Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:49, 24 May 2013

Welcome!

Hello, 4idaho, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italian general election, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luigi de Magistris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Italian general election, 2013 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --RJFF (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced information

Hello, I'm RJFF. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Civil Revolution, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello 4idaho,

Misplaced Pages is based on the principle of WP:Verifiability which means that every article and all information has to be based on independent, secondary, WP:reliable sources. If Misplaced Pages editors analyse the manifesto of a political movement by themselves or observe and classify its ideology this is considered WP:original research, which is deprecated on Misplaced Pages. What we need are secondary (independent, third-party) sources that back up the statements. Thank you for your comprehension. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

Did you mean to blank the section at Martin O'Malley? If not, no problem. If so, please explain why on the article talk page. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Golden Dawn

Left you some replies to pick over, when you're ready. Dolescum (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Progressive Party and Independence Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Progressive Republican Party (Brazil), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark blue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinion polling table

I don't understand why you want to keep all the unnecessary coding in this table? We don't need to have 189 instances of align="center" when it can be put into the main table code with exactly the same outcome.

In addition, by having the {{clear}} function and insisting that the table be 100% width, you are creating a load of whitespace under the section heading that doesn't need to be there.

Also, the second wording in a heading should not be capitalised unless it is a proper noun. Cheers, Number 57 13:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I now see that for some reason you have reverted my edits to the Italian elections in the 19th century, claiming "not or. self explanatory under Italian electoral law", and even worse, accusing me of vandalism

I think you must have misunderstood what the issue is here. The sources we have only give the percentage of seats held by each grouping, not the actual number. Nick.mon has calculated the seat totals himself using these percentages. This is why his graphs are WP:Original research.

In addition, he has also misused the infoboxes by putting the % of seats as the % of votes received, even though they are clearly different things. Cheers, Number 57 13:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

But thanks for the Ecuadorian seat totals. Number 57 14:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Lets address one thing at a time. First, lets talk about the polling table for gr-leg. The coding is the same as used as the table for the next danish election, german election, icelandic election, the italian election we've just seen, and that's just off the top of my head. It's basically the same table as is being used everywhere else, which is in and of itself a good reason not to change it.

There's also a better reason in my opinion, but, first of all, the {{clear}} should definitely be kept, whichever table we end up agreeing upon, as it takes up vastly more space in the article without it. No one but a few users will see the coding, but a vast number of eyes will see the article. You talked about white space, but if you compare there's far more white space in the version without {{clear}} -- it's just located within the table itself, making it harder to read.

As to the other effects of the current coding, I like that it keeps every column the same size, which both makes it easier to read at first glance, and has a certain fairness to it.

You mentioned wanting to narrow the polling table to reduce the white space, but I don't think that's a big issue, as it's only temporary. The sections above the polling table will increase in size quickly once the election begins to approach, so the entire opinion polling section will be below the infobox, erasing the white space.

However, I can see your point, so here's two different ideas to narrow the polling table. If you look at the page for opinion polling for the Spanish election, there's a column for "Undecided/Abstained", but instead of writing that out, its been condensed to "U/A" with a note at the bottom of the table explaining what that means. I suggest we take this format to greatly reduce the size of the "Undecided/Other" column in the gr-leg article. Secondly, we can take a cue from the article for the next Icelandic election and used abbreviated dates to substantially reduce that column as well.

These two reforms should reduce the size of the table by more than your coding simplifications, thus eliminating white space above the table, while also largely maintaining the current coding, which eliminates white space within the polling table and creates congruency with other wikipedia articles. Do you find this an acceptable compromise?

Finally, I apparently wasn't clear on what vandalism means. I did not mean to insult your motives, I just meant to indicate the edit I was reverting was wrong.

(P.S. No problem. ^_^)--4idaho (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response, but I'm not really clear on what you propose. Perhaps we should compare here? I've started below. Regarding the whitespace, I don't see any whitespace with the current version (I can e-mail you screenshots if you'd like). Number 57 15:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the table I'm proposing. I'm very confused if you're not seeing white space; do you have an unusually large computed monitor? The white space is being caused by the polling firm and dates column, as since they don't have a defined size anymore, it caused long polling firm names as well as the dates to wrap into a second line that makes the entire table twice as tall as it was previously. This table uses abbreviations for the dates to let it stay both horizontally slim (no long columns to keep them in one line) and vertically slim (no two lines required for the date columns.) --4idaho (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What resolution are you viewing on? Have the changes I've just made to the article helped? I think the debt crisis infobox was causing problems as well for people viewing on IE (I use Chrome so couldn't see any problems). Number 57 16:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I use safari, and that fixed the white space problem, so good job. :-) But lets move on to the fundamental issue here. Is the proposed table an acceptable compromise for you? And if not, what changes do you think should be made? --4idaho (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Yes, I think the new table is good. I've made some changes in the example below simply to remove unnecessary coding (which reduces the bandwidth needed to view the table on the article) but doesn't change the appearance at all. One thing I can't see though is how the Polling firm heading has been forced into two lines. Number 57 16:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, I'm OK with this. If there are no objections lets insert this new table... ? --4idaho (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure - have done! Number 57 17:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Original

Current

Proposed table

Note: U/O refers to undecided or other.

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Brazilian parliamentary election, 2010 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Democratic Labour Party

Serge and Beate Klarsfeld (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Free Democratic Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Parties-and-elections.eu

I esteem this website as the most comprehensive database of European political parties and election data. It is very well-kept, neatly arranged, correct and up-to-date. However, it is a self-published website and not a peer-reviewed publication, and therefore not a reliable source in the narrow sense. I find it acceptable to use it as a source to assess the ideology and/or positioning of newly-established parties or minor parties from smaller countries, where there is no other literature available. However, it is not preferrable over scholarly books published by university presses or expert publishing houses.

Moreover, you made a mistake: Nordieck nowhere describes the CDC as Christian democratic. CDC is the liberal part of Convergence and Union, while UDC is the Christian democratic part. Therefore, I reverted your edit. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate your work on articles about political parties and elections. Thanks a lot. --RJFF (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Next Danish parliamentary election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Page edits

Please refrain from making such sweeping edits at the Sofia article. You are removing sourced content and images without prior discussion. Thanks. - ☣Tourbillon 20:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Preben Møller Hansen

Please add references to this article as soon as possible, or it is likely to be deleted.Deb (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

ITN for Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013

On 28 April 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Spencer 23:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Idaho

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Idaho, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about Idaho.

--BDD (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully decline; I don't know what it would involve, but I have very limited time on wikipedia. Good luck with your group. --4idaho (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Swedish general election, 2014 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 my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Socialist Equality Party (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:

You little rascal. First breaching the rule and then asking me to help... ;) --RJFF (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If I am honest, I cannot report the IP without reporting you. The admin will look into the page history anyway and see that you were the other party in this edit war. Of course, I can understand you. But everyone has to play by the same rules, and edit-warring is against the rules, whether we are on the right side or not. Do you want to take the risk of getting blocked, too? Otherwise, I would not do anything, but hope for the IP to stop. Page protection might be an alternative solution. But again, there is the risk that the deciding admin will look into the history and want to block both edit warriors. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I would not draw unto Norsieck's website too strongly. I very much esteem his work, but it's still a self-published website and not a peer-reviewed journal or academic book. He is not a professor of political science, but rather categorises political parties as his hobby (doing a pretty good job at it, if you ask me). But he cannot be a profound expert on the politics of every single European country. So it might be possible, that Nordsieck assesses the Spanish nationalism-unionism-centralism-you-name-it thing differently from, say, the mainstream of Spanish political scientists. And from time to time, he changes the labels, which might be an indicator that he had to revise his initial classification. --RJFF (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree and recognize that, which is why I added in newspaper citations where I could find them. Nordsieck's archive is better then no citation though. As to me being blocked, it doesn't matter that much, it seems apparent to me the page needs protection, and I did violate the 3RR. --4idaho (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the IP has not done anything for the last hours. If the anonymous user has stopped, we don't need administrative action. --RJFF (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to start a thread at Talk:Citizens – Party of the Citizenry? The IP does not seem to be an aggressive POV warrior who disrespects policies and guidelines. I think that he/she is just unexperienced and does not know our customs yet. I have good hope that you can get into discussion with this user and find a compromise solution. Why don't you explain your position on the talk page and invite the anonymous user to answer? If he/she does not react despite being warned and invited to discussion, we can still report him/her. Then, it will be clear that you tried to play a constructive role, and the other side not. --RJFF (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)