User talk:Impru20/Archive 3

3rd party lead in table of opinion polls
I thought I would let you know that I've re-opened a discusion that you've previously been part of at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election. Bondegezou (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mariano Rajoy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Javier Arenas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

UK 2010-2015 Opinion Polling chart
Can you please remove all of the blank space on this graph by re-uploading it because it is not only unsightly but its now very un-user friendly for those of us that want to see it properly. Besides we don't know if there will be a snap election or not (unlikely I know but we don't have and are not allowed to pretend we have a crystal ball are we). I can understand you not wanting to re-upload it now because, it will need to be updated in May as agreed as per it's talk page, so if you want to wait till after the local elections by all means do :-) Cheers mate 130.88.114.46 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As the user commenting below has said, under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, elections are not expected to be held before 2015. Moreover, it is not un-user friendly at all; to the contrary, it helps users to see the trend lines from a perspective which encompasses the entire (scheduled) term, and to know whether some polls are mid-term polls, how much time is left (at most) until the next election is held, etc. Should the election be held earlier, however, the graph would be fixed accordingly. Impru20 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the poster above (the gap should be left in, as the chance of snap elections is now very remote with the fixed term parliaments act), I would ask you keep this regularly up to date. It has been almost a month with no newer version! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.108.243 (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I know, I know; I was just waiting for the publishing of more polls. Since in the UK new opinion polls come out in an almost daily rate, I'm prefering to wait until enough of them have come out until update the graph. I'll update the graph in shortly. Impru20 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm just very impatient :D Thanks for the updated version! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.108.243 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election‎
Hi there. Surely we can't keep the entry there when it adds up to more than 100%? From studying the PDF, it seems that an extra 1% may have been added to the "other" section; however, instead of adding this percentage, I think it's best to avoid any faulty information and remove it altogether. As it stands, the article appears obviously incorrect (especially as there is an entry just above it with the exact same numbers, except 6% instead of 7% under "others"). —  Richard  BB  13:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elections to the Madrid Assembly, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ignacio González (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Next Galician parliamentary election


A tag has been placed on Next Galician parliamentary election, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WP:FUTURE, article should be merged with Politics_of_Galicia if any content is redeemed notable or reliable.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Eduemoni↑talk↓  17:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:RajoyLaMoncloaOfficial-cropped.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:RajoyLaMoncloaOfficial-cropped.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank You Thank You Thank You XD
Hi there, just wanted to say thank you so much for your graph (and your frequent updates to the graph) on the next UK General election wiki page. I find the graph in question quite useful and it's really great to see someone dedicated to updating it so thank you for that!!! Also I see that you are quite active on Spanish General Election's and I was just wondering if you might consider trying to improve some article's on the European Parliamentary elections in Spain as these all seem quite run down, if you have the time to look into that it would be amazing, thanks again! Guyb123321 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I've tried to improve the 2009 election article somewhat, but right now I've not enough time to fully update all the articles as I'd like to (I've been planning to do it for a long time; it's just that I want to focuse first in more politically important elections, such as the local and regional ones in Spain). Hopefully I can center on them soon as there's just one year left for the next European elections, as well as they're becoming an increasingly interesting political issue to talk about in Spain. Impru20 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Update for Greek graph?
Thank you for the adjusted numbers and scrolling table on Next Greek legislative election, but the graph needs to be changed. First, the SYRIZA's may average in the table is incorrect. The number is incorrect because you counted Zouga's "survey" which wasn't an actual opinion poll. Zouga is a Greek TV show, and they simply surveyed a group of viewers who volunteered to be interviewed, with no demographic weighting. Secondly, the color used for DIMAR was far too dark, and makes the table confusing, since KKE is usually identified as the darker shade of red and the party's lines run right next to each other.

If I had any tech savvy I would do it myself, but I don't. --4idaho (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Done, and you're welcome. ;) Impru20 (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. ^_^ --4idaho (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm very sorry to say I've reverted your recent changes to the Opinion poll table on Next Greek legislative election. I did this for several reasons: Hiding part of the table with a scroll bar is a good idea, so if you can do this in its current format, then please do, but the other changes are not acceptable in my view. Cheers, Number   5  7  14:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The changes made the table too wide - it forced my internet browser to create a horizontal scroll bar
 * 2) Something you did made the text in the table smaller (yet the columns were wider) making it more difficult to read
 * 3) You changed the date format from international to American
 * 4) The coding was pretty poor - e.g. using the align=center command for every row, when you can just add it in the table heading
 * I have posted an improved version in your sandbox, which has fixed most of the problems I've described above. The one change it still needs is for the date formatting to be fixed. Can you do this? Number   5  7  15:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've sorted it all out now (was quicker than I thought), and have readded it to the article. Cheers, Number   5  7  15:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just finished the changes, including the date formatting. Take a look at my sandbox to check the new version of the table in order to see if it's more acceptable than it was before. Impru20 (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, the dates are the same as before. TBH, I think the version now on the article is ok, no? Number   5  7  15:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you need this link as 4idaho has reverted. Are you happy with it? Number   5  7  15:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, I thought that with "date formatting" you meant that I had to fix the text wrapping in order to prevent the dates messing up with the rows' height. As for the current version in the article being ok... I don't think it is that ok, for several reasons:
 * 1. The lead column is too wide. It is the same width than a party's polling colum, when this shouldn't be the case, because it looks ugly. It should be made as narrow as possible; preferably to have it just as wide as the data it shows.
 * 2. The link column was thought for the previous table (the one with a lesser font size). Leaving it in with a larger font size makes the table look too "packed" and even cluttered (i.e. some poll rows having double the height of others due to the data in the "Polling Firm" and/or "Date" columns being too compressed. In my opinion, all rows should have the same height (though an exception can be made with the "Election Results" row)). In order to solve this, I've restored the system used in the previous version of the table, that is, to have the polling firms' names to serve as the links themselves.
 * 3. Party colors: the party colors shown in the graph and in the lead column should correspond with those shown in the party's name boxes in the table.
 * I think this is it. Impru20 (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Spanish general election, 1979
Regards your removal of the results table and the claim that the full results "haven't been removed. They've been replaced by a template table", the template does not include the full results - only those for 13 of the 50+ parties that contested the election, whereas the wikitable includes the results for all parties. I have no problem with you using the template as long as you add the full results to it. Thanks, Number   5  7  15:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * PS, I am also concerned that you performed a blind revert on that page, reinstating large amounts of whitespace and also removing the Senate results. Please can you be a bit more careful in future when hitting undo. Thanks, Number   5  7  15:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added the missing parties to the template. However, why do you think a template is needed when the data is only displayed on a single page? Surely it should be substituted there and the template deleted? Number  5  7  16:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

UK Polling graph
Great work on the graph for the upcoming UK election! I think we are due another update though, especially as it is conference season in the UK and we may see some movements in the polls. Apologies for being so cheeky ;) RobDR (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I made a suggestion of scale (going over 50 is really pointless in UK GE politics) on the image talk page, in case ya don't see it. 92.15.61.7 (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Impru20, "Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election" is now listing Green Party in the results on the main table. Is there any chance you could add the Green Party to your graph?  I took on a lot of adding to the 'detailed poll results' table, so that reflects the position of the Greens back to the early months of this year, when instead of being on their current 6% or so, they were on 2% or so.  That way, there is easy access to sufficient data to have a meaningful graph.  DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Golden Dawn's ideology
Although it's true the party is far-right, neo-nazi is a more specific description. All neo-nazi parties are far-right, but not all far-right parties are neo-nazi. And Golden Dawn's ideology is not in dispute. The ideology section on the party's page is extensively sourced, and there is no active discussion on Talk disputing it. Far-right is better than ultranationalist, but there's no reason at all not to use the extensively sourced ideology on the party's page.

The Next Greek legislative election article is simply not the place to be disputing the party's ideology anyways. If someone wishes to dispute the party's ideology, it should be done on the party's article. Until then, we should use neo-nazi, which is the most useful description. --4idaho (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Update for graph of Greek opinion polls?
The graph on Next Greek legislative election has becoming quite out of date, since there has been considerable movement in polling numbers since the last update (at the end of September.) I'd update it myself if I knew how, but I don't. Can you please update it (since you uploaded the previous versions), or I'll go ahead and remove it from the article? (Since it no longer reflects the polling table?) Thanks and cheers. ^^ --4idaho (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--4idaho (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish general election, 2008, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque Country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Next Italian general election
Hi Impru20, thank you for your edits in Next Italian general election. I would suggest you to insert in the polls also Communist Refoundation Party and Italy of Values, which gain more or less 1-2% according to the polls, but they were shown in the previous one. Maybe you can omit them in the graphic because it is already quite crowded, especially for the minor parties. Thank you, kind regards. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)