Ythlev

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Akira😼CA 00:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Akira😼CA 07:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of NPOV policy

Regarding your recent mass purge of content here, here, here, and here and your justification, I advise you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

The NPOV policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

Editors have different ideas about how Wikipedia should look "today". Some want it to be as fault-free as possible, even if that means cutting mediocre content; others think that all but the most serious flaws should be allowed to stand so they can be improved.

While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there.

Also, determining whether a claim is true or useful, particularly when few people know about the topic, often requires a more involved process to get the opinions of other editors. It's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page or at a relevant WikiProject. Discussing contentious claims helps editors to evaluate their accuracy and often leads to better sourcing and clearer phrasing.

Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted.

It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

-- Akira😼CA 00:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The maps in question are user-created, so they have editorial bias. I have updated my MOS amendment proposal. Some maps' sources don't even mention Taiwan, so not even properly sourced. Also the maps are still sitting at Commons, not "just deleted". Ythlev (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a general Wikipedia policy that content must be NPOV, so non-neutral material should be removed or replaced, whichever is sooner. [1] I specifically refer to this justification, which contradicts

there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time.

The current policy prefers replacement over time over removal, not whichever is sooner. Taiwan in File:Folk religious sects' influence by province of China (alternate).png is also properly sourced with Havard World Religion map.-- Akira😼CA 01:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

1) We're dealing with maps not, "text". Funny how when I draw a parallel between the two I need "proof", but you don't. 2) There is "usually" no need. 3) I did replace them, but you reverted my edits. Ythlev (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

1. You deleted a whole bunch of map captions too so you did delete text.
2. Extraordinary case needs extraordinary reason, and I see no such reason.
3. This is WP guidelines so you should replace them with different commons file, don't break other site's rule to do something here. There are perfect alternatives so what you've done is unnecessary evil. -- Akira😼CA 05:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say to you. You are bringing up irrelevant points, you are justifying your behaviour on Commons when the admin already said you shouldn't. You clearly don't intend to follow Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTHERE). I am wasting my time. Good day. Ythlev (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's amusing accusing me WP:NOTHERE when I clearly compromise but you reject, afterall, Good faith, Good day. -- Akira😼CA 06:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, you may be blocked from editing. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: As someone just involved in a minor edit conflict with Ythlev, and for the sake of fairness: I searched but could not find any personal attack. Where is the attack? -St.nerol (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The unsubstantiated accusation of talk page re-factoring. Given their past disruption as I documented at that AN/I thread, Ythlev is guilty until proven innocent. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: ...that does not sound totally right to me. But given that I don't know anything about "talk page re-factoring", perhaps it's better if I ask about the Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic thing instead, since I was the one in disagreement with Ythlev there. I reverted his contribution without explanation, that was a mistake. But I don't know that he said or did anything blameworthy against me. St.nerol (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I've given up about the map. This is completely unrelated. Ythlev (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure, though? You were accused of disruptive editing on the Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page. I see no evidence. -St.nerol (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone asked me to make a map, I spent an afternoon on it, they said it looks good, I add it, then you come along saying peak cases is no good, ignoring all of my previous comments. So yeah, I'm done about the map. What they are talking about is me reverting their removal of someone's comment which was unrelated to the map. Ythlev (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You know, I appreciate your work. One complicating factor remains: Someone else also made a map. St.nerol (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:COVID-19 outbreak UK per capita cases map.svg

Hi Ythlev, sorry there has been a tousle over this map and thanks for your work on it; sometimes perfection is the enemy of progress. I think it adds value as it is, but take the point that it would be better to add in county level detail for other nations where available. I have limited experience with .svg files, and none with Python, but am willing to learn/help as it is clearly a good resource and much faster than hand-painting colours.

Can I help? Could we put the Wales/Scotland detail into an online spreadsheet that your script can then draw from given there doesn't seem to be a similar .csv file for them?

I think a good additional map would be to do the same for case numbers per region, though again it would be good to get regions from each nation. Perhaps secondary to getting the per capita one working. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  09:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Well you need to first convince other users to even have the map, otherwise we would both be wasting our time. Ythlev (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've made a proposal about how to proceed. I'll look to collate the info as it is currently and see what response comes. Would your script be able to draw from a google sheet? |→ Spaully ^~talk~  11:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really. You'll need to update this table. Create an account to submit edit requests. Ythlev (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

As a compromise, I'll agree to the map's inclusion if the county scale detail is added for Scotland and Wales. Careful with your interaction with others though... you've obviously got really useful skills but appear to be upsetting others above. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

And how would you feel about putting together a map like the one on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll need two things: a blank map with keys (name or code) for each area, or a shapefile to make one, and data with the corresponding keys in csv or json format (xls maybe works too). As we saw with the UK, they are not always available. If you can find these, I can make one. Ythlev (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be interesting to show the spread... ironically Public Health Wales have stopped giving numbers for individual counties. If you and Spaully feel strongly enough about the per capita map showing current numbers, I'll back down. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Avoid using misleading edit summaries

Hi Ythlev, please avoid using misleading edit summaries such as in this edit. You should admit that you've also addressed the reason your edit was reverted in the first place, which is only otherwise apparent to readers if they look at the diff for the before and after. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

File:COVID-19 outbreak Italy per capita cases map.svg

Hi! Thanks for your work on the COVID-19 distribution maps! I wanted to ask you whether you could make the Italian map a bit more readable by separating the colors in the legend using "human-readable" numbers, like 10 – 50 – 100 – 1000, instead of the very specific thresholds that are there now. Thanks! --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong

[2] Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: American English is not a language, it is a variety of the language of English. Ythlev (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"The Southern Min languages, or Min Nan, are a family of Chinese languages spoken in southern Fujian, in Taiwan (where it is known as Taiwanese) and in Southeast Asia (known as Hokkien in Singapore and Malaysia)." [3] Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer my question. Is American English a separate language from English or not? Ythlev (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Government of Taiwan (ROC): "Languages Mandarin (Chinese), Holo (Taiwanese), Hakka, Austronesian languages" [4] Does US government have a similar statement relating to English? Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No. That statement says Holo is the language. It does not say Taiwanese Holo is distinct. Now you answer my question. Ythlev (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

That statement says Holo (Taiwanese) is the language (you missed the material in parenthesis), but we are so determined to pretend that there is such a thing as "Chinese language" that has existed for 5000 years and never once ever changed, that we can't grow up and realize 10 mutually unintelligible dialects on a continent is basically the same situation as Europe. --- It does say Holo (Taiwanese) is distinct. --- Does US government have a similar statement relating to English? Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Does US government have a similar statement relating to English? I already answered you. No, and it is irrelevant until you answer my question. we are so determined to pretend that there is such a thing as "Chinese language". I never said Chinese was one language. The difference between language and variety/dialect is, as you said, based on mutually intelligibility. Taiwanese Hokkien is mutually intelligible with the Hokkien spoken in Singapore, Malyasia etc, so Taiwanese Hokkien is a variety of Hokkien, not a distinct language. Ythlev (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the New York metropolitan area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Major removal of content requires prior consensus

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. This was your first and this was your second disruptive edit. Neither had an edit summary and neither of them, which both removed a map that had been a stable part of the page for a long time, were proposed to other editors on the talk page. Boud (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland, you may be blocked from editing. This was your third dispruptive edit that did not wait for consensus. Boud (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland. This was your fourth major edit without consensus on the same page.; you have already reached the formal limits of WP:3RR. Boud (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Boud (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Your removal of val templates

Hi Ythlev, in this edit ([5]) you removed the {{val}} templates framing numeric values from an article. Please note that it is good style to frame numeric values with the {{val}} template, in particular in articles for an international audience. One of the purposes for why it is used in this article is because it uses a half-space as thousands separator, which is non-ambiguous internationally, whereas the usage of "," and "." are locale-specific and thus are very easy to misunderstand. This has nothing to do with scientific figures. Please don't remove such templates any more, it is counter-productive. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, and in English, "," is unambiguous. {{val}} is used for scientific figures. See WP:DIGITS. Ythlev (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international project, and the different language entities exist only to allow people who don't speak multiple language to contribute to the project as well (and also to overcome some other locale-specific hurdles).

Even in those parts of the world where English is spoken, "," is not unambigous. This depends on the locale. You would be astonished how many different conventions (existed and still) exist depending on locale and context. For a start, you might read Decimal separator, but even this only scratches on the surface and does not (yet) discuss many real-world special cases.

So, if you see {{val}} being used somewhere, this certainly has a reason, and it is not a good idea to remove it.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

used somewhere. Where? Take a look around Wikipedia in general. The template is only used for scientific topics. Ythlev (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Notable world leaders" sections

Hi. I have a personal list of leaders. I believe that they should be included.

1940s

Prime minister of Italy Alcide De Gasperi

1970s

Prime minister of Sweden Olof Palme Chancellor of Austria Bruno Kreisky

1980s Chancellor of Austria Bruno Kreisky Presidents of Italy Sandro Pertini and Francesco Cossiga Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland

1990s

Prime ministers of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland and Kjell Magne Bondevik

2000s

President of Bolivia Evo Morales President of Czech Republic Václav Klaus Prime minister of Finland Matti Vanhanen President of Liberia Ellen Johnson Sirleaf

2010s Chancellor of Austria Werner Faymann President of Bolivia Evo Morales Prime ministers of Denmark Helle Thorning- Schmidt, Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Mette Frederiksen Prime Minister of Ethiopia Abiy Ahmed Prime ministers of Finland Jyrki Katainen, Juha Sipilä and Sanna Marin Taoiseach of Ireland Enda Kenny Prime minister of New Zealand John Key Prime ministers of Norway Jens Stoltenberg and Erna Solberg Sweden Fredrik Reinfeldt and Stefan Löfven President of Switzerland Doris Leuthard

2020s (current)

Prime Minister of Ethiopia Abiy Ahmed Prime minister of Finland Sanna Marin.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.91.65 (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

General criteria for inclusion are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years#Notable world leaders. Ythlev (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I know the guidelines. The majority of this leaders have remained the power over of 2 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.91.65 (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them then. Ythlev (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Also we add and some leaders from my country. Tentatively. Sorry for my English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.91.65 (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion about the my changes;

Hi.I have account now. I will make other additions today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditingIsMyHobby (talk • contribs) 12:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Please don't change this template unless you have gained prior consensus, as you did in this edit. MattSucci (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

TRR

Please respect the three-revert rule which states:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

--Lmmnhn (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for five reverts on multiple articles (2016 Taiwanese legislative election, 2020 Taiwanese legislative election etc) within eight hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Number 57 12:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Statistologist (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Which account is your "main"?

Per title. You seem to be using this one and User:Szqecs1 quite interchangeably. Which one should I be talking to to better reach you? ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 13:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This one. Ythlev (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Cell Danwydd (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Important notice

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks from certain pages (COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom) for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Future disruption in this area may result in a topic ban; see "Important notice" above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Your work on COVID-19 maps

This revert is edit warring, given that I already reverted your attempt to introduce that map — please self-revert and open up a discussion at the talk page. Any further warring is going to result in templated warnings. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've said that the Europe map is outdated and you have no reason to revert it. As for the Asia map, it is in line with Europe and the US, and your reasoning about China makes no sense because the section is about Asia not China. Ythlev (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with the Europe map, but as I noted when I initially removed the East Asia map, Without province-level data in China, this map offers less detail than the main one at the top of the article. We also shouldn't have both this map and the China map. Even if we were going to add an Asia map, I don't think it'd be helpful to only include East Asia and leave out the rest of it. You're welcome to disagree with that reasoning, and to think that I'm completely bonkers if you'd like. But you need to learn that, once you're reverted, you go to the talk page following the BRD process; you do not edit war to retain you're preferred version. If you haven't internalized the lessons others tried to teach you above, it's going to lead to more blocks in your future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

But you reverted the Europe map anyways, so you don't understand BRD either. We also shouldn't have both this map and the China map. And why is that? Without province-level data in China, this map offers less detail than the main one at the top of the article. I see no reason to divide some countries and not others. Also, the China map is outdated by over a month. I don't think it'd be helpful to only include East Asia and leave out the rest of it. Then I suggest renaming the section to East Asia because Asia is vast and culturally, socially diverse. Viewing all of Asia under the same lens makes no sense. Ythlev (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 map of Taiwan

Regarding the map at COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan, the Chinese caption reads "臺灣各縣市每百萬人確診COVID-19病例數", while the English caption says "Confirmed cases of COVID-19 per 100,000 residents in Taiwan by subdivision." If the Chinese caption is true, "百萬人" means "one million people" (more specifically, one hundred myriad people). If the English caption is correct, then the Chinese caption should be edited to "十萬人" on Commons and Chinese Wikipedia. Vycl1994 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Ythlev (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

World leaders

Explain to me. What for? Why is the alphabetical order in these lists? What did the previous order do not obsolete for you? Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are too lazy to look, why are you diligent enough to revert so many pages? The discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. Ythlev (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Attracting your attention is much easier. I love when everything is done for me. Doomer1557 —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you lack reading skills, in which case the discussion won't help you anyways. Ythlev (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

In fact, this is still meaningless. This would be appropriate if there were fewer leaders in lists. The list is called "Notable world leaders." So it should only have leaders notable for history. I can not be called notable Hamid Karzai, Ashraf Ghani, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Mauricio Macri and others. If they should be, then only at the end of the list. Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a proposal to only include 15 countries. You are welcome to join the discussion. Ythlev (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Image placeholders

Wikipedia:Image placeholders (which I linked in this edit summary) states that such images are no longer used on the English Wikipedia mainspace. As 2020 Kaohsiung mayoral by-election mentions active politicians (a type of BLP), the consensus at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders applies. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

EU Referendum map

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, you may be blocked from editing. You have replaced the map several times without seeking consensus from other users. The current map has been in place for a long period of time and aligns with the colours used in the results table. Please do not re-instate your map without explaining your reasons on the talk place and seeking a consensus. Mirrorme22 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You are the one disrupting, as you have given no compelling reason for reverting. The map is labelled, more detailed, and its colours are chosen by professional cartographers. There is no requirement for map colours to match article colours. Ythlev (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Number 57 17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Nine reverts in two hours is unacceptable. Next time you break 3RR the block will be at least six months. Number 57 17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As you've been socking using the Uconf (talk · contribs) account, I've extended your block to a month. Number 57 09:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hou Yu-ih

Hi,

Since you've previously participated in this discussion in regard to romanization of Taiwanese names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Taiwan

I thought I would ping you as I've submitted a requested move to change it from Hou You-yi to Hou Yu-ih: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hou_You-yi#Requested_move_21_June_2020

Could you please let me know if you would support such actions? My arguments are listed in the aforementioned link with a lengthier discussion with another user who does not support it.

Thanks Asoksevil (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Election results

As you're back tomorrow, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in expanding on this template, which is a great piece of work. I've always thought it would be great to have a highly flexible one that could be used for all forms of elections, but it was a bit of a challenge using only template code. Perhaps with modules, it's a bit easier. It's also great that it autocalculates the percentages as IPs are forever messing with them.

Is it possible to add code to this template to allow it to do:

• Parliamentary elections (would need seats and seat change columns adding if the parameters were called)

Party	Votes	%	Seats	+/–

• Two round presidential elections

Candidate		Party	First round		Second round
			Votes	%	Votes	%

• Two round/vote parliamentary elections, where editors can choose what the headings are for the two main columns (could be First round/Second round for two-round systems or Constituency/Proportional for MMP systems)

Candidate		Party	First round			Constituency			Total seats	+/–
			Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats

I don't know whether, given the number of different arrangements, it might be easier to just have parameter where you enter the election type and it chooses the correct heading from a switch template? The main ones would probably be:

• Pr1 (presidential one round)
• Pr1V (presidential one round with vice-president)
• Pr2 (presidential two round)
• Pr2V (presidential two round with vice-president)
• Pa1 (parliamentary one round)
• Pa2 (parliamentary two round or split)
• PaL (parliamentary one round with levelling seats (where voters cast one vote and two sets of seats are elected)

The parliamentary ones would also potentially need an option where the seat change function doesn't exist (for first elections or ones after major changes).

With regards to the existing version, there are a couple of tweaks that need implementing to allow it to be used more widely:

• If no vice-presidential candidate is entered, it messes the table up – the functionality needs to be there to remove this column
• Can the text in the footer section (Valid votes, invalid votes) be made left-aligned, as is usual for text? I tried editing the module but couldn't work out how to do this
• Can the percentage signs be removed from the numbers (again, tried to do this but couldn't) as they aren't usually included in the percentage column.

Cheers, Number 57 21:21, 21 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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Adjacent stations/successionBox

Module:Adjacent stations/successionBox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Legislative Yuan election labelled map 2016

Template:Legislative Yuan election labelled map 2016 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2021 (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) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

On English variety

Hello Ythlev. You previously discussed with me the guidelines on English variety in May 2020, during edits to COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan. At the time you left a templated warning, but did not offer any evidence that ENGVARB was in place prior to my edits to that article. I had to look in the history for evidence of prior use of ENGVARB, which I found, so I reverted myself in that instance.

Regarding 2022 Taiwanese constitutional referendum, as I stated in these edit summaries I created that article without strictly defining ENGVAR at the start. I then Special:Diff/chose to quote some statements published by the Central News Agency, because CNA article get hidden behind a paywall after six months, and I wanted to keep information as freely accessible as possible. I draw your attention to the quote because it uses 'favor' instead of 'favour', and the quote was added to the article prior to the addition of the infobox that uses 'favour'. In this instance, I do that ENGVAR was then established by the addition of the CNA quote. Thoughts? Vycl1994 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Refer to MOS:ARTCON. Ythlev (talk) 10:17, 28 March 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! NM 15:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)