User talk:Batmacumba

Tongan election
Hello Batmacumba. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions to the Tongan election article. Do you have a source for the seat figures for parties? Annoyingly the official government website doesn't seem to include party affiliation (at least in the sections I found). Cheers, Number   5  7  18:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This one: http://www.nzkanivapacific.co.nz/2014/11/11-candidates-for-nobility-vs-9-democrats-6-independents-decide-which-party-to-form-government/ I doubt that the small parties mentioned actually ran in the election (I am actually fairly sure they didnt) with the possible exception of Clive Edwards party (but I think he ran as an independent this time). DPFI is known simply as "The Party" in Tonga and its basically the only organized party, the rest were always very small groups, one of them basically a one man show.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you, I've added it to the table, along with the total number of votes. I've removed the other parties from the results table for now, as it seems like you may be right - they aren't mentioned in any of the news articles. Number   5  7  22:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you're interested in contributing to election articles across a range of countries, you might want to join WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Cheers, Number   5  7  23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Moldova seats - source
Hi Batmacumba. What was your source for the seats won in the Moldovan elections? IPs have been adding them all day, but I can't seem to find any confirmation online. Cheers, Number   5  7  23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Numbers from http://www.alegeri.md/en/ . They are based on 98,3% counted, but unlikely to change.--Batmacumba (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks – I'd forgotten about that site – one of the best ones on elections and political parties that I've come across for any country – a while ago I created loads of articles on Moldovan parties, and it was a great resource. Cheers, Number   5  7  00:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI on results tables – we always compare the seats won to the previous election, not the situation directly before the elections (this can be done in the infobox though). Number  5  7  17:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. I will revert.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I already have done. I've also updated the infobox to include the full range of info. Number   5  7  17:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Dominica
You are correct that the UWP won two by-elections in 2010, but both the seats were already held by them (Edison Chenfil James won Marigot and Hector John won Salisbury in the 2009 elections). Cheers, Number   5  7  09:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you changed my ref to the election (dunno why). It gives the actual results instead of just an article, so I prefer that one and has reinstated it.--Batmacumba (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed it because the sentence that's being referenced only says the number of seats won (which the article does). If you want a general link to the election details on the Sun website, it should be an external link - inline citations are usually meant to be to a specific article stating the fact being referenced. For instance, in this edit, you've added this page as a reference to the claim "Under Dominica's electoral system, the Prime Minister has the authority to call elections at any time and is only required to give a minimum of twenty-five days notice." but that fact appears nowhere on the Sun page that you've linked to. Cheers, Number   5  7  10:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Spanish election "declared" prematurely
Preparations for the election are already underway since 12 April, with more than a single article as source (check 2015–16 Spanish government formation, which gives more links; I didn't wanted to repeat the same all over the 2016 election article when it already redirects to the other one). As per WP:CRYSTALBALL#1, for the case of future events: ''Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.''

As of currently, we have enough proof of the event being almost certain to take place on 26 June (because the date is already set legally, parties are already campaigning, dissolution decree has been already prepared, Congress is gearing up for dissolution, most media and political pundits and even the King himself take a new election for granted, etc). Note how WP:CRYSTAL does not require to have 100% proof that the event will take place without the slightest of doubts. In the (rather unlikely, but still possible) event the election is not held, the article may still be moved back to its previous place, but currently there's enough documentation available to substantiate a basis for the 26 June election, and to consider that the "Spanish general election, 2016" denomination for the article may, under current circumstances, have more usefulness for searching users and to discuss current events. So not really "premature" in itself.

This would be akin to articles like United States presidential election, 2020 or United States presidential election, 2024 being already in existence, since there's still some room for those to not happen, but there's enough documentation proving that there's a near certainty that those will happen.

Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My talkpage is the wrong forum for discussing this. Moving it to yours.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Viðreisn
I consulted three Icelandic-English dictionaries and found that they agree that the best (or most common) translation of Viðreisn is "Reconstruction". I have moved the page and edited it thusly. Hopefully you find this satisfactory. It appears that we both have an interest in Icelandic politics and I hope to continue to edit pages without being at war. Assume good faith (WP:AGF).  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have little reason to assume good faith from you as you have behaved in a confrontational manner and is prone to unilateral action rather than discussing things beforehand. Icelandic parties do often translate their names in ways that are not the most common or direct translation. You immediately deleted my message to you about this rather than simply answering it (and even deleted a previous discussion with me about an Iceland related topic). That is a very strange and aggressive behavior.--Batmacumba (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Be bold. You are taking my edits personally, and you're being sanctimonious in the process. I don't like sanctimoniousness.  Nevermore27  (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * From your editing history it is clear that you seem all too keen on being "bold", which isn't a sensible approach when there is already a discussion or question about the issue on the talkpage of the article. In which case you should discuss it there first. Moving the page to yet another. I understand some Icelandic and know about the Icelandic tradition of naming parties and there are several options 8they rarely go for the 1:1 translation). It would have been sensible simply to wait for the party to choose an option themselves.--Batmacumba (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When and if they announce an English translation that is different from "Reconstruction" or "Restoration", I will gladly move or allow someone to move the page again. It's not like the world ends when a page gets moved.  Nevermore27  (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "allow"? Its not your decision to make.--Batmacumba (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That was an unfortunate choice of phrase. Of course it's not my decision to make, but the point was Wikipedia is flexible to new information surfacing. That's the point of Be bold.  Nevermore27  (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Election results
As you'll have seen, I reverted your deletion of the preliminary results – we usually start with a results table as soon as some results are known (see e.g. the Lithuanian one a few weeks ago). I even received thanks from another editor for adding it (and now thanks for restoring it after your deletion from another editor), so it seems there are several others who are happy with it. It would be appreciated if you wouldn't delete it again. Cheers, Number   5  7  22:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

List of European countries by area
I'm not sure if that's the right place to talk to you about your revision, but I'm pretty sure Cyprus is a country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Attia (talk • contribs) 04:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not. Use the talk page for the article; there is an extensive discussion, please read that first.--Batmacumba (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What was incorrect ?
Doesn't the blue colour cover much of mountain areas ? And isn't Nynorsk used in Bergen and Stavanger (I know Stavanger has grown extremely since the oil was found, but native people) Please enlighten me a bit more what was incorrect ? Boeing720 (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And may I add, I refer to the coloured areas. That Bergen City has not declared Nynorsk official language isn't the question here. Boeing720 (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the cities are marked in blue on that map. Bergen being neutral and Stavanger being a bokmål municipality is relevant, your edit was confusing. Nynorsk isn't used much anywhere in cities and larger towns.--Batmacumba (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop reverting my edits. Its a factual matter and you are simply wrong.--Batmacumba (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I then suggest you make the blue areas smaller around those cities Boeing720 (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the newly founded Socialist Party (Iceland) notable enough for its own article?
Hi, since you're the only Icelandic politics expert I know here, I'm wondering what you're take is on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(Iceland)

It looks one user replaced an article about the old Socialist Party with one about the party created in 2017. The problems are in my view (i) that it creates confusion about the old party (which is a highly notable party in Icelandic history) (ii) that the new party isn't notable enough for its own article.

What do you think? And what should be done about it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, wait, I've also seen User:S.Örvarr.S edit a lot of Ice politics, so pinging him too. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think its notable yet. They have gotten some press because of the founder, but it remains to be seen whether they will become in any way relevant.--Batmacumba (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Farmers' Party (Iceland)
I saw you moved this article, but you've left Farmers' Party (Iceland) as a redirect to the older one. Wouldn't it be better to either turn it into a DAB page, or redirect it to the main Farmers' Party DAB page? Also, if you move a page like this, it would be good for you to also fix all the incoming links in case that redirect is changed. Cheers, Number   5  7  22:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The older one is the more important, but turn it into a DAB page would be the best solution.--Batmacumba (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done (hopefully correctly..)--Batmacumba (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National electoral calendar 2018, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elections in Ireland ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/National_electoral_calendar_2018 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/National_electoral_calendar_2018?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Convergence Party – Reflection Group
Hello Batmacumba. You claimed in an edit summary that the "Reflection Group" part of the name was no longer used. In that case, shouldn't the article be moved to Democratic Convergence Party – Reflection Group (São Tomé and Príncipe)? Cheers, Number   5  7  14:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Democratic Convergence Party (São Tomé and Príncipe) without the hyphen and RG? If so, yes that would be sensible. The Democratic Convergence Party – Reflection Group should be a redirect (it's probably very difficult to find a source for exactly when they dropped it, but it´s clearly dated by now).
 * What do we do with the MDFM–UDD Union btw. There is no obvious continuity with one of the parties folding into the other (UDD provided its sole MP and their current chairman Carlos Neves was in UDD last (came from ADI so MDFM in 2002 shortly after it was founded, but defected to UDD before the 2006 election and was a candidate for them), but they made MDFM founder Fradique de Menezes their honorary president and kept the double barreled name. So shouldn't the new party then have its own article?--Batmacumba (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * MDFM–UDD don't seem to have their own website. The Coalition uses the PCD website and it's clearly perceived as them + some "dwarfs" on the islands (they contributed 5 of 6 MPs when it was founded). It seemingly also includes the PTS (running in 2014), CODO, UNDP, FDC and Movimento Socialista (MS), but no further info on this and these are true micro parties (probably little more than phone booth parties in some cases), so hard to find out more.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I did mean that. With regards to the MFDM–UDD Union, is it actually a merger or just an alliance? This article (cited in the German version of the election article) and this one suggests they are still separate parties. Number   5  7  20:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I misremembered when it happened. It is one party now, but it didn't become so until 11 August 2018. October 2017 was when the alliance between the parties was founded and the unification process initiated. As this Téla Nón article from 13th August says: "The union was announced several months ago, and last Saturday the two parties merged with a single flag and a single symbol. At the constitutive congress of the Union, Fradique de Menezes, former President of the Republic, was appointed Honorary President." One of the articles you quote (the one from Téla Nón) is from May, so before the formal merger, the other is from Radio France and foreign media are generally unreliable on details about STP. In this case the complaint from the ADI is about the coalition not having a common acronym and symbol - something that isn't affected by whether it's made up of two or three parties. The coalition is known as PCD-MDFM-UDD, so he probably just assumed it was still three different parties (he also misspells Martinho Stock as Stok, small error but maybe indicative of someone not checking details).--Batmacumba (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Gabonese legislative election, 2018
You rant, rage delete your messages and call me a "smug cunt" for using a winking smiley while letting you know the article you were previously searching info in had been updated? What is wrong with you? Take your medecine...--Aréat (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

2019 Malian parliamentary election
The new naming format does apply to elections (see e.g. 2016 United States presidential election and 2017 United Kingdom general election. A bot has started moving the articles but you can move them manually too if you like. Cheers, Number   5  7  08:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Movement of Independent Citizens of São Tomé and Príncipe
Thanks for creating Movement of Independent Citizens of São Tomé and Príncipe.

A New Page Patroller Rosguill just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

"The article needs additional references from sources other than telanon.info to better verify the information."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed,Rosguill talk 02:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve The Democrats (Gabon)
Hello, Batmacumba,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating The Democrats (Gabon)! I edit here too, under the username Doomsdayer520 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 01:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing names
Hello! Please don't change names in an article like you did on Sophia of Denmark! If you want to change the name of an article, where you reasonably can assume that the change may need to be discussed, you can request a so-called "move" by using standard procedure for such a thing. The article name of a biography should mainly be used in its text. Also, bear in mind that it is normal to use English exonyms ("Charles" not "Karl"; "Elizabeth" not "Elisabet" etc.) on English Wikipedia for people of history before about 1900, not the name forms used in other languages than English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Why would I request a move just to add the native name (in this case a supplementary native name)? That doesn't make any sense. Regarding exonyms I did use an exonym (Sophie for Sofie) for the pre-marriage part and did (of course) not change the name for the post-marriage part where she was queen of Sweden (which is the bulk of the article). This shouldn't be a controversial edit, especially not adding the native Danish name, and you haven't offered any arguments for why the Danish native name can't be added to an article about a woman born as a Danish princess.--Batmacumba (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I can see you have reinserted the Danish eponyms, but it would have been better just editing the article rather than reverting my edit and bringing up irrelevant arguments in support of it on my talk page. Regarding your comment that "Sofia is the Swedish form, not Sophia" that misses the point that Sophia is the English version of the Swedish name Sofia while Sophie is 1) the standard form of name in English and 2) the version of the name used as exonym for the Danish name Sofie.--Batmacumba (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This edit clearly ignored the article name in a way that we don't do. The article name is what she goes by, throughout the text, no matter what period of her life is being written about. Anything else would go against feasible clarity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The name change was only part of the edit, so you could have simply edited that part rather than reverting - and you haven't addressed the matter of bringing up the above mentioned irrelevant arguments about moving the article and the use of eponyms.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not the duty of other users to clean up edits like that, item by item, where a sizeable amount of inappropriate name changes have been made in the text. Reverting was the most effective way to fix that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But reverting was also a way of accelerating the conflict and thereby not a sensible move. "Duty" is not a relevant concept in a context where we already had a conflict going.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Please do not edit war as you now have done on House of Estridsen. Fair warning. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not "edit warring" and it's not your place to issue warnings. I am merely reverting an edit that simply wasn't up to standard. You should have found a source in English that actually covered House of Estridsen and the Estrith Dynasty, and not just taken the easy route and used a Swedish encyclopaedia about the ätt.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy re: edit warring. Just read the first paragraph. That should be enough.
 * Anyone can warn anyone for breaking fundamental rules. Making any reversals of already reverted material, without using a talk page, is edit warring. Always. No exceptions. If you challenge me on this, now that I've warned you, I will report you to the approriate administrators' page. We are all supposed to behave ourselves. You, I, everyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care. Report away. Just get off my back and stop patrolling articles I'm working on.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)