User talk:Number 57/Archive 18

Orphaned non-free image File:Henry Newton (bishop).png
Thanks for uploading File:Henry Newton (bishop).png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

1980 Japanese general election
Hey, thanks for your edits on Japanese elections and thanking me! I wanted to say that the cross symbol which I applied to Ohira (†) is used on other articles to indicate a dead person running in an election, such as on the 2000 United States Senate election in Missouri, which is probably the most famous example of this. It's nothing major, just wanted to say my logic. River10000 (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem at all – I know it's commonly used in German text to denote deaths, but I don't think it is widely known among English speakers – it is often just used to denote footnotes, and as there is already a footnote there, I thought that covered it. However, I wonder whether we should make it more explicit and add something like (died 12 June) below Ohira's name? Number   5  7  15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That might be good. I feel like the note is a bit misleading because it's often used on other election pages to denote circumstances where the leader might be an interim, but he literally died in this case. It's a unique circumstance River10000 (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool, have done that. Cheers, Number   5  7  18:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox
Hi

Do you have an opinion? Panam2014 (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Mike Bailey.
Indeed, yes, lots of players, as you correctly say have left. The only help, which I honestly believe is the best guide I can give to you, that should suffice to answer any future enquirer, (if this question of anything's merit is ever put to you), is there are lots of Kings and Queens; actors and actresses; ploughmen and clerics; lots of everyone and everything, in fact, (teas and cars); some enjoy life and obscurity; some fame, some disgrace. For whatever reason they're remembered; because they are, they direct the general reader of dictioneries to further knowledge. There are many football teams; why mention Gorlston ? Rather than delete the whole Gorlston article, which could so easily be done, as an agreed response to the question, as  there are so many teams, education and deference to people's efforts over the years, instead, gives these subjects the priority over applying the principle of remaininig mute upon everything. Preferencing dumbness shouldn't extinguish differences of opinion, (in my own), though; people should still express it in their behaviours. Better to let the facts, as here where they are known, decide. Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The better way to address the issue would be to add Bailey to Category:Gorleston F.C. players (which is linked from the article), although it's not clear whether he ever played for the first team or only the youth team. Number   5  7  19:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed.
 * I hadn't thought.
 * Yes, I do see that.
 * Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I tried, but don't have the knowledge, it seems, to do that, as when you tap the usual ' Edit ' ' Pen ' symbol, the article's entries don't appear.
 * Do you think you could make that alteration for me, and tell me how you did it ?
 * Amusingly, his name should then appear just above the latest entry under ' B ': ' Sailor ' Brown: another former Charlton player, (when there are 'so many' names, (again !), in life: how curious ! Yet, meaning what ?: very probably, nothing at all; but still..
 * Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done it. Cheers, Number   5  7  20:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Terribly grateful.
 * I like to learn: please could you tell me how to ?, since the article's information doesn't appear when you tap the edit, preventing its being included in chronological order.
 * Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You have to edit using the "edit code" function and add at the bottom of the article (you will see all the other categories there too).  Number   5  7  20:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * I'll look. Heath St John (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No idea
Is this you? I thought of reporting for violating NPA but confirming. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately I think it's fair to say that user has a bit of an attitude problem. Note reverts like this or rude responses (usually in Czech) to other editors on their talk page.


 * They have also made some baseless claims that Wikipedia policies do not apply in certain instances, for example that WP:V does not apply to information being added to infoboxes, that MOS:LANG doesn't apply to articles on political parties. Number   5  7  19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Election Thailand 2023
Hello, I would like to clarify that the "official election results" on the map of Thailand will be the number of MPs in each constituency. On the right side will be the number of MPs the list of parties that have them. "Most voted-for party" is the number of names of the party that received the most votes in each constituency. In the calculation, will use nationwide constituency in the calculation. อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please undo the use of Template: Parliament diagram
It gets rid of a lot of the nuance most parliamentary charts need to accuratley represent their makeup, along with just being an uninteresting graph. The seat SVGs are much more engaging for readers and don't feel like a glorified pie chart. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture  &#124;  scream at me  🤓 15:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the fact that the diagram currently displays as a half pie-chart rather than the dots in normal diagrams? Number   5  7  17:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I have problems with it being used, as follows:
 * 1: It doesn't do a good job at representing more diverse parliaments with dozens of coalitions and parties (i.e Iraq, India)
 * 2: It isn't very engaging to readers, and makes it harder to gage information, especially since the seat numbers are on the edge of it.
 * 3: It really isn't neccesary, I haven't seen any complaints about the current dot system, and people seem to perfer it over the half-pie. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture  &#124;  scream at me  🤓 17:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. The issue is that it originally did work (and replicated the dots), but there is a problem with MediaWiki's Graph extension (which is also what is preventing opinion poll graphs working on many pages). When that issue arose, the parliamentary diagram template was also initially disabled, but the creator of the template re-enabled it as a half pie chart (after conferring with an off-wiki group rather than consulting editors on here). See the discussions about this at Template talk:Parliament diagram. Number   5  7  17:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Ryokufūkai
Hi. I'm a contributor to the French Wikipedia and I plan on creating an article on the Ryokufūkai parliamentary groups in the Japanese House of Councillors.

I saw that you're the creator of both Ryokufūkai (1947–1960) and Ryokufūkai (1964–65), and I was wondering if you still possess or have access to Political parties of Asia and the Pacific by Haruhiro Fukui. If so, do you think you could send me captures of pp. 480, 611 and 612 by email, if you don't mind?

Regards, Ménestor (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ping me an email and I can respond to it with images of the pages you want. Cheers, Number   5  7  20:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well received! Thank you very much. Ménestor (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

vandal in wikipedia staff team
please get demoted, stop vandalizing election pages WHEOOButEncyclopedia (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

2024 Russian presidential election
you changed putins votes from 87.28% to 88.48%, but got reverted by User:Wiz KDDI back to 87.28%, since i cannot access the source included am confused which is the correct one? Gooduserdude (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 88.48% is the percentage of the valid vote. 87.28% is the percentage of all votes received (including invalid). The Russian CEC publishes the latter because they calculate the 50% threshold (for winning in the first round) using all votes.
 * I can't access the source either. I assume it might be blocked outside Russia? Number   5  7  20:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * i noticed you put back 88%, if The Russian CEC publishes the latter (87%) as you explained, why are we not using that instead? Gooduserdude (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * hello? Gooduserdude (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello. I commented on the same matter on the article talk page. It's probably best to have the discussion there. Number   5  7  21:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

How are you?
Hey man, thanks for commenting on my post. I just had a quick question: Are you Israeli? Maybe you have a better feeling for this is if you are.

Thanks! Mr manor11 (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

2024 North Macedonian parliamentary election
I did a big mistake in opinion polls can you make it 2024 North Macedonian Parliamentary Elections Mirditor22 (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify which parties are meant to be in which coalitions? Cheers, Number   5  7  13:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Vlen Coalition: Besa, Alternativa, LD European Front: BDI, ASh, PDSh SDMS Coalition : SDSM, LDP/DOM Mirditor22 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I have fixed it. Please check it is all still correct. Cheers, Number   5  7  14:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Mirditor22 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I would have probably ordered the columns differently, as I didn't realise there was so much pairing previous to the most recent coalitions.
 * If you have time to rearrange it again, a more logical order might be as below, as it would allow SDSM and BESA to be combined for the 2020 elections and allow the multiple combinations of A and ASh. Number   5  7  14:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know why but for some reason everyone switches alliances Mirditor22 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting it out! Number   5  7  20:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I think the table looks a lot better now Nikolay4101 (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Serbia
According to several foreign Wikipedia, the party split into two before merging back together under the name "National Party". You might be best looking for sources under that name around that period in time. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Democratic Alliance
Where did you get the info that independents, PP and NPA gain PR seats? From both KBS and Daum, all I see for the total seats (const. and PR seats), DPK gain all 14 seats. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See Talk:2024 South Korean legislative election/Archive 1. The affiliation of the alliance's PR list is broken down, allowing the parties to be identified. Cheers, Number   5  7  13:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh! Thanks :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just asked Erinthecute to create a map for the election, as the one you added isn't that great, but is a good placeholder. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 North Macedonian parliamentary election
If you can, to make VMRO-DPMNE Coalition (Your Macedonia) As the For a European Future. Mirditor22 (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * With History, Member Parties etc. Mirditor22 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Number   5  7  01:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Puntland municipal elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mustaqbal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why?
Why did you remove the literal translation for Gezer Regional Council, especially when most other settlements and Regional Councils do provide a literal translation when possible? Yitzchakm2 (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I don't think it's the same thing. A placename by itself can be translated to show the meaning, but when you have a placename + regional council where that placename is not a description of the area, it doesn't make sense (at least to me), as while it may be a literal translation, it is not the actual meaning (e.g.) "Carrot Regional Council".
 * This is why the only regional council names that are translated is where there is a meaningful translation (e.g. Emek HaYarden Regional Council = "Jordan Valley" or Drom HaSharon = "Southern Sharon") rather than a meaningless literal translation for the main name. Cases similar to Gezer are not translated – for example Gederot Regional Council is not translated to "Fences Regional Council", Merhavim Regional Council is not translated as "Spaces Regional Council" and Tamar Regional Council is not translated as "Date Regional Council"). Cheers, Number   5  7  12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Result
Hey @Number 57, Please update the result elections of 2005 and 2004 respectively, thanks. QalasQalas (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. You might want to check the spellings of names of the minor candidates in the 2005 election. Cheers, Number   5  7  12:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Quick question
For Template:Botswana elections the European advisory council elections are marked as general elections. However, European Advisory Council elections do not fall under the definition of general election in the sense of electing representatives to a legislative body like a parliament or congress. Theyre more like local elections or council elections, where members were chosen to represent specific interests or communities within the territory. There isnt an exact definition for the European advisory council elections so it would probably be best to give them their own section. 22:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * These were defined as general elections (see section 11(1) of this 1947 proclamation) as the EAC was a national body, so not equivalent to local or council elections IMO. Number   5  7  22:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to a Debate on Election Percentage at NOR
You have recently edited the 2024 North Macedonian presidential election. I and StephenMacky1 have been disputing the use of percentages on Wikipedia vs that in the sources (what was there before the fix was the percentage of total votes if blanks are included). There is ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:No original research on whether my and your versions, the former of which StephenMacky1 removed twice, or their version are the proper choice for the article. 212.79.110.147 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:South African election map comparison.png
Thanks for uploading File:South African election map comparison.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted
The proposed decision in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Morecambe FC.png
Thanks for uploading File:Morecambe FC.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Number 57
I would like to note that the articles you have redacted in the last couple of months regarding parlamentary elections have mostly become dificult to read and use as a source thanks to the lack of information you have caused, though I agree that it is important to simplify information (specially for readers that might not read the whole article) I do believe that Wikipedia should be preserved and considered as a place to find specific data about elections, since it is hard to come across tangible information. I request that you stop deleting sources and data that might be important such as seats and the "previous and next" bar on top of the information box as an important and good editor you are. 2806:108E:22:679E:85CA:EBC3:6A85:8483 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Results of the 2021 Japanese general election
I've just changed the infobox to the legislative one to show the difference between constituency and proportional seats. What do you think? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest (i) adding another section at the top for the overall result (which omits percentages) and (ii) removing the leader from the other two sections (to avoid repeating information). Cheers, Number   5  7  14:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you omit leaders? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just found out and updated the page :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Number   5  7  19:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just added the leg. elec. infoboxes to all the result pages. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

1844 Icelandic parliamentary election
I have no intention of starting an edit war, I just wanted to comment on the word choice when referring to the members chosen by the king versus voters. The term konungskjörnir þingmenn (lit. royally elected parliamentarians) are those who the king chose and kjördæmakjörnir þingmenn (lit. constituency elected members) are of course those the voters chose. In your reversion of my edit, you commented that the word usage "made no sense in English". I would argue that it makes even more sense in English than Icelandic as the verb to elect does not just strictly mean to pick a person for a position or office but also simply to choose or make a decision, just as I have elected to write this comment. Now, as to whether we follow the most common way to express something in English or allow for more local nuance is a matter of choice or taste. The term prime minister is a perfectly acceptable and ordinary term in the English language yet when it comes to Ireland, nothing but Taoiseach will do. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're going down a semantics rabbit hole with that. Yes, "elected" can mean "chose", but in the context of an election article, I think it is inappropriate to use it as it will mislead readers into thinking that the members were elected, when actually they were chosen/appointed by the monarch. IMO there is no need to directly translate from Icelandic terms.
 * Re the PM/Taoiseach issue, the latter is used because that is how the post is most commonly referred to in Irish English even though the word is not English in origin. Number   5  7  22:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:I-Kiribati journalists


A tag has been placed on Category:I-Kiribati journalists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hi Number 57. Thank you for your work on Next Croatian parliamentary election. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Regional Council (Israel) vs. County
Hi Number 57. I noticed that you deleted my referring to an Israeli Regional Council as a "county". Many countries, including USA and UK use the concept of "county" and not "regional council". I referenced the word "county" in parenthesis for those who might need a local reference for the concept of "regional council". The two are not exactly the same, as I am well aware of, but for the casual reader, it would explain a lot. Yitzchakm2 (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an appropriate comparison, one reason being that counties are quite different (in terms of their standing) in the countries that have them, and another being that not that many countries have counties. Number   5  7  01:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ref used
Do you still have access to: "Seretse Khama Gains Most Votes" The Times, 18 May 1961, p12, issue 55084 TALK  15:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think all editors should be able to access it via the Wikipedia Library as Gale is one of the sites included, and it has the Times digital archive. Cheers, Number   5  7  18:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oof, gotta wait 3 more months. 48JCL TALK  01:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can have a look if you want – was there something specific you wanted to check? Number   5  7  02:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Request for 1961 Bechuanaland general election. 48JCL TALK  02:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant what in the reference did you want to check? Number   5  7  02:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just wanted a URL for easier access. 48JCL TALK  00:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to create a link to it. I did have a look at the article and it is only a couple of paragraphs, one of which (in summary) says that Khama received the highest number of votes, and will be one of 10 African members alongside 10 Europeans in the Council that will be inaugurated next month. The second paragraph is a quote from him saying "The question of chieftainship is no longer important to me. This election means so much more. Whatever share of power we Africans have in the future we must continue to seek the cooperation of Europeans. There is no room in Bechuanaland for extremism." Number   5  7  01:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ? Sorry for being dumb 48JCL TALK  01:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ashraf Ghani
Have a look at this. Seems POV. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it needs toning down (a lot), but it's not an invalid point to make if he is widely viewed in such a way. Number   5  7  20:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit war
I'm afraid, the discussion about which template/infobox to use in the articles about the South African general elections is causing an edit war. Dylan Fourie often reverted your edits and my latest edit. They claimed that there is no consensus on changing the infobox. I have tried to warn them on their user page. RyanW1995 (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it doesn't look like they are one for listening, but pleased to see they are now indefinitely blocked, so their edits can be reverted. Cheers, Number   5  7  22:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Nir Oz attack
Hey, I am likely going to open an MR myself, but you are significantly more experienced, so I thought I would suggest you do it, hoping that it would be of better quality. Do you have a preference? FortunateSons (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to. I have little hope that one will succeed and unfortunately suspect that article title will remain a stain on Wikipedia's neutrality for some time... Number   5  7  20:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s unfortunate. A second move request (now that you have provided a lot more sources) in a few months will plausibly succeed, but I would find the current title to be highly inappropriate both as a person and as an editor, but we will see. FortunateSons (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would the following be an appropriate way start such a discussion, or are there any errors on form or style? Should I reference WP:Supervote, or is that improper?
 * FortunateSons (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Legislative Elections - France
Seems people from Twitter/X are reverting your work. Impru20 has come to me to ask for where the conversation was to agree for the legislative election temp. was made too, for the French leg. elects. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Just because people on social media are indignant about what goes on over here, that doesn't mean their voices should be ignored!!!
 * Many of those people have an invested interest because what you've built over here happens to be a useful resource for tens of thousands of people. They are about it because they love it and they use it. Some of them even contribute to elections wiki. Talleyrand6 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They're reverting the work cause the info boxes are objectively a better way of communicating the information Aidanaddsthings (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No so, if elected independents aren't represented. Even if it's just one. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna fight this out in a guy's talk page but this really reeks of missing the forest for the trees Talleyrand6 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Put a table then in another part of the article then? Otherwise I concur with my pal @Talleyrand6. Hyraemous (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ditto with @Talleyrand6 and @Hyraemous. Can't see a reason to not have the candidate's portraits in the first section of the page. Lucksash (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's one of the main issues here – no-one has a problem with using the election infobox for presidential/mayoral elections where the photos are of the actual candidates. IMO it is not appropriate to use an image of an individual for a parliamentary election because people are voting for a party or for an individual candidate in their constituency. If there should be any photos, it should be of the party logos, because they are what is being voted for. Number   5  7  03:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not true in many cases. Many parliamentary elections people are de facto voting for a prime minister and therefore is appropriate to have the party leader's photo CCimposter (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 Siglæ (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And who made you the arbiter of this, or anything for that matter? You and your mates have been criticised for citing conversations on talk pages which supposedly agree on a consensus when in reality no such consensus exists - and indeed there is no record of such conversations. You are extraordinarily stubborn, selfish, and cavalier in your edits and disregard virtually all criticism directed at them. Mapperman03 (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically he is an admin therefore some of that authority is derived from that role. Which makes all of this very inappropriate for an admin to do for a encyclopedia that is meant to be collaborative. Hyraemous (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly fair opinion to have with some merit behind it, the issue is that you have been imposing that view upon the entire site for years. There is not consensus on that matter — if anything I doubt discussion would go your way (likely why you seem to try to avoid discussion). Like with many of these disputes, you have to change your behavior to instead of going on a systematic effort to change things without meaningful discussion, just make your point. I don't really agree but there's certainly a case there. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * These changes are clunky. Being immediately given a giant spreadsheet instead of the professionally drawn maps and charts is not intuitive to people wanting to start to learn about these. There is obviously nowhere near consensus to change what has been working well for years now. Sophistry27 (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maps were not removed, and in most cases became more visible because the alternative infobox form is shorter and readers don't have to scroll down to see it. Number   5  7  03:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Shorter only in some cases. The infobox for the 2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections is an example of this system's failings. Lucksash (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point put the larger party seats in the information box and put the rest of the party stuff in a dedicated table for cases like my pal Luck mentioned... Hyraemous (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Disappointed to see the infoboxes being changed back, but a big problem of what is now going on is people blindly reverting made up or incorrect election results back into articles. I wish people would actually look at what they are doing when they are hitting the undo button ffs. Number  5  7  20:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * People are reverting your edits which are omitting important information about voter numbers and turnout, along with other information. You are actively making it harder to find out information about these elections in an easy way. If corrections need to be made, then make them without cutting out important information. Wikipedia is meant to be easily digestible, and your edits make it harder to find the facts Maxine McKeown (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Imma have to agree with this. Nursultan Malik(talk) 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Maxine Zlad! (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with this Dylan Glasbergen (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * gonna have to agree with this, the infoboxes are just word vomit, its really difficult to parse through them to read and identify the important information - such as turnout, voter number change or leader of party A0957 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Number 57 I understand the frustration with the unsourced results especially, but it does seem like there is little explanation of why such results must be in particular formats. I've asked for clarification on discussions as prior mentioned with @ValenciaThunderbolt and @Impru20, and if you could provide them it would be swell. Especially when there is just a brushing off of such efforts as 'blind reverts' when there are other conflicting reasons it leads people to be more up in arms. Regards, Quinby  ( talk ) 20:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that changing the format of a infobox is different to correcting potentially false information. One can remove potentially false information without massively changing a infobox's look. Hyraemous (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 Siglæ (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're correcting misinformation on the articles, then that's certainly a good thing - but going ahead with all of these unpopular changes to the infobox formatting alongside the fixes results isn't the way to do it. ItsAstronomical (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No one hit the undo buttons, they just added the infobox back without touching other stuffs. Anonymousioss (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not true – there are dozens of examples where people have reverted back in nonsense results. Here an editor reverts back in a set of results that are largely made up (vote totals and percentages have been back-calculated from the seat totals). Here an editor reverts back an incomplete and unsourced version of the results table (which doesn't match the sourced found). Number   5  7  02:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is, why not fix the results in these articles without changing the whole infobox?
 * I don't have the greatest grasp of Wikipedia orthodoxy/rules, but it seems to be causing more harm than good? Just laying my two cents. CainNKalos (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I thought it was an improvement to change the infobox at the same time I was correcting the result figures. But if someone doesn't like the infobox change, they should revert only that part of it back, without blindly reverting all the other changes. Number   5  7  03:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lemme rephrase then.
 * Why keep changing the infobox to what you prefer when it keeps causing controversy at large and on other websites then? I think I can remember this being the 3rd time at least where I can remember this sorta thing popping up since Nov '23.
 * It feels like putting your head in the lion's mouth and asking to get it chopped on? I'm not trying to provoke/cause offence, but it just feels a little bit like the definition of insanity. CainNKalos (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Or like, you know, don’t change the visual part when consensus isn’t reach and stick to changing the wrong information without causing an edit war? It isn’t that hard Siglæ (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "I wish people would actually look at what they are doing when they are hitting the undo button ffs." Peak fucking irony lol. It&#39;s a Trap Dang it (talk) It&#39;s a Trap Dang it (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That's actually a sign of authoritarian rule and double standard. When they are the ones who made the changes, did they actually look at what they are doing?
 * A new RfC is the way to go. Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

57, what is going on? This is really Twitter-related? Plz let me know if I can help--I have no involvement with these articles. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's only twitter-related insofar as the issue was first noticed there. There has, to my knowledge, been so sort of collective action from there. All of the outrage at Number 57's actions is a wholly warranted reaction. All of the page revisions, however, are wholly organic to Wikipedia users AFIK. Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty much. I see this pop up every few months now, and it's pretty much always Number 57 related.
 * I think it's really just a clash between how Twitter users like seeing the election articles, and between how Number 57/related Wikipedian's like seeing the articles. (Personally, I think most 'normal' people would prefer articles to be like the former.) CainNKalos (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of us on Wikipedia would also agree with Twitter folks. Also there's a similar issue with him and election maps.
 * The principle stands though. He does these things without consulting the broader community. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Talleyrand6, I wasn't really asking you--and yet I think I answered you already, elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding onto this, one of the reason this idea is so unpopular on Twitter, is because making election wikiboxes is a form of creative expression and interacting with your friends, as trite as that may sound. To have a singular force seem to want to remove this makes that force very, very, VERY unpopular with people who know little of how Wikipedia's systems function. Lucksash (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not very charitable Talleyrand6 (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's how I know it because I'm happily part of that community. Lucksash (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, Number 57, your actions here seem to me innapropriate, in that they are mass altering article infoboxes in a clearly controversial way without establishing any sort of centralised consensus first. I would recommend that you refrain from altering any more until a discussion is held to achieve such a consensus. Personal preference is not an excuse to alter essentially every single parliamentary election page over the wishes of many other editors. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 until further notice. This is not new and it was rampant enough for an entire YouTube video to be made on the subject. Hyraemous (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I went and had a quick look at said YouTube video, and uh. 300k views isn't great. Especially with comments getting 3, 4k likes actively not liking this particular editor.
 * So +1 as well.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVIl_DJl5NU&pp=ygUWd2lraXBlZGlhIGVsZWN0aW9uIHdhcg%3D%3D CainNKalos (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wish to add that the role of an administrator should be to maintain order and encourage consensus-making. Your actions, such as creating a false consensus with only 4 people, instead contributed to disorder and instability.
 * I agree with the move to replace false information or trying to make the info boxes simpler. But since:
 * The changes are overly major and it in the process unnecessarily sacrifices too many information
 * The move was so controversial that it has been causing chaos and disagreements among the community for months
 * It has been imposed upon by a minority of users when others were not properly informed, and later maintained authoritatively without a proper medium of creation of new consensus
 * I believe you indeed should rescind yourself from the edits in avoidance of further chaos, and allow the broader community to reach a consensus. Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I rarely chime in on here, but for what it's worth, I agree with this and think a wider discussion is needed here. Number57 has made many great points and made invaluable contributions, but he seems to be making unpopular changes and seems willing to railroad them through. Ceboswell21 (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think on this especially it's shown with the low user count RfCs being used to make broad sweeping changes. There were only 2-4 users contributing in some of his consensus citations, and it can seem like Number57 has been going recently into the territory of WP:GAME violations. It seems that it's repeatedly come up on issues with his recent edits in this manner. While he's made some invaluable contributions to Wikipedia, such as his edits on early Icelandic elections, his recent infobox changes on elections articles have been really quite damaging to the formatting many people are used to, especially when as I mentioned earlier, he's doing it through railroaded tactics that seem to be a violation of WP:GAME. CIN I&#38;II (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree.
 * Personally I believe an administrator should be able to address their own changes just like every other ordinary user would. They should, although be able to advocate their own views, remain as neutral as possible when maintaining a serious discussion on a creation of consensus among users on matters.
 * Number 57 has shown none of that over the years. His track record has shown him unilaterally enforcing changes towards the community as a whole, with dissent not even considered. This shows a concerning trend of a rise in authoritarianism in his rule. And this cannot be continued.
 * WP:ADMIN expected administrators to communicate when they make significant changes. Not only has Number 57 failed to do so, his actions actually may be in breach of basic policies, by indirectly but seemingly knowingly causing consistent edit warring among users of differing views, as well as a rise in tensions. This is not the kind of behaviour of which one would expect from an administrator.
 * I do not wish to be blunt, but if even under this overwhelming opposition against the radical infobox changes that he decides it is a good idea to reverse the new consensus in favour of ordinary election infoboxes or begin suppressing dissent, then there would be serious doubts on whether Number 57 should continue to serve as an administrator of this site. Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 this is precisely the point Siglæ (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the first move is to get this discussion moved to a policy page where it can be discussed because right now, whatever you think of the these changes, it looks like a Twitter mob has descended on to Number 57's User talk page to complain and while it might feel good to vent, it's a terrible way to change the system as it focuses on one person, not the process and changing it to whatever version you prefer. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It focuses on the one person that also ignored the process and changed it to whatever version he prefers. Edit warring isn’t ok, but we can’t just ignore the causes. I will gladly partecipate to the policy page discussion. Siglæ (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Where do we go? Hyraemous (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for the discussion, here it is:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_legislative_election#The_template_requires_urgent_upgrades CainNKalos (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello My name is Nafis Amin. I am a Bangladeshi Tuvaluan Muslim living in Riyadh. Can I know you please? Travelhijabi (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2002 Vietnamese legislative election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independents.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox legislative election inside an Infobox election
Sorry for the accidental revert at South African elections.

Unrelated to that, I have a question about this issue that I noticed. 1990 Serbian general election is the example article. This article has two modules inside Infobox election. The turnout in the first module is centred (as it is supposed to), however, by default the turnout in the second module is not centred? Take a look for yourself. Instead of adding center around it, is it possible to fix this issue in the code? This can also be noticed in the HTML code as style:text-align:center is missing for this turnout. Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 18:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I think this is in the style (css?), rather than the template code. It also only seems to be an issue when the template is embedded (it is centred as expected in 2022 Israeli legislative election for example)... I don't really understand much about how style things work – perhaps Jdlrobson could advise? Number   5  7  20:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

French elections - 1932 to 1962
Could you revert and re-add info from these pages when they were reverted? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I may get to it at some point, but it's increasingly tiresome having to restore correct/sourced information when it just gets blindly reverted again and again. Number   5  7  15:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're telling me. I've had to revert Impru's edit for the 2024 SK election, as he said there was no consensus for using TILE. So I reverted his revert, stating that the conversation is in the first archive of said page's talk page. I'm in the same boat as you. If you're going to revert an edit on a page, make sure that it you aren't doing so blindly, as doing so could have consequences, and can restore edits that could be construed as misinformation. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

How to edit party modules?
Hi there, I saw your edit on the Next Japanese general election about making edits to party display names in the modules instead of directly in the infobox.

Could you remind me how to find and edit the modules? I used to know how to do this but forgot. I recall that the modules are buried pretty deep and not super intuitive to find. Thanks. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They are at (e.g.) Module:Political party/A. Cheers, Number   5  7  15:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Icons, Modules
Not sure how often you're checking the talk page these days, but I started a discussion at that you might be interested in. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

About a revert you did
I am cluless about this revert where you said "This creates a mess of inconsistent reference styles". But in reality this isn’t correct. The previous reference style don't give us idea about the source because it just shows the whole source information in the first and then use only "Nair [P]" for the next sources. The style I used is common in Wikipedia and everytime you click in any source it shows you the source at the bottom in the Bibliography section. And even if this style creates inconsistency that isn’t even a issue or threat. Mehedi Abedin 10:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You left it in an inconsistent state because you had changed the reference format for the Nair book, but not the other two sources used. You may also not be familiar with WP:CITEVAR, which states editors should not changes the existing reference style without first seeking consensus. Number   5  7  23:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP
is back! If they continue vandalising, could you lock those pages? For now, I think a block is sufficient. Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 11:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see they've been blocked already, but let me know if they return (sorry for the delayed response, was watching the football!). Number   5  7  23:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 09:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Restoration of the revert of Mizra
I see that you restored the revert I did on Mizra.

The source does not even mention the word "Mizra", nor it says anything about the fate of the villagers. Did I miss something? Please read the table again and refer me to the relevant part. Artium (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The source confirms that Rub al-Nasra was one of at least 20 Arab villages sold by the Sursocks, and that it had 50 families. Number   5  7  23:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The spelling is differenmt and Mizra is not mentioned explicitly. How do you know it is the same place? It is not uncommon for two Places in the region to have same or similar names. Eg. Azour in Lebanon and Azour in British Mandate Palestine, Tuba-Zangariyye is Israel and Tuba in the West Bank. 46.31.103.16 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because there are multiple ways of transliterating Arabic. The village is listed as being in Nazareth sub-district, so is clearly the same place. Number   5  7  19:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Revert question
Not sure I understand your rationale here. Plenty of current and former politicians, among other famous people, on this site have their spouses and marriage years listed in their infoboxes even if the spouse doesn't have an article. Schiffy ( Speak to me &#124; What I've done ) 13:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are for summarising the key information in the article. I do not think her former husbands are key information – the info is not even in the article itself. Number   5  7  19:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While normally the case, infoboxes for people cover plenty of minutiae that aren't deemed important enough for the rest of the article, such as spouses that don't have their own articles. For another political example, look at US Congressman Kevin McCarthy. The only mention of his wife outside of the infobox is that she exists and they have two kids. For outside of politics, I point to Gene Wilder. The first two of his four wives have nothing more than a cursory mention. To add, one of these husbands of Dalia Rabin is even in a picture on the article about her father. To call something like that unworthy of even being mentioned in the infobox, you'd be calling a lot of infoboxes on articles about people, living and dead, into question. It feels foolish to start picking and choosing what's relevant enough among new edits. Schiffy  ( Speak to me &#124; What I've done ) 21:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes should not contain info that isn't in the article – see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article). Lots of things are commonly done that shouldn't be, but just haven't been fixed yet. Best to fix ones with problems rather than create more with problems. Cheers, Number   5  7  21:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Bishop's Stortford F.C.
Good evening Number57.

Why was the Bishop's Stortford F.C. page reverted back? You mention 'overlinking'?

Can you please explain.

Thanks! GlenTheYid (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP
has now edited 2021 Serbian local elections. I've reverted them several times now but won't do it again until they get blocked/the article gets protected. Do you know where I could report this if it continues in the future, instead of opening a new section on your talk page as I've done since they began this last year? I know that IPs are not allowed at WP:SPI because I've tried there already once. Vacant 0 (talk &bull; contribs) 19:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Have blocked the latest IP. I would suggest the next place to go is Long-term abuse. Unfortunately I suspect near-permanent semi-protection of most Serbian/Montenegrin election articles might have to be the end result... Number   5  7  19:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll see how LTA works and will make a report there. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 19:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)