Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liberal Party (South Korea), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Beom-seok. 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.)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Centrist Reformists Democratic Party. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. signed, Rosguilltalk04:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The seat change figure in the infobox is compared to the previous election, not seats before. I would strongly advise not using the seats before parameter as it confuses people into making these changes. Cheers, Number5716:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does? The reason I'm doing so is that it isn't something many readers will know, and can rarely be found, unless you look on the incoming/outgoing members of parliaments and assemblies, even then they might not have the figures, which might only be found on other lang. Wikipedias (also, what it the plural for Wikipedia?). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's confused you into making the changes to the seat change figures. If you want to include it in the article, usually it is done by having a table of contesting parties and their result in the previous election and seat numbers going into this one (like this). Number5716:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised (though, going by what you have said to me since I've been here, that doesn't surprise me). I suppose I'll look to see if something can be created along the lines similar to the "Election results" temp. in my sandbox. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. I've seen links to LEON Entertainment and Gaon Chart, when they were renamed to Kakao M and Circle Chart, respectively. These are all redirects, but haven't been changed. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
January 2023
Hi ValenciaThunderbolt! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at SM Entertainment that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)04:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Italian Parliament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senate of the Republic.
Foreign policy is the traditional criterion for dividing left and right in South Korea. Cultural policy is not really a major issue in South Korean politics. LGBTQ civil rights activists in South Korea say that both are socially conservative parties by U.S. political standards. Mureungdowon (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The liberal camp and the conservative camp are divided depending on how much they oppose Japanese imperialism and how much they aim for pacifism on the Korean Peninsula. South Korean politics is polarized, which is mainly about whether to conform to the great powers or show them resistance-nationalism. The DPK average is more culturally liberal than the PPP, but conservatives in are more culturally conservative than moderates in the PPP. Mureungdowon (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. I understand what you've said, as I've read the article before. My issue is with whether or not "National liberalism" should be in the infobox, as national liberalism is what sets SK liberals apart from liberals in other countries, which is why "Liberalism (South Korean) is there, rather than "Liberalism", which the latter denotes that it isn't different from other countries. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw your convo. about it yesterday (not to sound like a stalker) :) I'm thankful that now I can do what I thought should've been implemented a long time ago :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
My apologies for being this forthright. Please stop changing the LDP related details (colors, predecessor parties). The reasons of which I have stated in change logs ad nauseam. I’ll repeat them here for one last time:
1. The Wikipedia across different language (including both English & Japanese), have used the color green to represent the LDP. This applies in graphs, charts, maps, etc. The LDP itself uses several colors in its branding. The LDP’s historical main rival DPJ (before its merger into the Minshinto) used the color red prominently.
2. The LDP was a merger of the Liberal & the Democratic parties in 1955. These two parties still represents a clear ideological division within the LDP today: 保守本流 & 保守傍流. LDP didn’t became a new parties in 2017. Those other parties you named as predecessors” were all short-lived splinter groups usually centered around a single personality. I don't believe it’s appropriate to list them alongside the LDP’s true predecessors.
I’d like to understand your stalwartness of these changes (I haven’t received any answers so far).
If you really insist on changing the colors, be my guest. Don’t stop there. Do it for every article & election, every graph and map, for every language.
By your logic, if a party changed colour before an election, you wouldn't change the colour of the party for the election, nor in the infobox. DPJ hasn't existed since 2016, nearly eight years. For example, there is {{party color|Grand National Party (2017)}} to denote that the party from 1997 to 2004 was dark blue, rather than sky blue in its latter years before it was renamed Saenuri. Yes, I understand that the LDP was a merger of two parties, but other parties have merged into it, like with the DPK. In addition, other lang. Wikipedia don't have our colours, like South Korean parties. Not everything is aligned when it comes to info nor colours. If you feel like escalating it further, be my guest. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. The problem is the LDP hasn't changed its color. It has always used multiple branding colors. Japan’s political colors aren't as crystallized as say the UK.
2. I’m sorry but you clearly don't understand Japanese politics. The LDP didn't become a new party in 2017. When a new party is formed in Japan, there would be a 結党大会. Nothing much happened in 2017 concerning the LDP. The LDP is the constant. Other so-called parties are often shorter splinter groups. Take the three you choose to list as “2017 LDP’s predecessor” for example:
The New Conservative Party for example was the rump pro-coalition faction of Ozawa Ichiro’s first Liberal Party that refused to leave the coalition with Ozawa. The Liberal party itself was a rump successor of Shinshinto, which itself was an amalgamation of various opposition parties along with LDP splinters.
There are countless splinter groups like this since 1955. Their existence has more to do with Japan’s campaign finance law. Listing them alongside the two big parties that merged into the LDP was like saying the US Democratic Party was a merger of the Jacksonian faction of Democratic Republican & the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.
The party has changed colour, as there is a source for the colour red. In addition, the party's website is red too. If you are so confident that the party hasn't changed colour, please provide a source since 2017.
I never said that the party was new in 2017. I said that to express that a party has changed colour, we add the year it changed colour to the political party colour module.
Splinter parties that have merged back into it are also expressed in the parametre, like with DPK in South Korea where a couple of splinter parties merged back into it, i.e. Open Democratic Party.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Localism.
Regarding the reverting of your change on the Estonian election. If you want to change the infoboxes, it's usually a good idea to do the whole series of articles in one go, as editors often revert on the basis of inconsistency if you only do one. Cheers, Number5720:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is you the one who has come here mass replacing colours that have been well-established across Wikipedia for over a decade. The last thing you should do is to come over anyone else's talk page and issue threats of bringing admin intervention. Do so and I'll ask for a block on you for 1) reckless editing without any consensus + 2) being so rude when someone disagrees with your edits and by engaging in edit warring. Your changes affect many articles across Wikipedia and some of these would involve changes in charts, graphics, maps and so on. The first thing you'd do when you are contested would be to seek consensus, not your current behaviour, which is quite disappointing. Cheers. Impru20talk21:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and well, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before throwing rants like these on my talk page again. I am pleased to hear other people's arguments and positions, but not in this patronizing way. Once again: it is you seeking to mass-change current established consensus, the onus is on you to seek a new consensus for these changes. Colours like that for the People's Party (Spain) are well established and are not going to change just because you feel like this some day or the other. Impru20talk21:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All election articles using colours you unilaterally changed are going to be affected. That's dozens, hundreds or even thousands of articles, depending on the party. Once again, you are changing those colours unilaterally without any consensus just because you feel like it, doing so in a massive manner and threatening me just for disagreeing with you. That's bullish, and that you are concerned because of me answering you with "cheers" and not with your own behaviour is concerning. Impru20talk21:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not going to do so. You must seek consensus for your changes. You are applying massive changes and you are doing so caring nothing for anyone else's thoughts. About Number 57's stance, I don't know on his motives, you surely can ask him, but you should be noted that punctual, justified changes are nice. You are mass replacing colours across a wide number of countries affecting a massive number of articles, and that your only justification so far is "hey, this guy does this as well" is (with all due respect) lame. You are aware that your changes are much more profound and large in scale than those done by other users, to the point you are actively changing these colours in the party's articles, without even caring to consult anyone whether there was a consensus in place for those colours in those parties. We cannot change party colours based on each Wikipedia user's personal preferences or else we would never stop changing those. Impru20talk21:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe because it's a Saturday night and I'm not an omnipresent god. I've not reverted all of your edits either since I don't have the time to do that one by one, much less to review all of the changes conducted by all the people throughout the years. I spotted your edits since those affected articles I typically edit and I came across these, I saw these were massive in scope and not isolated nor minor changes and I intervened to warn you on that. Now, could you maybe take a look to everything else I said instead of looking for other culprits to blame for your own responsibility? Impru20talk21:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No other user has attempted such a massive replacement of colours across multiple modules and multiple countries before, so I don't think you can really compare isolated changes (which can be even justified) with your edits that are seemingly motivated to right a great wrong you seemingly perceive there is with the colours of a large number of parties. Edits at your scale would require a justification, a discussion and a likely consensus, none of which you have even cared to provide (just a threat to myself for reverting your edits).
This said, I'm not saying that all of your edits are unjustified: I'm aware some of these are, because some of these affect to specific cases I know about. Maybe there is a reasoning behind some of these that could make them necessary. We cannot know since you are not pursuing a case-by-case analysis but a massive replacement, disregarding motives or reasonings. Impru20talk21:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. Also, here you added a color that does not exist. (And please answer edits on this page to keep the discussion in one place). Sjö (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And? Reverting any edit is perfectly legitimate. In this case, they were conducted so as to show a disagreement with undiscussed and unjustified edits that aimed to change a previous status quo version of the modules. These reverts were explained and justified. Check WP:BRD and WP:REV. What you did (re-reverting those reverts several times without even providing an edit summary –thus risking an edit war over the issue– and threatening to bring admin intervention because of a failure to accept that your edits were being contested) was unacceptable. You should have expected opposition to your edits, considering that those consisted in massive replacements of some well-established colours around here. Impru20talk11:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please just stop with the constant colour changes. It is making things far more complex than they need to be, and in many cases I am not even sure whether it is real or simply made up by yourself. Number5719:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which logos did you use for all the South Korean parties you claimed changed colours in the 1950s and 1960s? And seriously, the Icelandic Social Democrats having a very slightly different shade of red in their new logo does not mean having to create a new party colour row. Number5719:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The site you asked about using and I said you shouldn't use other wikis? If you don't stop this, I am going to request you be blocked from editing in module space to stop you editing the colours. Number5721:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the "right" colour? A website or election poster having a slightly different shade of blue or red for the party than the shade shown in Wikipedia means that the colour at use here is wrong? It took quite some time for me to explain you the rationale behind Wikipedia colours at Talk:People's Party (Spain)#Party colour, and I thought you'd have learnt from that, yet you keep exhibiting the same behaviour over and over and over again with colours for parties in other countries. Frankly, I dunno what to do from here. Impru20talk21:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: I'm referring to La France Insoumise. Number reverted my edit to the a module, as LFI never used purple before 2023, and I changed it so it would show the colour it previously used and the one it does now. However, since Number reverted my edit, purple is now attributed to the 2017 election, even though it didn't use purple then. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said above that you would stop, yet you are still messing around with colours constantly. Is it going to take a block to make you stop? Number5720:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop messing with the colour templates at once. You stated here that you would stop doing this after multiple users warned you over here and in the module pages themselves, yet you have kept doing it despite Number 57's above message on 16 March 2023, with no response or action on your part. I agree that either a block or a general ban for editing these modules should be required if you continue with this behaviour. The amount of work it will require to review every one of your changes to check whether those should have proceeded is almost undeterminable. Impru20talk10:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you are still creating problems, please consider this a final warning. If you do not stop messing about with party colours, I will be requesting you be blocked indefinitely from module space. Number5716:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 26
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liberal Alliance (Denmark), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange.
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! Lightoil (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Funimation instead.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Please compare article and draft.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Crunchyroll, LLC and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, ValenciaThunderbolt!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Democratic Party of Korea, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Paternalistic conservatism into Liberal Democratic Party (Japan). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forza Italia (2013), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francesco Acquaroli.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Republican People's Party. 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
When you fill in an edit summary, please describe the edit itself. Summaries such as 'better' and 'much better' are no help to other editors: everyone thinks their edits are making an article 'better' or 'much better', no matter what they're doing. 'Added' or 'mistake' aren't at all clear, either. What are you adding? What kind of mistake are you correcting? Please explain this in your summaries, so that other editors will have some idea of what changes have been made without having to look at each edit. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your change of Bhumjaithai Party to Bhumjai Thai Party
Hi,
Could you please revert your changes? All reputable sources, including their party registration, use Bhumjaithai as the English name. Aithus (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Girls' Generation. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
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 do not unmerge non-notable topics that have a consensus for merger. If there are pertinent sourceable details that have yet to be merged and should be, WP:FIXIT. You can view the history just fine to do so without reverting the redirect. If you're not going to do the work or even note what details yet need a merge, leave it alone. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
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.
There's no reason the Bhutan election pages have to have the simplified infobox. Most legislative elections use the version with pictures and more details, and the Bhutan ones have used them like that without any issue for ages. The template guidelines state "For legislative elections with many parties, consider using
ValenciaThunderbolt
instead." As the Bhutan elections do not have many parties there's no need to use that template. In the example for legislative elections on the page, it's the regular template.
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hi, I have just undo your recent edit at United Right (Poland). There does not exist any political entity under the name of Zjednoczona Prawica (United Right) in Poland currently. Please read the sentence carefully:
Currently there is no parliamentary club or caucus named "United Right" (see Sejm and Senate websites). This sentence refers to the past parliamentary club present in the 7th Sejm (see Sejm website), which existed separately of the Law and Justice. Next sentence of the lead describes the current usage of the label "United Right" in Polish politics:
I think this is misleading, as it suggests the Basic Income Party and Transition Korea ran in the election, but they did not – they simply had candidates within the DPK list. This sort of thing regularly happens in Israeli elections and we do not include the parties not running independently in the infobox.
I have suggested some alternative infobox layouts on the talk page of the 2024 election which differentiate between simply showing the alliance as a whole, listing all parties individually, or grouping parties in an alliance. It would be best to agree on a consistent method. Cheers, Number5715:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2024 the Democratic Alliance was an alliance of the Democratic Party, Progressive Party, New Progressive Alliance (including its constituent parties) and independents. Of the 14 PR seats won by the Alliance, 8 were DP, 2 PP, 2 NPA and 2 independents. In the original (agreed) version of the infobox, the DA was not listed but the PR seats were just included in the individual party's totals. However, you decided to add the DA into the infobox with its own row, but for some reason only include the 8 DP seats. If you want to include the DA, then you need to remove the PR seats won by the PP and NP from their totals (and remove the independents entirely). However, I think it would be preferable to leave it how it was originally, as that is how the results table breaks down the seats.
The same goes for the 2020 election – Platform was an alliance of several parties – either list the Platform seat total under Platform, or break it down by parties and don't list Platform.
If your most recent edit summary is correct, then your changes were still wrong, as all 14 of the DA's PR seats should be listed as being won by the DA and not split out between the PP, NPA and independents. The results table will also need amending to reflect this. Which would you rather do? Number5713:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read somewhere that electoral alliances are not allowed by electoral law in South Korea. Platform Party and Democratic Alliance are parties and unofficial alliances. Also, you can't merge DAK into DPK, as they only competed in the PR seats, but you can't merge DAK with the other parties under it, as they competed individually in the constituency seats. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, the reporting on what number DAK/DPK go was very messy, as Korea Herald reported that they/it (whatever) got 175 seats! It would've been so much simpler if they banned satellite parties. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the point about the DA being a party is true, then the 2020 infobox is the correct way of doing it, and all 14 PR seats should be listed in the infobox as being won by the Democratic Alliance (and the totals for PP reduced and NPA/independents removed). Cheers, Number5713:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ValenciaThunderbolt! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at 2021 Japanese general election that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)23:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to 2021 Japanese general election, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.
The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.
Your recent editing history at NU'EST shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dr.K.10:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The New Standard"
Hello, I've seen you've been reverting a lot of edits, especially in regards to French elections, citing a new standard. Where is this new standard specified? I cannot find any trace of it, so it would be great if you could point me to the right place. Regards Quinby (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Valencia. Can I know where this "new standard" comes from and why, if not even you are aware of where it does come from, are you engaged in such a massive edit warring? Thanks. Impru20talk15:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: There was a discussion somewhere, which I can't remember, that Number 57 was a part of and the conclusion was to change the templates on the French legislative election to the leg. elec. infobox. As he updated such pages (which contained inaccurate info about the elections), he change them over to that, in which I helped. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please, can you please locate where such discussion is? Or are you engaging in such an edit warring behaviour against multiple users based on a loose memory of a discussion?
The only relevant discussion(s) on the issue I can find of are at Talk:2022 French legislative election (here, here and here), and from what I can see it looks far from a consensus on any "new standard" (actually, it shows people re-opening discussions on the issue over and over again because of doubts on how this was implemented) and more like two or three users unilaterally imposing it on everyone else. Impru20talk15:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll recuse myself further for edits in regards French elections. If I am to be accused of edit warring, then please take note of Number 57 edits to revert edits. I have nothing else to say. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or a better suggestion would be a place where editors across all countries can contribute to discussing whether or not all countries should adopt it, and if not, on a country-by-country basis. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deflecting isn't very helpful here. Apparently you are being accused of edit warring, in NU'EST and in this series of articles; I I look at your last fifty edits I see barely any edit summaries/explanations, and for these articles you offered nothing. In fact, your talk page is full of warnings pertaining to edit warring, a lack of explanations of your edits, and edits made without proper sourcing; I urge you to edit less aggressively and more collegially. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Two separate issues. The reverted edits on the French election pages revert to a time when there were no references, or poor ones, which I reverted back to Number 57's edits.. In regards to Nu'est, that was OR. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know they are two separate issues, but there is a similarity in your editing: a refusal to explain. No one should have to come to your talk page and complain about edit warring for you to explain what you are actually doing, and you certainly didn't explain your NU'EST edits until User:Dr.K. notified you. If an admin sees someone reverting tons of edits without a proper explanation, they are going to point the finger at you, and rightly so. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed that you recently undid my revision to La France Insoumise's colour on the political party module. I have seen your attached comment regarding this, and while I appreciate it may be useful in keeping with already existing maps and diagrams, I do not believe this should justify the reversion to a colour that is no longer used by the party. If you disagree, I suggest we open a discussion on the most relevant talk page to try and reach a consensus on what should be done with other editors.
The problem is your changing a colour of a party without consulting others. The colour has been used for over a year, and as I've said, maps and diagrams use the colour I reverted the module to. However, to express the official and customary colour, it is best to do so in the infobox of said party's page. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the message. As you can see I’ve spent last couple of weeks trying to make the article less biased and less a mess.
I am indeed only using other sources when objectively describing something about the party, but I feel like it is fine to use the party’s own website or their youtube channel when talking about their comments or how they describe their ideology. For example the party has railed against “wokeism” and culture wars extensively on their platforms, but it is something that doesn’t get reported as it is an issue that the country, outside of party’s electorate, generally doesn’t care about. Using their own for that I feel like is fine, as long as its described as “party has railed against” or “the party has spoken out against”. Additionally, they’re a pretty small party and especially after Japaridze’s exit not really in the news / analysis much. What do you think?
What you said is right, but the context of referring to the ideology of the party should only be referred to by third-party sources, like news sites. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the infobox? I tried to put aside the infobox and the lead to the last thing I'd do when redacting Girchi's page, but (I think it was) yesterday I couldn't wait longer and redacted the lead. I am still in the process of finalizing ideology and I am only done with 1/2 of it, so when I'm done I'll get the objective, clear picture of what their ideology is and redo it as well. Zlad! (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! You had to have seen the mess the page was previously. Gotta say I'm a tad prouder of Georgian Dream, because that turned into a total edit war and I'm proud of the compromises the 3 editors who took to editing that page made.
Election season is coming up soon, so I hope that I'll be able to make Georgian political parties pages (at least the major ones) pages decent for that occasion. Zlad! (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I feel like Libertarianism is the best and only descriptor, thank you. Even pro-Europeanism is questionable with the party's recent shift (that I'll add later), maybe even hovering somewhere around soft-Euroscepticism.
Thanks for readding the correct results, but a couple of issues:
It wasn't only the results that were changed back – all the other fixes (category sorting, wording changes) were also reverted by those involved.
In most cases the corrected/sourced results don't match what was in the original infoboxes, so by only restoring the corrected results tables, you are making the articles inconsistent...
What really needs doing is reverting everything except the infobox changes back to the pre-edit war state, and correcting the infoboxes to bring them in line with the results. This is one reason I have not done a wholesale restoration of the results tables – correcting the infoboxes will take some time... Number5719:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Party Sakigake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark blue.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Getting Started
Tips
