User talk:Friendlyhistorian/Archive 1

Friendlyhistorian, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Friendlyhistorian! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Friendlyhistorian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Syrian election results tables

Hello. You've just broken the alignment on several Syrian results tables by removing the align=left function. Please be more careful when making edits - using show preview is usually a way to avoid errors like this. Thanks, Number 57 20:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Popular Movement of the Revolution editing

Hello. My version of the election results tables is the one which is widely accepted on similar articles about political parties. I reverted your edits because I don't see them as an improvement to the article. --Sundostund (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Those tables aren't "mine", nor I created them. Its just the version I prefer (and not just me), and is used on many other articles about political parties, and that makes them widely accepted. So far I didn't see your version on other articles, but I'll certainly revert it if I do. --Sundostund (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do revert those edits which I consider non-helping and, in a way, a degradation of the article in question, and I return the article to its previous version or modify it in some way. I am doing that when necessary, regardless of who the editor in question is. Naturally, I'm not the only editor who is doing that, its an important part of work here. Also, please stop adding new sections at my talk page and keep the discussion here, if you find it necessary to continue with it. --Sundostund (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to be a better editor

Of course – just look at the work of more experienced editors, and try to emulate them. That's how I started with editing back in 2010. --Sundostund (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the advice sorry for bothering you

Re: Removing time in office

Its very simple, actually – when you add time in office, or any other element to an existing article, you need to think whether it fits in graphically and aesthetically in in that article. IMHO, it does not fit well in the Syrian and Lebanese articles. Its not quite a crucial element in a list of officeholders anyway. --Sundostund (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No. They are not necessary nor universally used on Wikipedia, and its not obligatory for every list of officeholders to have them... Please, stop adding new sections at my talk page and keep the conversation here. Also, try to make your messages much more coherent. --Sundostund (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

but you said to Tlhslobus I am not sure whether duration in office really is an important and necessary part of lists such as this one... If you really insist on it, fine - but also implement it at List of Prime Ministers of Syria, for the sake of consistency. why the double standard just leave it alone

That is exactly what I said – I am not sure (meaning I doubt) the necessity of it... Such elements can be a part of a list of officeholders, but not necessarily and they definitely shouldn't be included in every list. --Sundostund (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Listen sorry if i am annoying i just want to contribute. Do you want me to ask you before i edit another leaders page i want to avoid edit conflicts

I understand your desire to contribute – as you can see, I helped with some of your edits (Syrian ones), and I will continue with that... If you want to be a good editor here, try not to see petty things like this one as really important. As for being annoying, I suppose all people have occasional problems with that. --Sundostund (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I have seen your edits the article is beautiful thanks for the help

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to DC

Popular Action (Peru) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Democratic Front

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Constitutional Rally

Hi you’ve just edited Democratic Constitutional Rally to show that in the 1989 elections its share of seats increased by 141, when the previous edit said 16. You haven’t provided a source for this, but from memory there were opposition assembly members (around 16] before 1989, so indicating that the party’s share of seats increased (from zero?) to 141 doesn’t seem right. Could you clarify please? Many thanks. Mccapra (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Democratic Party of Côte d'Ivoire – African Democratic Rally (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to RDP

People's Rally for Progress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to UMP

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Blindly reverting

Hello. This undo restored several formatting and other errors to the article, including whitespace at the end of the history section, incorrectly aligned numbers, a linked heading (which is not allowed per MOS:HEADINGS), as well as issues such as unnecessarily wide section headings (e.g. writing out "Percentage of votes" rather than simply "%". Please try to format tables and headings properly if adding them to articles. Thanks, Number 57 21:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Again: You cannot put links in headings. Please familiarise yourself with MOS:HEADINGS. Number 57 07:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, ask away. Also, when you post a message on a talk page, please sign it using four tildes. 57 10:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Misleading information

Hello again. Please could you not put "Not released" in the votes columns of election history sections. The results were probably released, but it's simply a case that no-one has added them to Wikipedia yet. Claiming they were "not released" is almost certainly wrong and original research. Please could you remove this from any article that you've added it to.

Also, a few other editing tips for tables:

• Please center-align the columns. This is to avoid numbers being incorrectly right-aligned
• % signs are not required in the percentage column
• Keep the headings as short as possible – "Leader" not "Party leader", "Candidate" not "Party candidate" etc
• The headings do not need to be bolded using ''' as they are automatically bold
• There is no need to add a header to tables that duplicates the heading of the section.
• Keep the percentages consistent with regards to the number of decimal places (e.g. don't use 36.3 for one election and 46.34 for another).

Cheers, Number 57 22:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on this edit, just a reminder to please centre-align columns (removing the alignment code means it defaults to left-aligning) and you do not need to add bolding to heading titles – this is done automatically. Number 57 18:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Election history tables

I really don't see an issue with leaving them empty when we don't have the figures – I can't think of any appropriate wording that would work. Leaving them blank may also encourage readers to fill them in if they have access to the figures.

Also, I think it's best to leave headings as simply "Candidate" or "Leader" rather than "Party candidate" or "Party leader". The party part is clearly implied by the virtue of the table being on the party's article. Cheers, Number 57 11:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

List of presidents of Lebanon Good day today and tomorrow night. OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:2296:9498:0:0:6B8:20AD (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Explanation

Hello. I need to ask for an explanation from you about your edits on many lists of officeholders: namely, scaling down font size to 85%, and especially changes like the one you did here – [1] (so far, you added the same change on lists of presidents and prime ministers of Egypt, Iraq, and quite a few others). I don't see those two ideas of yours like any improvement to the articles in question, and I don't understand them at all. Please explain your thoughts on this to me, and lets work on this together, instead of implementing those edits unilaterally. --Sundostund (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Of course I would message you first, I have no desire to enter into an edit war... I find your explanation not sufficient at at all - the tables weren't too big, as you said. That is a normal, standard size of tables on English Wikipedia, and you can't "forcefully" scale them down, especially the way you did on the Cuban list, and on Egyptian and Iraqi ones among many others. I must ask you to undo such edits yourself, and refrain from making them in the future. --Sundostund (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Look, I'm always open for consensus and compromise, but your edits are simply not useful and are, most certainly, in violation of MOS:SMALLTEXT. Having that in mind, I must insist that you undone scaling down font size to 85% and adding Template:Small from lists where you added it so far, and to refrain from doing that in the future... As for adding Time in office, I was initially puzzled by that element as well, but it can find its place in lists, and I don't have some strong objections over it. --Sundostund (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we do. "Forceful" scaling down of lists isn't useful in any case (especially if it involves a policy violation), and should be undone. --Sundostund (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

My tone is quite appropriate here, and it is directed only at the edit, not the person. Your edits "force" lists to be scaled down, and I already prove you that its a violation of a policy, which is unacceptable. It is wrong in any list, and I was planning to undo that on Rwandan, Ugandan and other lists in question for some time now. In the meantime, you emulated their bad example in many other list, which just make the issue worse. And yes, I must insist that you undone that, while I am ready to assist in that... As for the Liberian list, I am sorry for removing Time in office, it was a mistake; as you may see, I edited your version of the list and improved it, and I will add Time in office to Vice President of Liberia as well. As I said above, I don't have some strong objections over it - in my view, lists can go either with or without it... I can only fully agree with the last part of your last message on my talk page: "i will revert them size but time in office will remain ok". Yes, we will keep Time in office. --Sundostund (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Amen. So, I will assist you in removing scaling down font size to 85% and Template:Small, keep Time in office in lists, and add it to Vice President of Liberia when I find time. --Sundostund (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Cape Verde

You changed the whole layout of the lists of presidents and prime ministers, although that layout contains Time in office. I see no reason to change it, please restore the previous version. --Sundostund (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I just added Time in office to Vice President of Liberia, as I promised. I also reverted Cape Verdean lists to the previous version - that version clearly does contain Time in office, and I don't understand why you'd be opposed to it. --Sundostund (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. Those tables are being increasingly used in articles of the other countries recently, I find them being helpful and improvement. I see no reason to remove them from Cape Verde, especially since they contain Time in office, which is such an important element to you... I will change the 85% scaling at other articles have time, I was planning that for some time now. As for the zooming of my browser, it varies - sometimes its 100%, 150% or even larger, or without zooming at all. But, in every case, "forceful" scaling down and adding Template:Small looks bad to me, regardless to the browser. --Sundostund (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, I have to disagree. That format was developed not so long ago, its being used by quite a few articles by now, and I do prefer it, especially for lists with small number of officeholders. Cape Verde is perfect for that, and I was also thinking about implementing it for the lists about East Timor... I really appreciate your offer to help me with the 85% lists, you are more than free to help (in the same great way you undid your disputed edits yesterday). I myself will work on that when I find time, I have some much more important ideas now. --Sundostund (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. That format was originally developed for military-related lists, then some components were added for use in lists of politicians. So far, its mostly used for small lists, like the ones about Cape Verde, Sao Tome and Principe, and similar ones. I can see it being used for East Timor, Namibia, and other small ones... As far as I know, its used in some lists which have like 15-20 officeholders, but I doubt someone would attempt to use it in really big lists, like List of presidents of the United States or List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, so you don't have to worry about it. --Sundostund (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Latest edits

Fine, if you want to place the Portrait before the Name in lists, I guess I can accept that. --Sundostund (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Officeholder tables

@Friendlyhistorian: I still do not understand why you insist elections should be before everything else. For example, looking at South Sudan, you will notice that 1/10 boxes have had an election, meaning if was in the front there would be 9 empty spaces to the front with no information. If I was a normal reader, I would rather firstly know when the person served, rather than elections, as that is more ambiguous information, compared to the very specific date of taking/leaving office. Skjoldbro (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Listen you said you were open to compromise is your answer yes or no; As for the election most tables the elections are before the dates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs)

@Friendlyhistorian: Once again, I am telling you not to remove parts of messages (or whole lot of entire messages, as you did now) until discussion is over. If its hard for you to differentiate between Skjoldbro's and mine messages, I advise you to increase your attention before reading messages. But, the really important thing is that I saw this message of yours, among what you deleted recently from this page:

Listen, use the templete you used before, i will not undo your work my only demand are that the table is in that order:

That message was directed at Skjoldbro. Does that mean you now accept the use of his version of table, since you opposed it until now? As you may see, I returned several lists with his version of table to their earlier appearance (as per WP:BRD, and even before he gave an advice to do that; he posted it here, before you removed it). Now, these lists are formatted as they where before he worked on them (with a few changes):

• List of presidents of Cameroon
• List of heads of state of Mali
• President of Gabon
• List of presidents of Cape Verde
• List of prime ministers of Cape Verde

I will be very glad if you accepted the use of Skjoldbro's table, which I find as much better than the ones currently in use at those articles.

As per your proposal and direct question to me, I declare that I will accept any idea which is acceptable to Skjoldbro. We are talking about his work and effort here (which you undid on several articles), and in my opinion his ideas should be respected. I find him to be a greater authority in formatting tables than myself, and I appreciate his work (although even I had some doubts about it a year ago, but I realized he is right on many points). My only demand is to see these elements added to tables:

No.

10 years (if a person served for a exact period of years, without days involved).

14 years, 98 days (if a person served for a non-exact period of years, with days involved).

Sundostund (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

---

@Friendlyhistorian: I did, and I am, I think that my proposal for a different coding shows that. But compromise involves discussion and I don't agree with elections being where you want them to be, without a proper discussion. There is an equal number of tables which have elections in the back as in the front, so I don't believe that to be a valid argument. But to further illustrate my point, I have taken the liberty to create some tables with different setups of elections here: Election setup. Here is shown Version 1 (My preferred setup), Version 2 (Yours) and Version 3 (without elections).

Firstly, I want you to look at it from a aesthetic perspective. What LOOKS better? The one with a blank box in the middle of the table or the one at the end? I would argue Version 1 is far superior in that regard.

Secondly, I want you to look at it from an informational perspective. Which of these present the information bests? Again, I would argue Version 1, as the arbitrary number of an election year is moved after the more precise dates.

Lastly, you have to remember that some of the tables we are talking about, do not have elections at all. So, if you look at Version 3, you will notice that every value moves one row to the left, if we were to use Version 2 for all tables. However, if we use Version 1, you will notice there is no change in the place of the other values. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Listen your tables are mostly same from before the only diffrence is the code the fact that it can not be edited by visual editor (which really screwed me over but besides that) and the election position if have already conceded the table if i give you the election table what do i get nothing and this why i insist.As for the blank box we use this — literally half the people in latin american or african lists are unelected dictators its literally coup after coup after coup after coup its really funny.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs)

Well, if we were to use the other coding which previously suggested, then you would be able to visually edit, so I don't really see an issue. To see that it works, look at List of heads of government of Ethiopia. So, that would mean that you "get something". But I still don't understand your reasoning. Is it just because otherwise "you don't get anything"? Because I don't find that to be a valid reason. Sure, it might be funny. Like I stated before, and showed in my example, it is clearly an ineffective way to present the data and less visually appealing. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think putting election before dates looks better and a lot of list do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs)

Why do you think that? Skjoldbro (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Because you see the face the name and when he was elected then when he took office when he left office and the time in office.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs)

But if you do it another way, then it is different. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Skjoldbro:. I strongly disagree with the move of the election years on the right side. With english being a language read from left to right, it's way more logical to have the election column being read before the start of the mandate, as in the chronological order. Being read out loud, it make more sense to have "This person named X was elected on Y year and thus was president from Y to V". You mentioned that in some cases it is left empty, but that is very important in itself, as it give the reader the information that the head of state didn't come to power via an election. In several templates, we add "Coup d'Etat" and the inner link to the coup page when it exist. Or we add Interim, for example. In my opinion, when reading such lists as a readers we find oddities, like a head of state with a term shorter than usual or without a number but a "-", that make us wondering and wanting to know more. The inner links to the elections, coups and others thus are the most important of these lists, - with of course the links to the actual individuals - and shouldn't been relegated to the side of the tables. I've seen you've updated several pages, and thanks you for that, but I'm really in favor of keeping the election columns the way they were before. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aréat: Disagree, for one, it has been standard layout to have elections near the end. Additionally, seeing as both presidents of the US and Featured article prime ministers of the UK shows time before election, I would argue that your way would be the incorrect way to read it in English. You will notice that almost all tables only have elections in the front, because of recent edits even though there were no consensus to make the change, as seen in by this conversation. And concerning having them to the side, if there are oddities, such as acting and "Coup d'Etat", you would click on those, and not the election prior to those, or in many cases the blank unlinked "-" in the election column. Skjoldbro (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

How is citing examples an argument? You have yourself changed more than a dozen of pages today that had the election first. Those are as much arguments that it should be this way. In some case, I had them added myself when there were no election links before, so there wasn't a previous version. By the way, the pages you link show in themselves that there is lots of variations to these pages. Again, elections chronological happen before the start of a mandat, it is fairly logical to have them before as well in the columns.--Aréat (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aréat: I have changed many of them BACK to having the elections in the back. Sure, there is a difference in layout, but they both still show that elections are after time. If we are going by what is chronologically correct, shouldn't the elections be the very first thing then? Since the elections is before a officeholder is named. In any case, if the UK page can be made FEATURED while having the elections after time, then surely there is no logical problem. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: The persons existed way before they were elected. You also didn't talk about the importance I mentioned of these elections pages in giving further informations that the readers look for when going through these lists. There are many different sorts of head of states lists, the very ones you sourced show there isn't a common type. The election year being placed before the start of the mandate figure on several dozens of them, and I agree with @Friendlyhistorian: in keeping them there. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aréat: They did, but they didn't become officeholder until after the election, so by your logic it should be first. Also, if the whole table should be focused around the mandate (rather than the officeholder) shouldn't ministerial list have the government/Prime minister before since that is their mandate? In any case, there is a number of tables, such as ministers which doesn't have elections; this means that the placement of time office moves when going between Minister and prime minister. That doesn't make things more uniform, but less. By having elections after time, layout of the same information: Image, Name & Time in office remain the same. The elections give exactly the same information whether they are in the front or in the back. However, lists with 9/10 blanks provides unnecessary blank spaces in the beginning. When most people are looking at these list, 90% of the readers will want to know two things: Who and When. Therefore, this information should be provided first. Having blanks in the beginning does not help the reader in way. You keep saying that there are many pages with elections in the front. However, when looking at heads of gov for the EU: 28 currently have elections in the back, with an additional 7, which used to have before FH's changes. Which means that out of 51 (excluding those with none), only 6 used to have in the back, that is a mere 10%! So while there might not be a completely common type, it should give an idea of what is considered the most common and used. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: They existed, were elected, and became head of state. That's the logic order and how it feel natural to present in the table according to me. I presented my arguments above on why these links are very importants, and their absence as well. They're not unecessary, they provide direct information : these officeholders weren't elected. These election links direct the readers who want to know more to the pages that give the most information about these mandats, beside the individual pages. I'm not going around changing others pages, but those that already have them this way shouldn't be changing, in my opinion. We disagree, so maybe you could adress this issue on some general talk page of the wiki? --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aréat: Then the layout should be: existed, joined a party, chose a VP, were elected, and became head of state. Which seems increasingly ridiculous. It all comes down to two pieces of information that most people want: The Who and the When. These are the most important, and as such should be the first! Placing between 0-6 relatively arbitrary numbers between these, will not help the readers. Keeping elections behind time, does in no way shape or form impede readers from finding out more information (should they choose to), but it does help them to see the most important things first and present the information in digestible way. I believe I have thoroughly argued against all of your arguments. However, if any of the many arguments against these changes have not persuade you or FH, I would suggest that either of you start a centralized discussion and attempt to get a change in consensus. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Important message regarding edits to particular topic areas

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Neutrality^talk 14:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Note re: Wikipedia policy

Please don't restore content that has been challenged on the basis of Wikipedia policy. See WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content."). Moreover, on edits dealing with living people, there is an even heightened sensitivity to this principle. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 14:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"Numero" symbol (№)

Hey. Just wanted to point out, in reference to this edit, that MOS:NUMERO says "do not use the symbol №". - htonl (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Friendlyhistorian: I also wanted to inqure about why you started using the symbol №, but htonl beat me to it, and also pointed out its contrary to the MOS. Please, revert that edit on those articles where you added it so far, and put back "No." in its place. I already reverted some of that myself, and you do the rest, please. --Sundostund (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Reason for removal at LPRP page

The reason I removed is due to the following reasons;

1. The point of communist elections is not that the party gets the majority; there is only one party so of course thats not the point.
2. I added it in the "Monopoly of the state" section which tried to explain the role of the LPRP in the state and election process (I will add more about that part).
3. I'm not even sure that the candidates themselve campaign under the LPRP banner.. They're first of all candidates. --Ruling party (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Why dont you discuss? --Ruling party (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not really a good reason. The other articles don't explain the election process, how the election system works and the party's role in it. Just because they do doesn't mean this article has too....--Ruling party (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't make thing too complicated restore the table write whatever you want about the election process the election table goes does the table also shows the Lao Front for National Construction which lao communist party is part of.

But why are you threatening? Why are you not discussing? Isn't WP about collaboration?--Ruling party (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you feel threatened what could I possible do listen the additions to the article are good i might read it later but on every political party page the table is on the bottom you can put text above the election table or under it for example Socialist Party of Senegal but the election table always goes to the bottom or the middle rarely. You put the table on the right side in the text like a picture no other a article does that

Threatened might have been the wrong word - I agree! But the tone - do this or else isn't really making me move at all. I came with a factual arguement; that election systems are different in states such as Laos and you responded by saying "e i don't care what you do with rest of article i am just the election table guy".

I don't even think you're correct. The party is not a member of the Lao Front for National Construction. It established it, but its not a member.... --Ruling party (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if i came out as threatening i also want to say that you did a good job on the article. That thing was a barren wasteland from fallout you could even see raiders and super mutants you hugely improved the article you did a good job

Listen a lot of communist parties have what it is called popular fronts example the Lao Front for National Construction other example include

United Front china the Democratic Front, from albania  , the Vietnamese Fatherland Front and the National Front in the glorious German Democratic Republic. Now please restore the table

Yes a lot of communist parties have established mass organizations and popular front. But that doesn't mean the communist parties are members of the popular front. The communist parties have established mass organizations as "transmission belts". Lao Front for National Construction approves of candidates that stand for election. That's what it does. It doesn't stand for election itself. Another reason why the table doesn't make sense. --Ruling party (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Its a coalition a fake one since the party controls click the ddr elections it is a coalition in theory that's why you put it on the table if you click the laos election there are independents who are allied to the party through the front ingoring the front election tables go to the bottom type one party state if you click any party that has election results the reuslts are on the bottom

I'm trying to explain to you the following:

1. The front is not a coalition. Its a mass organization. Two very different things.
2. The LPRP is not a member of the front; it leads the front.
3. The Front does not field candidates or run election campaigns; it approves of the candidate that run for election

• If point 1, 2 and 3 are correct then the front should have no place in the table at all. --Ruling party (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Please sign all of your talk page posts even on your own user talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Headings

Hello. I think 'Status' is a better heading for that column that 'Government', because not all the options used are relevant to a government. 'Status' is a wider definition that can also include being an extra-parliamentary party. Cheers, Number 57 20:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

'Role in government' is an even worse heading in my opinion, as it seems aimed at parties that are involved in the government and doesn't really work at all for extraparliamentary parties. I would again suggest that 'Status' is better heading. Number 57 16:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello what do you think about making it status in the legislature or status in government i would really like to know your opinion

I think simply 'Status' is fine as it covers all possibilities. If you add phrases like legislature or government, it makes it less relevant to extraparliamentary or opposition parties. Cheers, Number 57 17:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay i will make status for all legislative elections tables

OK cool. 'Outcome' could work, but I think a lot of articles already have 'Status' so it may be easier using that. I don't think there's a bit difference between the two. Cheers, Number 57 18:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I don't think changing to 'Outcome' is a good idea. 'Status' is just as good and already widely used. Rather than having to change all articles to a new heading, just change the ones that don't use 'Status'.

Number 57 19:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok

Hello. What's the issue? Cheers, Number 57 07:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

'Sole legal party' sounds like a logical option. It's a good question what to use for countries where there were multiple parties but ultimately all subservient to a main one. You could use 'Part of popular front government', but I would suggest asking at WT:WikiProject Politics.

Also, could you sign your posts? You really should have worked out how to do this by now! Number 57 11:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

To sign your posts, put four tildes at the end (~~~~). Cheers, Number 57 22:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of heads of state of Egypt. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --John B123 (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Elections again

I have once again undone your election changes, as there is no Wikipedia:Consensus for this and for all reasons stated in the previous discussion. If you want to change ALL the tables to "your" table layout, rather than the current one, I would suggest you make a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion at places such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Skjoldbro (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Friendlyhistorian: Can you please explain to me why you keep on moving elections to the front? I really, really want to understand why. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok Skjolbro i will tell but i need to ask you a question honestly am i under threat of suspension ? Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Not that I know of. How is that relevant? Skjoldbro (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok so why are you asking me Friendlyhistorian (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Because I want to understand what your arguments are for moving them. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Ever since we talked i didnt touch the korean article if you came about that Friendlyhistorian (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Listen i just saw the table that way and i feel it makes sense plus i have a long history with that matter before i met you Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, why do you feel it makes more sense to have it in the front? Skjoldbro (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all thanks for responding and talking about it well i think it makes sense cuz when you are looking a list of elected heads of state or of government you see name when he was elected when he took of office and left of office and how much he was in office on fact if you go in my editing history most of my old edits where never about relocating the election cuz they were already there i mostly added time in office and in fact i plan to do that for certain us government post and also adding elections results or improving them i been on a bit of hiatus sadly Friendlyhistorian (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop removing AfD template

Stop removing the AfD template on Family dictatorship. It is supposed to stay there and will be removed by the person who closes the AfD discussion. You don't have to worry about that. If you remove it again then you will be reported. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks sorry for doing it its just that there was no discussion before the nomination and i think its an interesting article the reason the person nominated the article was the idea that these people were dictators even though their Wikipedia pages describe them as such if you look into the talk page i refuted his arguments but he did not respond he ignored and went and nominated the article any way i think that article has useful information and i think in the future we will see more cases than those listed in the article i think its niche subject so its difficult to find stuff and i am not a good editor . Thanks for informing me and if you know anything i can do to save the article or at least merge the information to some other article i would really appreciate it Friendlyhistorian (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Awami

Hi

We have already an article of the Pakistani party. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

can you link it to me please then Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

if what you say exists then add the electoral history to that article Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

All Pakistan Awami Muslim League Panam2014 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

ok thanks Friendlyhistorian (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

So your revert should be reverted or the article should be restructured. Panam2014 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion they should be merged but feel free do do what you want i am ok with anything you decide Friendlyhistorian (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello Friendly, you reverted my edit of Ahd 54 saying it was "unxplained continent removal". My edit summary explained that, in part, my edit was to "remove unsourced content". You should be aware that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed"; which is what the 'unreferenced' template warns. Editors restoring challenged content have the burden of supplying inline citations supporting what they restore or contribute. Because you did not supply the required citations I've reverted your edit. In addition you remove the 'Notability' template without addressing the concern it raises. You also removed a citation I provided which supports some of the content I had left in place. You provided no justification for that removal. Feel free to restore the election result material when you can cite the reliable published sources that support it. Thanks. Gab4gab (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

If you look at these pages of the national assembly elections 1991 , 2012 ,2007 , 2017 you can clearly see the party there also the name of Ali Fawzi Rebaine appears in the presidential elections 2004 2009 2014 if you look at the elections tables there the sources of the numbers here's one from the 2014 election

Interior Ministry

and one from the 2004 presidential election

IFES

I hope you safitfied also i dont supplying inline citations thats not my area of expertise now can you please restore the elections results

Friendlyhistorian (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You have restored the material I challenged without providing the citations required by WP:V. If you are unable to provide the citations you should have refrained from restoring the material. After editing for over four years you have had time to learn how to cite sources. For now I've added a maintenance tag to the section indicating no sources are cited. Linking to other Wikipedia articles does not satisfy the need for citations. Citing Wikipedia is not acceptable because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:CIRCULAR for related guidance. If the articles you link to contain citations supporting the content you restored then you can look at them for examples of how to cite the same sources in Ahd 54. Gab4gab (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Andorran gov't leaders

Howdy. At least be consistent & add the numberings to the bios of the Anodrran heads of government. If you're gonna insist that they be numbered in the list page. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for replying I would love to do that but my editing skills are limited i would appreciate it if you did it in your spare time Friendlyhistorian (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Best that you do so, as it's you who are insisting on adding the numbers. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok i will look into it Friendlyhistorian (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion and it might help to review MOS:LISTNUMBERED. The advice boils down to: Do not number a list without a good reason. Gab4gab (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

List of prime ministers of Australia

Hello, I have noticed edits that you have made to List of prime ministers of Australia removing accessibility changes designed to assist text-to-speech readers that were made as part of the WP:FL process. You have done this repeatedly, and have been told by myself and PresN to not do this. Please do not continue these edits as they make it harder for those with visual disabilities to access the contents of the page. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 10:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok lets assume that the grey bar is about text-to-speech readers shouldn't then the whole list have a grey background ? also may i ask another question why did you reduce the size of images on the list ? Friendlyhistorian (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The grey background highlights that it is the main section, which text-to-speech readers will read out first. The image reduction was because of a previous IP edit which was made after yours. I apologise if I came off as rude; reading it back, I could have wrote it better. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 10:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks for responding i promise to not touch it you have my word Friendlyhistorian (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Also i apologize for ignoring you it was wrong of me i should have talked about it I promise in the future if we have any disagreement i will message you first Friendlyhistorian (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of heads of government of Sierra Leone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)