exactly 90.0000000°! --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, because I disagreed with you on the New Caledonia unrest page, you went through my entire talk page here to post a snarky comment on a dead discussion from six months ago about a completely unrelated matter. Are you some kind of internet stalker? Ways yo lose credibility...--Aréat (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's true I had a look to see how often you've been blocked on en.wp recently given your history of edit-warring blocks on fr.wp. As for my intention concerning the tyranny of the horizon line, you are mistaken, I really dislike that "rule". cf. e.g. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 17:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "A history of edit warring" is very exaggerated. You made a few change on one page, I disagreed with it and modified it with comments, you disagreed and did the exact same thing. As for the comment above, I perceived it as sarcasm considering the context and odd timeline, sorry if I got it wrong.--Aréat (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

2019 Malagasy parliamentary election
Hi, I've been reviewing the results of that election in the past few days (mostly because only parties that won a seat are included in the wikipedia page, while I was trying to figure out the percentages of the other parties as well). Using this document as source however I ended up with percentages that differ significantly from those updated on wikipedia. Since I saw from the talk page that back in the day you have been the first one to add the results in the French wikipedia (from which I think the english ones are taken) I thought you would have been the best user to discuss the issue with. I'm attaching the results that I computed from the linked pdf below, I hope you can help me decide if they're accurate and if it's worth to replace the existing ones. Thanks.


 * Thanks for your work on the table. I didn't keep my file on this one from years ago, so I can't explain the difference. I'm sure you did a great job, though, so your numbers must be more accurate--Aréat (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC).
 * I'm eager to see your update of the page, actually. Don't hesitate asking me for help if there's any document or party's name you need help with from a french speaker. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Aréat, I'm spendint a bit of time to double check my final count but by the end of the day I should be able to implement the results on the wikipedia page. Fm3dici97 (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's great to read. Thanks for your work!--Aréat (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Republican Left/Republican Union
What is your view on edits like these (which have been made to numerous French elections). Are the Republican Left and Republican Union the same thing as the Democratic Republican Alliance and Republican Federation? Cheers, Number   5  7  21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but as far as I know the Republican left was a parliamentary group, not a party, and not in this time period. --Aréat (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 Indonesian general election
Hi @Aréat. I saw that you participated in editing the 2024 Indonesian general election article. You performed your last edit on the "Nominees" section of this article. Based on your last edit, I saw that you prefer to use the party colors for the presidential nominees. May I ask why do you think it is better to use the party colors than the coalition colors? I cordially invite you to join this discussion on the talk page of 2024 Indonesian general election article. Thanks for your participation. RyanW1995 (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh. By the way, I saw that you removed the text about the election of members of local legislatures (DPRD). Based on the edit history, you stated that the election for the local legislatures will be held on 27 November 2024. However, I believe this statement is incorrect, since these elections are only for electing governors and mayors of the provinces and cities/regencies, not for the regional legislatures. RyanW1995 (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I answered you there. ;] Thanks for the info about the local election. Do you have a recent source ? I thought the source about local being held in February was outdated as way more recent ones had them in November, which seemed in lines with the 2019 response to the hundred of deaths during the counting back then, with officials swearing it wouldn't be held on the same day ever again. --Aréat (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have a source, but it's in Indonesian. I hope you understand. This news article stated that the election for the regional legislatures would also be conducted on 14 February 2024. The KPU is aware of the many deaths during the previous election, so the people who will work in the polling station have to undergo a medical check up this year. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court (MK) has decided that conducting the election in a non-simultaneous manner is unconstitutional. I also read that in the previous election, all of the forms (multiple copies) had to be filled manually by the KPU, thus causing many deaths from exhaustion. This time, however, the people in the polling stations are allowed to use scanner or photocopier to make the copies of those forms. I read this from a social media (Twitter/X), however, so please take this information with a grain of salt :]. Cordially. RyanW1995 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information and sources ! --Aréat (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

2024 Indonesian local elections
Hi Aréat, I replied to your question about the local elections here: Template talk:Indonesian elections. RyanW1995 (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether the "February local election" could be considered as a "local election". Even though the regional legislatures were elected in February, Indonesian people generally don't consider these elections as a "local election". Instead, they were treated as part of the 2024 general election. In Indonesia, the term "local election" generally refers to the gubernatorial/mayoral elections, i.e. the elections of provincial governors and city mayors. RyanW1995 (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently, I am leaning towards removing the link for February 2024 "local elections" (which, in my personal opinion, is rather questionable whether it could really be considered a "local election) from the Indonesian elections template. I saw that other Wikipedia articles about Indonesian local elections (such as this one (2020) or this one (2018) or even this one about the 1957 local elections) always refer to Indonesian gubernatorial/mayoral elections, never about elections of the Indonesian regional legislatures (DPRD). RyanW1995 (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But these election did take place, and concerned a local level of elected bodies. In wikipedia we add such election to the local line of the template even if they happened as part of a general election, the same way we add the parliamentary one even if it too happened as part of a general election. The only reason it's deleted is that nobody reported the result of these local elections taking place on the general election page, at which point the sheer volume of them would have led to the creation of its own page, and it would no doubt be included on the template.--Aréat (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. Local elections often take place on the same day as general elections in the UK (e.g. 2005, 2010, 2015), but it doesn't mean we don't have articles for those elections. However, I do wonder whether 2024 Indonesian local elections could be expanded to cover the elections in both February and November and explain the difference? Cheers, Number   5  7  22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If we want to add the 2024 February local elections (for the regional legislatures) to the "local elections" group/line in this template, then how about the previous local elections for the regional legislatures? For example, the 2019 general election also included elections for the provincial/municipal legislatures. The same is true for the previous general elections as well, but they were never added to the "local elections" group/line. May I ask for your opinions? RyanW1995 (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think they should be added as well. Have a great week end. --Aréat (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cheers, Number   5  7  19:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All these elections have been occurring simultaneously with legislative elections since 1971 - and most sources classify them as "legislative elections". WP:RS takes precedent over WikiProject tradition. Juxlos (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is plentily sourced on 2024 Indonesian general election that elections on the local level happened in February 2024 alongside the presidential and legislative ones.--Aréat (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am aware, yes. And no reliable source whether Indonesian or English refers to them as a "local" election - they fall under the umbrella of legislative elections.
 * The last time they could be considered part of "local" over "legislature" was likely 1956. Juxlos (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They happened, and they're not elections of the president nor of the national legislatures. How do you propose to have them appear on the template, then?--Aréat (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if they happened alongside national elections, they are still local elections that occured. I'm struggling to see the issue here. Number   5  7  19:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 New Caledonia unrest
Renseignez-vous avant de barratiner des choses terriblement érronées qui induisent le monde entier en erreur (WP anglophone retentit bien plus loin)

Ce que vous écrivez dit littéralement que les blancs ne peuvent pas voter en Nouvelle Calédonie = que les blancs ont moins de droits que les autres sur le territoire français en raison de leur race. C'est juste scandaleux d'en débiter de ce calibre sur l'article au sujet d'un important évènement en cours – qui forcément sera fortement consulté à travers le globe. Shoshin000 (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Déjà, vous vous calmez, je ne compte pas continuer la discussion si vous gardez un ton pareil. Ensuite, de quoi parler vous ? Citez moi précisément la phrase où j'aurais dit que les blancs ne peuvent pas voter. J'ai au contraire annulé plusieurs modif en rappelant que les personnes privés du droit de vote comprenait des blancs mais aussi une large communauté polynésienne dont wallisienne. --Aréat (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The reform has been criticized for possibly diluting the vote of the Kanak people by allowing people of European and Polynesian descent to vote.
 * Si ce n'est pas ce que vous vouliez dire - mes excuses, mais en l'absence de distinctions entre DES et LES personnes d'origine européenne, il faut éliminer les doubles sens. Shoshin000 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposition de compromis Shoshin000 (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * L'anglais ne fait pas cette distinction que fait le français. C'est même un exemple célèbre dans le contexte du conflit israelo palestinien, avec le "retrait des territoires occupés" ou "retrait de territoires occupés" que la version anglaise ne permettait pas de clarifier. Bref, il s'agit bien ici de donner le droit de vote à des personnes d'origine européenne ou polynésienne. Les kanaks, eux, l'ont automatiquement. --Aréat (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Votre proposition ne convient pas car elle ne permet pas de savoir que ces nouveaux votants ne sont pas que des "whites", loin de là. --Aréat (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2024 New Caledonia unrest

 * This edit of yours seems to have introduced misinformation both about the constitutional amendment (Chirac could not have amended the constitution alone) and about the ECHR 2005 'ruling' about the 2007 amendment. Could you take a look at what might have gone wrong?  (I'm pretty puzzled.) Thanks. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I see where you got confused. You'll need to fix this everywhere you put it on fr.wp too. I only fixed it here, I saw you've also added it elsewhere though. The reference to Py v. France is in the lede of the article, you'll just need to translate the ref template. I assume that the claim about Chirac amending the constitution was a desire to avoid translating all the minutiae that you've added to the French page. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course Chirac didn't change the constitution himself. I'm not confused, I wrote myself the part of the page mentioning the full process. The sentence meant that he commanded his parliamentary majority to do the change. Just like saying "the White house decided" doesn't mean the person saying it think the building is deciding anything. But I assumed the french political system was known, when yes, it may not be fully obvious the president didn't singlehandly do the change. I will tweak the sentence. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I appreciated your efforts today; while I do think we should mention COVID-19 in the body, I replaced what had been in the lede with your summary version. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 19:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I agree, Covid should be mentioned. The change I reverted, however, was a one sided tweak of what happened. Calling the kanaks "very hard hit" by Covid when there were a total of 280 deaths pre-referendum, not all of which were kanaks (which are younger overall than the rest of caledonians), is a bad faith edit. And so is saying the third referendum was a "good chance" of being won by pro-independences, when on the contrary the large economic relief package and medical staff sent by France during Covid had placed the balance in favor of anti-independence. Which is why the call for a report was considered by anti-independence as a way to avoid a bad context on the pretext of Covid. This later point happen to be a point of view as well, sure, but only writting the pro-independence point of view, given as facts, and not even mention the anti-independence point of view is what I call a bad faith edit. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)