User talk:Kahlores

This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four  ~  or by pressing or  in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or another editor's talkpage. Another valuable page that may provide information and assistance is User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.

Again, welcome! Buster Seven   Talk  13:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Actually, we really can't. Each wikipedia is its own entity per its users. You should try changing things from within, if you can.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

&#160;


 * That's what you're bound to say, but there are systems you can't change alone. Kahlores (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of U.S. state governments
Thank you for your formatting of the table. It looks good. Shadowjams (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you really want to give me thanks, I take them! Kahlores (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Finnish polling table
I think the division into government and opposition is somewhat misleading since the opposition doesn't form a unified block.

That method of division makes a lot of sense in countries where there are, for example, a "left-bloc" and a "right-bloc". See how this was worked into, for example, the Danish table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Danish_parliamentary_election

In Denmark, comparing the government to the opposition is important, because the sum of the government and opposition parties is what's important.

In Finland however, the coalitions can change from election to election. For example, is it really informative to compare KESK + PS + VAS to the government parties?! If any of those three opposition parties went into government, they would most likely do it in combination with some of the parties currently in government. In the case of PS and VAS, I find it hard to imagine a situation where they would be in government together.

In this context, there's really no such thing as a "government reelection." The parties won't campaign as a unified bloc, they're all diverse, and the coalitions after the election could well change from the pre-election coalition.

The article has plenty of other space to discuss the background for the election (for example, we could work on a "background" section to explain the circumstances of the current government, the events of the term, ect.)

I don't see it as informative to group these parties together as "government" and "opposition" in the polling table however, since the sum of the government vs. opposition doesn't really matter. The coalitions will be formed circumstantially based on the results of the individual parties.

In other words, it's precisely because, as you said, coalitions in finland are formed through "backroom deals" that (I think) it's not informative to sharply divide the parties as government and opposition in the table. I am not from Finland however, and will be happy to defer to you if you feel differently. I can also change the current table to display them as government and opposition as well, rather than a full scale revert to the old table.

Also, credit for the polling table goes to Impru20, so thank him. :P

Thoughts? --4idaho (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * But aren't the parties individual scores what's most important? Like I said, it's definitely important to explain which parties are in government, and which are in opposition, and why, and there should be a long segment in the article about the incumbent government and what's happened during this term. But for the polling table? I feel like it's more misleading to group the parties into clear cut blocs, when really the parties individual scores are what's most important, and what will determine what the next coalition will be.


 * I'll defer to you, but my suggestion would be to leave it the way it is, and simply expand on the circumstances of the current government elsewhere. Namely, the background section, ect. Opinion polling is about what's going to happen at this upcoming election, which will most likely result in a new coalition. And whatever the coalition is, it'll be crafted opportunistically based on the scores obtained by each individual party. That's just my two cents.


 * Feel free to revert if you disagree. --4idaho (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=691283837 your edit] to Kary Mullis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * name = Naked/>. He's also known for his peculiar thoughts on social sciences and astrology http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n13/steven-shapin/nobel-savage [[London Review of Books], "Nobel

Orphaned non-free image File:The National The Newspaper that supports an independant Scotland - Nov 17, 2015 issue.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The National The Newspaper that supports an independant Scotland - Nov 17, 2015 issue.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The National The Newspaper that supports an independant Scotland - Nov 17, 2015 issue.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The National The Newspaper that supports an independant Scotland - Nov 17, 2015 issue.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2016
You keep switching the Netquest opinion poll multiple scenarios. I can only revert it, basically because: 1. First and foremost, because the scenario applies to all parties. You insist on adding the note just to PP and PSOE, but the fact is that the candidate change does not only affect those parties but all of them. So what you're doing only adds to innacuracy. It's not redundancy. 2. Consistency. Notes for opinion polls have been added in Opinion polling articles always next to the pollster name, and this case seems to have no differency. You want to put that differently for no apparent reason. 3. You're not putting any argument for defending such a scheme you defend. There's only negative points on it, and you can't raise a single positive one rather than your own preference for that. But accuracy and consistency are surely above that, so that must be reverted. You argue that "Did you notice the footnotes are in broken English?" What do you mean with this, and how does that justify the footnote change in the table itself? Footnotes' labels are simplifications, just like what you'd do when referencing one link multiple times in the same article. The footnote text itself is well-written, so I can't understand your complain nor how does that explain all your other changes. You also changed the footnote text to blatantly wrong statements: poll identifies party candidates, not party leaders. Party leaders may not be necessarily party candidates for election, those are different things. Furthermore, did you notice that you have the same footnote marking ("S") for both Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría and Pedro Sánchez? You're not even caring in maintaing coherency. 4. You keep adding innacurate footnotes. For example, you added a generic footnote for "Scenarios where Mariano Rajoy is still PP leader, or Pedro Sánchez the PSOE leader." The poll only specifically asks for those in one scenario each. That is, for a candidate at a time (except in the scenario where it specifically asks for both Sánchez and Rajoy). That's important, because when asking for Susana Díaz as PSOE candidate, they are not prompting Rajoy or any other PP leader in the question at the same time. Again, inaccuracy. 5. You keep combining cells. This should not be done, as while this may not be the case, multi-scenario opinion polls may have their multi-scenario polls calculated over different samples, having different source links or different margins of error, etc. There's no argument for combining cells. Cheers, and I hope you actually go and discuss this instead keeping reverting edits, since it's you the one wanting to press for change. Maybe you can show a more constructive behaviour rather than just blatantly accusing others of not having a constructive one when you have not even cared discuss the issue. Impru20 (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a few tweaks to the footnote labels and text, since that's your alleged issue. Sincerely, there's no reason to support your other changes, which only add up to inacurracy and have not even been justified. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian Senate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Labour Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorting for Spanish polls
Hi! Ok, I've taken a look at your suggestion and chose to do some tweaking myself to make it work properly. While I've known about the sortability function for a while, I was not a big fan of it because it affected the table's mechanics (i.e. increasing each sortable column's width beyond its established one; the issue you mention about references and so on). However, it seems a lot of people find it useful and it looks like the trend nowadays is to make these tables sortable by pollster and date, so it's ok.

Nonetheless, I had to make some tweaking to your proposal: firstly, you indeed guessed out correctly that I'd frown at the idea of creating a separate "Sources" column (not only because it'd be a break in consistency with all other opinion polling tables in other articles for Spanish general/regional/local elections, but also because you won't always be able to properly fit this into the table; specifically if polls report a large number of parties and the table is too wide). However, by using the 'data-sort-value' attribute also on the "polling firm" cells, I've essentially added the sortability function into these two columns while preserving the table's overall shape (I've also managed to get it so that you can return it to normal after sorting it by pollster).

The change can now be seen right here; hope it works as intended.

Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Two-round system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Two-round_system check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Two-round_system?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) 09:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Left-right axis, and year-by-year split on opinion polling pages
Hi! Ok, so to answer to both your questions, I don't think there is any Wikipedia-wide explicit consensus on such issues. However, I'll try to answer these based on implicit consensus and practice over time, as well as some local consensus I've seen.
 * The first one would be the most easy to answer. Typically, parties in opinion polling tables are arranged based on their last election result, in a descending order from left to right, because it is the less controversial and the most netural arrangement. This is done overwhelmingly so throughout Wikipedia articles, so while you could attempt to seek consensus for a left-right axis criterion, it would have to be done out of good practical reasons and consensus for it to be achieved in a clearly unequivocal way (otherwise, regular editors could just come in throughout time and re-arrange the tables to what they see as the most typical arrangement).
 * The issue of table splitting is more difficult, as there is not a single-used criterion for it. UK and Italy opinion polling article are typically divided in a yearly basis due to the sheer amount of polls (which at times move into four-digit figures for the entire inter-election period), but I've seen other arrangements (i.e. opinion polling in Canada is indeed split based on a pre-campaign/campaign basis). Typically, though, tables are not split unless there is a specific local consensus for it to be so, and when split it is typically for editing or organizative reasons. So far, seeing the amount of polls in each separate table at Opinion polling for the 2019 Israeli legislative election, I guess those wouldn't require splitting (the 2015 table only has 1 poll, the 2016 has 26, the 2017 one 41... for UK and Italy tables are split because opinion polls each year number well in the hundreds), but I guess that would depend on the local consensus for it.

Hope I was of help. Cheers! Impru 20 talk 14:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next Romanian legislative election
Hi Kahlores,

Thank you for your message in Next Romanian legislative election regarding the political events and opinion polls. I've tried to add only events that had a very major impact on politics in Romania, so events that were covered in press extensively enough to significantly influence public opinion. This is obviously a subjective assessment, but I strove to be as objective as possible. The reason I included them is because some of them, especially the August 10 protest, seem to me (again, subjectively) to have had a larger impact on public opinion than some of the governmental changes. Assuming the reason why events are added to opinion polls is to give a context to the evolution of polls, I thought the events I've chosen are justified.

However, I do understand the concern for lack of objectivity. So definitely feel free to remove any (or all) if you think it would overall be better to do so.

--NetPresentValue (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I understand your good intentions, and I also understand that many Romanians would agree with you about the "large impact" of such and such event. However there is no "test" that anyone could use to objectively conclude the same. Maybe one day we'll use Google News Trends, and even then, we'll face the heap paradox... Anyway, the custom on similar pages is to keep the number of events very limited. Otherwise someone else will remove them, especially if other people obfuscate the table even more.
 * The best thing to do is to copy these events in the related pages: 2018 in Romania (some of them are already there) and 2019 in Romania (almost blank).
 * Also, thanks for your changes on the left-right arrangement. I hadn't seen the referendum. Kahlores (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks for your changes on the left-right arrangement. I hadn't seen the referendum. Kahlores (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I'll remove them. --NetPresentValue (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

2020 Lithuanian parliamentary election
Hi Kahlores. The opinion polling table on this article seems to be messed up. There are sources listed, but not against the rows, which have wildly different outcomes. Also, it's highly inadvisable to try and combine seats and percentages in the same table. Cheers, Number   5  7  21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had left the names of the two main polling firms and publishers (Spinter tyrimai/Delfi.lt and Vimorus/LTV), up for any Lithuanian to do what I cannot do, which is to fill the table. There has to have been opinion polls since 2016. Now since you've been confused, I just hid those lines as html comments.
 * As for the seats... I wish I could change Lithuania's electoral system. But sadly, as you can read in the intro, half of the seats are filled with a two-round system, which can produce somewhat artificial landslides, and that's what it just did. Last time, the Green/Agrarian party took half of the districts in the run-off, with just 20% of the vote in the first round and 30% in the second. Hence the discrepancy, and hence the need for some kind of reminder. To make the table clearer, I added that these are pollings about the "First round". I also added the PR seats, which match the PR votes. And corrected the wrong columns on the right. Kahlores (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The opinion polls have no sources. Please can you provide direct links to the pages that these polls can be found on? Cheers, Number   5  7  22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. Done! Kahlores (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misunderstood the table. They aren't actually opinion polls, they are the election results. I have hidden the table until there are some actual polls. Cheers, Number   5  7  23:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did this table as an incentive, until a Lithuanian contributor comes here. We couldn't do that by our own, for Google Translate would surely lead us to misinterpretations. Kahlores (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Recaps
Hi! Thank you for your effort, but I don't think this is needed or desirable, as it would basically be a duplication of information that you can already find in the articles for each constituency. You already would have a compilation of the provincial distribution of seats in the Results breakdown article that will be created in the ensuing days.

Nonetheless, cheers and good luck for tonight! Impru 20 talk 10:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you ! This must be my first one. But I'm doing this out of passion. Adding dozens of numbers and references is often a cause of headache, but once I start to see the end result, a surge of dopamine seems to appease me and soon after I'm on another page. Gamification worked well on me. Kahlores (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Italian election laws moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Italian election laws, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is just a summary of the various articles linked in the table. There is barely anything to reference, given that the years these laws were enforced is implied by their official title. So you want me to repeat the references provided in each of these articles? Kahlores (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong election map
Sorry for the late response to your idea since I do not check the English Wikipedia "user talk" page frequently (haha). I finished the diagram you aforementioned since I have the same idea as you, you can find it on. Thank you! -- Momocalbee (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Italian election laws concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Italian election laws, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Italian election laws


Hello, Kahlores. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Italian election laws".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!  Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 23:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes in 'Opinion polling for the 2024 Belgian federal election'
Hello Kahlores. You removed the Jamaica coalition in the table of possible coalitions because it never occurred at the federal or provincial levels, and never had enough seats to be a possibility. By applying the same logic, 'Left-wing' and 'Olive Tree' can also be deleted. So why removing the Jamaica coalition, but not the others? And another remark: You changed 'Ecologists' to 'Greens' in the table header, but 'Ecologists' is stil used in the description of the coalitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EotT123 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello EotT123,
 * The motive of my edit was the excessive width of the table. So I tried to find, pixel by pixel, ways to squeeze everything, using abbreviations, breakup spaces and other tricks such as "Greens" instead of "Ecologists".
 * At some point I figured out that the only way I could have it fit within the page, was to sacrifice one tally.
 * Thus I chose the Jamaica coalition. It seemed to me that, although PTB/PVDA are unlikely to enter a government, a "Left-wing" tally can still be meaningful to assess the left-wing's weight on some issues. But indeed you are right to say that they are no more useful here than a Jamaica tally.
 * Don't hesitate to remove it and the other one as well.
 * We should avoid adding too much information lest someone else finds the section to be completely useless and removes it completely. It could happen, there's a rule called WP:CRUFT.
 * Kahlores (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Kahlores,
 * That sounds reasonable to me. Some more thoughts: A left-wing coalition (with PTB/PVDA) is unlikely, but meaningful (as you already said), but I think the 'Big Olive Tree' isn't meaningful. It has a majority, but is highly unlikely, so maybe it's best to remove that one too. Maybe it's also a good idea to add a right-wing coalition, eventhough it's also unlikely (because of VB), but same reasoning as the left-wing applies here. What do you think?
 * EotT123 (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion on this. Do what you think is the most logical. Is the practice of free votes frequent in Belgium? How many bills enacted come from outside the government coalition? I wonder which parties would be in the right-wing tally: N-VA & VB, but then MR and CDh (the right of two spectrums) but not Open Vld and CD&V? This is speculation. Kahlores (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed 'Big Olive Tree' and catch-all (because it's just Vivaldi + Défi, which has only 2 seats). I also added 'Right-wing', which consists of VB, N-VA, Open VLD and MR (Not the same number of parties in Flanders/Wallonia, because there are less right parties in Wallonia).
 * I think most of the votes are majority against opposition. Sometimes, there is support of (one of the parties) of the opposition, but it doesn't happen often that a bill is accepted without the support of all the parties of the majority. EotT123 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Slovakia
Hey,

firstly, let me thank you for your initiative. Your edit is reasonable and gives an alternative to both comments made by me and Impru20. However, in July I didn't have time to work on this remake - I was thinking about deep work on 2020 in Slovakia but I've decided to focus on pages focused on politics, elections and opinion polls.

Thank you for your invitation to work on the political axis or compass of Slovak parties. For now, I see several problems and concerns which I want to present to you and let you think about them:c
 * not all listed parties are relevant; Siet was renamed to Slovak Conservative Party not dissolved. Last activity of this party was 2019 EP election and they became second to last. I don't understand your methodology of parties selection.
 * I would accept European Affiliation since there are relevant sources, however, European integration is more complex information, and cannot be solved just by pro-EU/sceptic/Slavs/nationalism definitions. Smer - SD is strong populistic party and reacts to the public opinion. Therefore in many policies - immigration, LGBT rights, is strongly sceptic to EU stances but still supports EU. The same situation is by SaS and OLaNO - these parties had problems with specific policies but their current activities and actual positions to policies are strong pro-EU. All in all, only a strong eurosceptic party in Slovakia is K-LSNS.
 * Russia/US is very subjective. Most of the Slovak parties stated they do not choose between Russia or US. They support EU and Europe (even Sme rodina is more pro-EU than Russia-affiliated).
 * More gay rights - I see your point what do you want to prove but only one information does not illustrate the position of the party. Smer - SD used to support more gay rights but generally is strongly conservative. Most-Hid is according me and my politology knowledge liberal or liberal-conservative party and supported more LGBT rights before.
 * In all of these, you need to keep in mind that OLaNO is big-tent coalition and composes of more different parties - liberal and conservative. Therefore, any compass you would prepare, there would be some misunderstandings by.

I don't want to disappoint you, I just want to be clear about my opinion.

Madeinslovakia (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I probably better see your intention and motivation.
 * My recommendation is to choose several topics - different policies which are comparable to any other country (social system, LGBT rights, EU-integration level preference, etc.) and look for party programs, manifestos and their stances. It would make better overview of political parties rather than subjectively distinguished position and there would be no problem to find relevant sources for this work.
 * Talking about stated difficulties:
 * I don't see any problem with more than 1 minority party. Hungarian parties are in ongoing process of integration to one big-tent party. For now the biggest differences are:
 * Most-Hid represents more minorities - Rusyns and Romani people. In Medzilaborce District where are Rusyns in majority is their support higher than in other northern Slovak districts. Check the detailed results of 2016 election.
 * SMK-MKP keeps good relations with Viktor Orbán . Most-Hid is more skeptic and during 2016 campaign reached relatively strong support from native Slovaks.
 * SMK-MKP seems to be more conservative, Most-Hid more liberal. However, SMK never joined government including populist HZDS, strong national SNS or populist social democratic Smer - SD. Most-Hid did.
 * If we take classic right-left axis, in Slovakia are usual coalitions of far-right and left parties (SNS and Smer). So, you are right.
 * I would say most of the Slovak parties do not like extreme positions in any policy or topic - pro-EU, LGBT, abortion, etc. Neither liberal nor conservative.
 * OLaNO (governmental party/coalition) includes: OLaNO itself that is conservative, anti-corruption, little bit populist but including some liberals, NOVA which is small liberal-conservative party which cooperates with OLaNO few years, even smaller liberal Zmena zdola of minister of environment Ján Budaj and then really strong christian conservative (some would say radical conservative) Kresťanská únia.
 * I hope I gave you some ideas and insights. If you have more questions, I would answer it. Just ask.
 * Madeinslovakia (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2015 Polish Constitutional Court crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabinet of Donald Tusk. 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) 06:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: Norway
''Hi Spaatsm,

I've only recently seen your 30 October edit removing the 3 events I added to the page.

I know full well the custom on Wikipedia's opinion polling pages. Indeed, we shouldn't mix poll numbers with a subjective selection of events. However, the custom is not to list 0 events, but list only those whose presence isn't objectionable. Government changes aren't, in this matter. Hence they are included for almost all other nations' articles I can think of.

For Norway, it is not the case, but this absence can be explained by the simple fact that, since 2000, until 2018, there had not been any change of government (party-wise) during a legislature.

Kahlores (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)''

ANSWER:

I was applying the same criterion that was applied earlier when someone else also did the same think you did (added events to the opinion tables).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Norwegian_parliamentary_election&oldid=937074669

Talk to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Impru20 about it.

--Spaastm (talk) 12:07, 20 November 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] 12:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

February 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Jeanne Calment‎‎. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! ''You stated in your edit summary reverted vandalism by DeadMary .... We should all tolerate differences of opinion, even when we disagree. I believe your accusal of DeadMary of vandalism to be a violation of the assume good faith behavioral guideline. Even edit warring cannot be categorically considered as vandalism. I invite you to be more considerate in future summaries. If you cannot tone it down, I will open a new entry at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.'' Peaceray (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I retract this word immediately. I could not figure out exactly which other word would fit. How else should I call the shameless removal of two good sources, one of which, in fact, is an article that concludes against the skeptics? I don't assume bad faith, but this is certainly partisanship, so blind that it leads them to remove sources in their favour... Kahlores (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , there are plenty of other more apt descriptions such as Edit warring. I also recommend that you review McSly's.
 * If you cannot edit with a neutral point of view in this matter, including in your comments & in refraining from removing or altering the placement of references & citations, I suggest that you take a break from editing this article.
 * Peaceray (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Peaceray (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Peaceray (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeanne Calment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * List of women in Dáil Éireann
 * added links pointing to Patrick Hogan, Michael Moynihan, Patrick Smith, James Burke, Frank Taylor, Patrick Reynolds, William Redmond, Cathal Coughlan, Hugo MacNeill, John Galvin, Richard Barry, Tom Kitt and Shane McEntee

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electoral district, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Overhang and Gender quota.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Reform UK
Hello, Kahlores. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Reform UK, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Brexit Party
Hello, Kahlores. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Brexit Party, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Jeanne Calment identity switch hypothesis
Hello, Kahlores. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jeanne Calment identity switch hypothesis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Slovak polls
could you help me to transfer what you have done on User:Kahlores/sandbox/Slovakia to Opinion polling for the next Slovak parliamentary election

since the only person who opposed it got banned Braganza (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You did a good job for the columns of the bigger parties.
 * Now the challenge is to find the missing numbers for the Magyar Alliance, SNS, SPOLU, and possibly DV and even MF. It is going to be difficult, we'll have to find them one by one, since none was reproduced.
 * I am unable to help for the moment but I could do, let's say, the year 2021.
 * Kahlores (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * would you allow me to use your sandbox page? Braganza (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course! I was thinking about it. Kahlores (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)