User talk:GlowstoneUnknown

Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, GlowstoneUnknown, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

CS1 error on United Australia Party (2013)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page United Australia Party (2013), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• 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)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2024 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhobabwe (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited 2002 Tasmanian state election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independents. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

regression plots on 2024 Belgium poll page

Hello, I just saw that you updated the plots on the "Opinion polling for the 2024 Belgian elections" page and was just wondering how you made them since I like the way they look a lot more than the ones I was making previously for the page and would like to continue using the same style next time there would be a need to update them. Please let me know if you're willing to share the code you use or give me some info about it, no worries if not. Timsmsmsm (talk) 12:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry about that, I forgot to link the code on those like I normally do, here's the link to the code I used. It's in R, and I like to use RStudio for this job. You just need to change the colours and amount of parties to match however many you're trying to do, swap out the DE.csv file for one that contains the polls for whatever election you want to generate a graph for, and change the dates for the specific election. I like to make copies of the ggplot file each pre-set-up for a different country/state. I'd be happy to send you a copy of those as well (if you'd like, I can give you the ones I already made for each of the Belgium graphs). I'll be honest, I felt a little bit bad replacing your files because it's clear you put a lot of work into them, but Gbuvn's opinion-polling-graph just looks better and more consistent with other opinion polling pages. Out of curiosity though, what did you use to make your versions of the graphs? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @GlowstoneUnknown, I would love to have your files for Belgium to update the French Wikipedia page. I tried to redo images myself with code from @Gbuvn but got errors. I am not comfortable using R. Cuspysan (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll prepare those files now, is there a preferred way for me to send them to you? i.e. email, Mega.nz link, etc.? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, a mega link is good. Please mention me so that I can be notified. Thank you Cuspysan (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Cuspysan Here's the link, I also supplied the CSV files I used, feel free to practice with the R files, and I can't recommend RStudio enough as an IDE for the programming language, it's been incredibly useful for me. MEGA GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried ggplot-BE-WA.R and I have errors, I'm having trouble solving the problem

+ legend.text = element_text(size=16, margin = margin(b = 5, t = 5, unit = "pt")))

Error: object 'col7' not found

In addition: Warning message:

`aes_string()` was deprecated in ggplot2 3.0.0.

ℹ Please use tidy evaluation idioms with `aes()`.

ℹ See also `vignette("ggplot2-in-packages")` for more information.

This warning is displayed once every 8 hours.

Call `lifecycle::last_lifecycle_warnings()` to see where this warning was generated.

> graph + theme()

Error: object 'graph' not found

> ggsave(file="polls.svg", plot=graph, width=18, height=8)

Error: object 'graph' not found

> # workaround since svglite doesn't properly work in Wikipedia

> aaa=readLines("polls.svg",-1)

Error in file(con, "r") : cannot open the connection

In addition: Warning message:

In file(con, "r") : cannot open file 'polls.svg': No such file or directory

> bbb <- gsub(".svglite ", "", aaa)

Error: object 'aaa' not found

> writeLines(bbb,"polls.svg")

Error: object 'bbb' not found Cuspysan (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I foud the error. There was too much parties here.

scale_color_manual(name="",

breaks = c('col1','col2','col3','col4','col5','col6','col7','col8','col9'),

labels = c(party1,party2,party3,party4,party5,party6,party7,party8,party9),

values = c('col1'=col1,'col2'=col2,'col3'=col3,'col4'=col4,'col5'=col5,'col6'=col6,'col7'=col7,'col8'=col8,'col9'=col9))+ Cuspysan (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Update File:2024_Portuguese_Assembly_Of_The_Republic.svg

Hello, could you please update the file 2024_Portuguese_Assembly_Of_The_Republic.svg? We already know who got the last 4 seats (votes from the Portuguese abroad). Democratic Alliance got a total of 80 seats (+1), the Socialist Party got 78 (+1), Chega got 50 (+2). The others remained the same. Total seats = 230. Many thanks. Human Transistor (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Oop sorry, didn't see this until just now, but it looks like someone with patrol/autopatrol rights already did it GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes

Hi! I would like to propose some changes I'm confident are necessary to the 2024 Croatian Parliament diagram
1) SDSS should be positioned to the right of, at least SDP if not also Our Croatia. They're not more any more left-wing than Rijeke pravde (if looking purely the "positions" on their Wiki pages that's the case, but SDSS is primarily a Serb minority party, who doesn't show their socdem ideology often & is pretty insignificant). But even disregarding that, the more important point is the norm that Minorities are always grouped together, in the centre of the spectrum, like also in 2020 parliamentary election diagram.
2) The Focus colour should be changed to the   light blue/cyan that is actually 1 of their colours (see their page) and not the weird one used for them in the party color template as it's too similar to HDZ. The light blue is also used in the election map.
I also wrote in the discussion page for the file, but here as well just in case you're more likely to see this. CroatiaElects (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the feedback. Sorry, slipped my mind to move SDSS to the centre, I was in a bit of a rush when I last edited it, also thanks for the heads-up about the colour, that looks a lot better. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! If you'd be so kind, I ask u to update the same diagram again, a few small changes happened since in the results table: Bosniaks together! article is created, now the party has its colour, also NPS is now presented separately from the Our Croatia coalition, so each have 2 MPs. CroatiaElects (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 Croatian parliamentary election

Hello. Just wanted to apologise that it looks like I keep undoing your changes to this article. On the seat changes, the whole series of articles (and almost all national election articles) uses +/– rather than the icons.

Re the minority seats, the total votes can't be calculated yet as the party identification of all the candidates (i.e. Franjo Horvat and Ivan Komak) isn't clear. Happy for the vote figures to be readded when it is clarified. Cheers, Number 57 19:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I wasn't aware the candidates that weren't listed as being party members weren't Independents.

Re the +/-, I knew that the Croatian election pages have all been using it up till this point, but wasn't aware that it was the de facto standard for national parliament elections, I've mostly been working on subnational/regional/etc. election pages lately and my go-to for them is usually the //.

Don't worry about the undoing changes lol, it's fine as you've had good reason every time, I appreciate your fact-checking me and fixing the mistakes I've made, it's just unfortunate that I made said mistakes in the first place. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, and I've just realised that totalling the minority seats' vote totals is meaningless, as Serb voters can cast three votes, so the percentages of the minority vote totals (comparing the Serb parties with the non-Serb ones) would be nonsense numbers. I think it's best to leave the party vote totals blank and just have the seats listed, as was done for the 2016 election article, or to remove them again and have a row with 8 seats (as done for all the other election articles), with 'National minorities' linked to the section below where their vote figures are (as I've just done for the 2015 article). Cheers, Number 57 01:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah right, that's annoying, well yeah maybe best to just leave the total votes and leave out the party votes GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 Belgian government formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rainbow coalition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Results of the 2024 French legislative election in Bouche-du-Rhône moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Results of the 2024 French legislative election in Bouche-du-Rhône. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. C F A 💬 15:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melis Sekmen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Democratic Union.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Results of the 2024 French legislative election in Bouche-du-Rhône (July 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Twinkle1990 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Results of the 2024 French legislative election in Bouche-du-Rhône 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, GlowstoneUnknown! 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! Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Factions of the Liberal Party

Hi, I noticed that on the page Centre Right (Liberal Party of Australia) you changed "three major factions" to "four major factions" (despite the next sentence saying "It holds the middle position between the three factions"). I was just wondering who the fourth faction are???

Thanks Viatori (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to fix that, since the 2022 federal election, a new "Centrist" faction emerged (to my knowledge, they aren't extremely organised, but that's par for the course in terms of LPA factions) from dissidents leaving the Moderate and Centre-right factions. I'll fix the mistake I made on that page though, thanks for bringing it to my attention. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Diffusing your cats

Hi GlowstoneUnknown, regarding your French election pages, they should not be in high-level categories. See WP:DIFFUSE. Instead, Category:Results of the 2024 French legislative election by constituency itself is part of Category:2024 French legislative election, which in turn is a member of a number of categories and so on. Best, CMD (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for NSW Members of the New South Wales Legislative Council graphs

Thanks for the graphs you made on NSW Members of the New South Wales Legislative Council from the 1988 electons to 2019. I notced you made one graph for the 2022 South Australian state election on the South Australian Legislative Council. I was wondering if you have the time, could you make South Australian Legislative Council graps for the 2014 South Australian state election to 2002 South Australian state election. Muaza Husni (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sure, no worries, I'll get started in an hour. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

CCP

Hi, I reverted your edits to List of political parties in China because Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the common name. See also this discussion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah forgot about WP:COMMONNAME, sorry bout that. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I was reverted for the same thing when i was a new editor too. Happy editing. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

My apologies

I apologise for what I said and how I said it. I did mean what I said when I said it, which makes it worse. But I have reconsidered my behavior as it doesn't lead to any improvement. You don't have to respond if you don't want or accept it. -- Svito3 (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Renaissance

This edit is a complete mischaracterization of what was said in the discussion you quoted. There was NO consensus to write "centre-right" in the infobox. In FACT, at the end of that very discussion, you said that "centre with a footnote to represent fr.wiki's descriptive positions" (or something similar) is fine. Don't misrepresent the truth, please. Other editors also agreed that it is a centrist political party and centrist by European standards (such as Checco). You need to stop, GlowstoneUnknow. What you have been doing recently veers into disruptive editing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I double checked the discussion to see if I misinterpreted the consensus, but as far as I can tell, Myself, IP user, Encyclopedisme, Blaise, Helper201, and even Checco stated they were willing to accept "centre-right" (in Checco's case, as opposed to "centre to centre-right". Helper201 initially reverted my edit but after clearing up confusion on their talk page, they said that they would allow me to restore my revision. If you want to establish a new consensus, you're welcome to open a new discussion, but it isn't disruptive to implement an edit based on consensus on the talk page. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This is getting serious. You are blatantly mischaracterizing the discussion at this point. Checco said they preferred "centre" over "centre-right" even if they said they could compromise, and throughout the discussion they called Renaissance centrist by both French and European standards. Their preference was never to use centre-right. Helper201 said they favored "centre to centre-right", which isn't centre-right. The IP user never stated their opinion on the overall position, they just said that the economic ideology was centre-right, which it might be, but that doesn't effect the overall position. Checco strongly opposed "centre to centre-right". Then, you went on Helper201's talk page and stated If so, would you support removing "centre-right" from the footnote if the main position was changed to "centre to centre-right", as consensus seems to support on the article's talk page? So you yourself SAID consensus was to say "centre to centre-right" (which it was not, but nor was it to write centre-right). Lastly, Encyclopédisme is a banned sockpuppet who abusively used multiple accounts; we shouldn't their take input (and even then, they did not support the "centre-right" proposal). Finally, Blaisethebest NEVER suppored just "centre-right" but was for "centre to centre-right", which in the end wasn't agreed to in the talk page after all of the discussion. In short, you are straight up lying (yes, this is serious accusation). Neither the IP user, Encyclopédisme, Blaisethebest, Helper201, or Checco supported just "centre-right" for the infobox. Not even YOU! (See your last comment on that discussion). You are contradicting yourself. If you go back and add the position "centre-right" one more time, I will escalate this as disruptive editing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I made a mistake and I misinterpreted the consensus of the discussion, I misread a few of the messages sent there as supporting "centre-right", when in fact they supported "centre to centre-right", so I believed that the discussion had two potential consensus interpretations ("centre-right" or "centre to centre-right"), when it was actually just one. Would you accept a version of the page that says "centre to centre-right", as discussion consensus shows, in the infobox while keeping the footnote with the detailed description?

Thanks in advance – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing the mistake you made, I accept your apology. What I think you need to do is
A. Leave "Centre" in the position for now, which was the status quo for about a month after the discussion ended (and for longer than that before).
B. Restore "centre-right" to the footnote. Keeping radical centrist in the footnote wouldn't be inappropriate, if it's properly sourced.
C. Go back to the talk page and either reinitiate the previous discussion by tagging all previously involved editors (except the IP and banned user), OR start a new discussion. In either case, restate the three potential options and arguments for each.
D. Or, do nothing.
Ping me if you start a new discussion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Headcount

Hello GlowstoneUnknown. Although I think your proposal to move forward with "centre to centre-right" is fine, I just want to warn you about this. "Headcounts" aren't how we establish consensus. In a hypothetical discussion, if one user said "support XYZ because XYZ reason and therefore XYZ", but five users said "support ABC because it's better", the former would "win", since they brought forth a coherent argument, which far outweighs the votes that had no argument. See WP:NOTADEMOCRACY and WP:NOVOTE. Just a heads up for the future. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Warning!

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you.

Nohorizonss (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, have I? Would you mind pointing me to said logged-out edits? I always try to stay logged in, but sometimes (particularly on mobile) my browser signs me out and I don't notice, I tend to pick up on it before pressing "publish" though. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

While edit warring in the freedom party article, I won't pinpoint the exact edit coz it will tie you to it Nohorizonss (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure which edit you're talking about, but none of those ip edits are mine. You've got the wrong editor. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

2024 French legislative election

About your edit of this page (French legislative elections 2024): you have cancelled my revision (Attal replacing Séjourné).

1. What you said to justify it would have been welcome in the talk page, I can't debate with all the users who don't understand the difference between a party and a coalition.

2. "Stephane was the party's official leader at the time, this isn't a Presidential election" -> this is false, since Ensemble is a coalition (basically EPR-Horizon-MoDem) and some Horizon candidates chose to run alone. This would therefore be a "collective leadership", as for the NFP. But in addition, France is a semi-presidential republic, so there are two types of legislative elections in France: normal elections (following the presidential election) in which Parliament is the only issue; and the elections following a dissolution of the National Assembly: in this second case, it is the head of government (who "conducts the policy of the Nation" according to the Constitution) who is the main issue, and the candidate for Matignon is not necessarily the leader of the party. The RN candidate was Bardella, there was no official left-wing candidate, and the Ensemble candidate was Attal, not Séjourné.

3. Finally, as I said in the talk page, the General Secretary of a party is not always the true leader of a party : the one who tooks part in the three debates was always Attal, never Séjourné. 2001:861:5602:2180:805C:7304:73E6:44AB (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User:GlowstoneUnknown/GenderError

Template:User:GlowstoneUnknown/GenderError has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GlowstoneUnknown/Userboxes/GenderError

Template:GlowstoneUnknown/Userboxes/GenderError has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Results of the 2024 French legislative election in Bouche-du-Rhône

Hello, GlowstoneUnknown. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Results of the 2024 French legislative election in Bouche-du-Rhône, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

File:2025 Polish Presidential Polling.svg

Hi, first of all, I want to thank you for all of the contributions you make to en.wiki and Wikimedia Commons. However, I have noticed a few typos in the file above. I wonder if you could fix them for me :) Here is the quick link for that file: [1]. It should be an easy job for you, because it's stored in a .svg format.

• "Kosiniak.Kamysz" -> please change to "Kosiniak-Kamysz"
• "Biedrón" -> please change to "Biedroń".

Thanks for advance! Yours sincerely, Karol739 (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll get right on that. Unfortunately due to the nature of the software that generates the polling diagrams, I'm unable to include the hyphen, but I can absolutely fix the diacritics. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 22:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Isn't possible to fix the hyphen with the other piece of software, like Inkscape? You can generate it somewhere else as a text and (maybe) then move it. Karol739 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I can look into that, but I've had issues in the past with Inkscape causing visual bugs and also creating metadata that makes Commons refuse to upload files that use it. I'll definitely see if it's doable though. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 22:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 Thuringian state election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Democratic Union.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Results of the 2024 French legislative election in Bouche-du-Rhône

Hello, GlowstoneUnknown. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Results of the 2024 French legislative election in Bouche-du-Rhône".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

A bear for you!

Cmrc23 has given you a bear! Bears promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Bears must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bear, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of bears by adding {{subst:Bear}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Saw you hard at work and felt like you deserved this bear Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 22:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

"2024-25 Romanian presidential election" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2024-25 Romanian presidential election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 12 § 2024-25 Romanian presidential election until a consensus is reached. Shamrockwikiedit (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yisrael Beiteinu

Hi, I fear the description of Yisrael Beiteinu as a far-right party is incorrect or misleading. It does depend on the source, but I wouldn't call it a far-right (especially when compared to other mainstream parties in Israeli politics). אקסינו (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources overwhelmingly describe the party as such, it would be undue to exclude it. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Politics

I've noticed that you deal with many political parties. This is absolutely not a judgement, but since you've inserted your political positions on your user page, in my opinion it's not a good move to deal only and exclusively with political parties; I'm not judging you, it's my reflection. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

Hi GlowstoneUnknown! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Giorgia Meloni several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Giorgia Meloni, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy and WP:3RR, I'm planning to report the other user on WP:ANI for their fourth revert within 24 hours, since I'm unable to currently revert their most recent edit on the page due to using up my 3 reverts. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Constitutional Democratic Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

ALDE membership?

Hi @GlowstoneUnknown, I note that you removed membership information for ALDE; could you kindly let me know why you did so? I had added this information on all European political parties, since it was recently published, and it felt relevant. Thanks! Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I felt that it was a different kind of membership to what the parameter is usually for on political party articles, but looking at your revision again I realise that I made a mistake removing it. I'd have no objections to restoring it, I think I initially thought it was misleading as the number was deceptively low. Sorry for reverting it. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

No problem at all and thanks for re-instating this. Indeed, the number is really low (admittedly, it's low for all European parties, but it has come crashing down for ALDE), but that's still worthy information in and of itself :) Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

We need to talk

Alright, I don’t know what you think you’re doing or why. It just seems rather rude and frankly annoying for you to go back through my whole edit history undoing my edits as you see fit. I don't get why you are doing this. It’s just making you seem like a vindictive person. I get you disagree with my edits, but to go back in my edit history and undo a great many of my edits is a step too far. I am probably gonna go to the same board that your attempted to report me on because this is ridiculous and incredibly childish of you. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows users to track other users' edits to fix unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or to correct related problems on multiple articles. I'm sorry if this caused you distress, it was not my intention, I was only trying to remove uncited content. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit war

A new edit war?. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giorgia_Meloni&diff=prev&oldid=1272935071 You orginally made a controversial change to a longstanding version and have been reverted around 10 times overall by 2 different users. Find a consensus before reinstating your edit. --FMSky (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Consensus was already reached in that article's talk page. The only argument against it was a fabricated policy and an IJUSTDONTLIKEIT response. Why exactly have you reverted it? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Because they are more commonly described as right wing or conservative --FMSky (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

On the party's own article, there are 3 citations for far-right, 2 for radical right, and 3 for right-wing. Would you allow "right-wing to far-right" on Meloni's article? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Italy#Ideology_and_factions suggests that far-right and fascism ties were mainly in the past. They are also currently the largest party in Italy. I think right-wing populist could be a good descriptor --FMSky (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The article's lead section specifically describes Meloni's premiership as a shift towards the far-right in Italy, I consider it undue to exclude at least a mention of the far-right label. I dispute the notion that the Ideology and factions section describes facsism and far-right as purely historical, all it says is that the party refuses to describe itself openly as fascist. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess "right-wing to far-right" works too --FMSky (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@FMSky: thank you very much for your very useful and important contributions.
In my opinion this isn't a good compromise, because it seems that Meloni has taken the party to the far right ("...to far right"). JacktheBrown (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I've added "and" instead of "to", compromise reached.  Done. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, glad we could come to a suitable compromise. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI

From Help:Citation merging For a more streamlined look without bullets that complies with the accessibility guidelines, use template {{multiref}} or {{multiref2}}. Moxy🍁 07:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on Afghanistan since you didn't see it

Hello GlowstoneUnknown, I think you missed the discussion I opened on 9 February when you made this edit. I linked to the discussion in my edit but you seem to have missed that. The discussion was left open for over two weeks with no comments, so I decided to implement the change. Here is the link again. Typically, that list article is kept consistent with the country pages. I am assuming good faith and invite you to share your knowledge on Afghanistan's legal system there. To be clear, I am not an expert on Iran and don't care if you need to make two categories for that list article. My expertise is on Afghanistan and the issue I was correcting was the incorrect categorization of Afghanistan as being a provisional system. TEMPO156 (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The reason nobody joined your discussion was because it should have been an RfC, and the edits you made that I reverted go further than your discussion suggested, by grouping in Iran and Afghanistan as having the same (or even similar) political systems. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

RfCs are a good tool if there's already some discussion on the talk page an a wider source of opinions need to be obtained. In general talk pages are the appropriate place to start a discussion. RfCs typically are started if a few editors already disagree and you will see that once you spend some more time here. Also, I encourage you to fully read my comment above. I do not care whether you group Afghanistan and Iran together, just that Afghanistan's system is identified correctly. TEMPO156 (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, that initial comment should've been worded better, I've just woken up from a nap. I'm fine with your edits in principle, but what I meant to draw attention to by reverting them was the issue of combining Iran's Islamic Republic and Afghanistan's Islamic theocracy. I only reverted instead of making the categories separate because I wasn't prepared to create a new category at the time. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like we have no disagreement and I trust you to maintain that page. I am a scholar of (mostly) Afghanistan and that was the reason for the change. TEMPO156 (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Iran's system isn't purely a theocracy, and if you wanted to group it with Afghanistan, you should have opened a discussion on Talk:List of countries by system of government. I'm sure your edits were in good faith, but it was WP:BOLD to group them together, so that was my reasoning for the revert. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

For a third time I will repeat myself. I don't care if they are grouped together or separately (although many political scientists would describe them both as theocracies). I was only trying to correct Afghanistan's system. TEMPO156 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

ANI notice: disruptive editing

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Svito3 (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Svito3

Heya, can I strongly suggest reverting your edit on Svito3's page and leaving them alone as much as possible? They're obviously unhappy about the block and circumstances surrounding it, and it would be kind and courteous to avoid poking them any more. Give them time to cool down and see whether you can have more productive conversations once they're back editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Is reverting my reply better than <del>-tagging it in your opinion? Not sure which is more appropriate. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally I would revert, so that it basically disappears from their talk page - my concern would be that even struck through things are easily read (as of course they should be) and that could inflame tensions further. I see you've already gone ahead and reverted. Thank you for listening to my concerns, and I appreciate you acting to promote calm and collegial behavior. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

New Zealand First edit war

Let's try be civil and have a discussion in good faith before we continue to unleash an edit war on the New Zealand First page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhobabwe (talk • contribs)

@User:Rhobabwe I've reverted your most recent edit and explained the correct procedure to follow after your edits are reverted, if you wish to justify your edits, go to the article's own talk page and explain them and their merits. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That's what I thought would be advantageous. We can individually explain our motivation and let the people decide, if indeed there are any interested. Rhobabwe (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

"Undue"

Hello. What is this specifically in reference to ("non-consensual and undue edits")? It seems a clear improvement to the article. The edits by JohnAdams1800 (who has been banned) were widely opposed on the talk page.

I want to work this out with you. UnashamedPapist (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

There has been consensus established (I believe through a Request for Comment, although I may be mistaken) to exclude both "centrism" and "centre-right" from the infobox and to describe the party as "right-wing" in the position parameter. This isn't only a JohnAdams affair, this is a consensus that was established by multiple editors. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Senate terms end on 30 June 2025

Please note in your future edits that terms of state senators end on 30 June 2025. Your edit on David Van last week had been undone (rightfully) by another user. Marcnut1996 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Bulgarian Communist Party

Hi! Since I don't want to start an edit war, I wanted to talk to you about this edit. In the description you said Stalinism is not an ideology. While I'm no expert in Marxist politics, I did notice other Eastern Bloc communist parties had Stalinism as an ideology I figured this one should too. From what I know Stalinism is classified as an ideology (although I may be wrong). If I am, do you suggest we remove Stalinism from every party that has it as an ideology? – Odideum ^💬 21:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, "Stalinism" is a term that's either mistakenly used to refer to Marxism-Leninism (the actual ideology Josef Stalin founded and adhered to) or it refers to the means by which Stalin governed the USSR and the policies he implemented specifically. I'd personally favour the removal of it as a listed ideology in party infoboxes, but I won't go out of my way to find and fix every instance of it. Another reason I removed it from the Bulgarian Communist Party page that I forgot to list in the summary was that as far as I could tell, it was completely unsourced on the page. I only noticed I'd forgotten to mention the lack of sourcing after hitting "Submit". – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

First Blair Ministry

The bar was added without consensus or explanation, so removing it does not require consensus. As Impru20 explained in their edit summary: "Composition bars for legislature status should not be added in the infobox of articles not about legislatures. The government's parliament (direct) support may (and frequently does) vary through its tenure, as well as its confidence and supply support. Further, government articles are not and do not cover this (note MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) and no reason is given for inclusion (other than, seemingly, decoration)".

The IP editor has been asked repeatedly to use the talk page to justify their addition but ignore the invitation. Your reversion, presumably unwittingly, colludes with their bullying behaviour. I suggest you self-revert or at least use the talk page to clarify. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The bar has been status quo for 5 years, making it consensual, Impru's removal of it is therefore WP:BOLD and without consensus, meaning both myself and the IP user are allowed to revert its removal. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Aside of my initial reasoning (as put forward by @JMF), in this specific article the bar is plainly wrong because Blair's ministry did not end its first term with 418 MPs (that was its composition at the beginning of the term, but Labour won the Speaker's seat during the term), yet you did not care at all and went on to mass-revert a lot of articles without any justification other than a generic "without consensus". Many of these composition bars were added by you as recently as early this year without any kind of consensus, these have now been disputed with an extensive explanation and you did not care to even put a reason why you were contesting these reasonings. Many of these articles composition bars are plainly wrong and/or including misleading data. You are now trying to unlaterally modify the scope of these articles in order to fit your views by forcibly inserting parliamentary compositions as separate sections, despite these articles not being about this ([2] [3]). Your behaviour is close to one of the most eggregious WP:GAME breaches I have seen in Wikipedia in recent times. Impru20^talk 08:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your assumption of bad faith in accusing me of gaming the system. Thank you for pointing out the mistake in the composition bar, I'll fix it now. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you care to explain this? You just reverted a lot of articles citing a "lack of consensus". I reverted one of your edits addition a section that altered the scope of one of these articles by citing your very same reasoning (i.e. a lack of consensus for its inclusion), yet you chose to ignore that there was no consensus for that in that specific case. What gives? Impru20^talk 08:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The case of my addition of the table in the Stocker government article was an addition of sourced content that fixed the potential WP:IBP issues in the infobox. If you have issues with its inclusion, please clarify them. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You added content without consensus after complaining about dozens of edits not having "consensus". Impru20^talk 08:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have an issue with the content? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Huh, yes? It's literally explained in the first paragraph of this thread. Impru20^talk 08:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I meant, do you have an issue with the content of the "Parties" table? If so, why? And if not, why should it not be included? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

As this is affecting a wide range of articles, I am currently writing a detailed RfC at Template talk:Infobox government cabinet to address this and other issues in a centralized venue and to determine whether a consensus exist for or against adding this kind of content. So worry not, as you will have the opportunity to check my full detailed reasoning, as well as to have your say as it's your right. Impru20^talk 08:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

That is unrelated to the content of the subsection that I added, would you oppose my re-addition of it? If so, why? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would oppose you re-addition of it as per WP:TOPIC, because it goes beyond the article's scope and brings it off-topic. Most specially, your edit seems best suited for List of members of the 28th National Council of Austria, isn't it? Impru20^talk 09:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The same applies to Fifth Orbán Government: your edit replacing the "Party breakdown of cabinet ministers" (within the scope of the article) for a "Breakdown of the parties in government" (including material outside the article's scope) would be more suited for List of members of the National Assembly of Hungary (2022–2026). Also, this highlights the misleading situation of the composition bar in the infobox showing only a single party yet your "party breakdown" showing two... Impru20^talk 09:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Lol this "fix" is even more wrong: Labour gained the Speaker's seat throughout the 1997-2001 term. It started with 418 seats in 1997, it had 419 at the end of the term in 2001. You are not even caring to source or research your edits, man. Impru20^talk 08:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Is that so? Thank you for pointing it out, I'll gladly fix that. Sorry that I was mistaken. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, upon browsing Michael Martin's page, it seems like I was correct the first time, in that he was elected Speaker during the 1997–2001 parliamentary term. Are you positive that Labour did indeed gain the seat in that term? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

As you can see from 1997 United Kingdom general election#Results, Labour elected 418 MPs in 1997, without the Speaker (Betty Boothroyd), who is counted separately in the table. She resigned her seat in 2000 and was replaced in her constituency by a Labour MP, which is indeed regarded as a gain for Labour. Your edit lowered Labour's count to 417 explaining that this was a result of Michael Martin's election as Speaker ([4]), but you did fail to consider what happened to the previous Speaker. If we include Martin, the final total was 419; if not, as Speaker, it would be 418 but this should, at the very least, be noted to the casual reader since he did start the term as a Labour MP.

Now, this poses an interesting issue (one I have been raising from the very beginning) since, only in the period previous to Martin's election, Labour numbers kept going from 418 to 417 and even 416 for brief periods of time during the parliamentary term due to deaths and resignations. Should this be reflected in the infobox? Yes/No and why? Impru20^talk 09:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Your editation

Hello, why you recently removed sourced content at page Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia? You written there: revert, a source from 2002. That is not true, source you removed was from 2025. Can you explain this? ThecentreCZ (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, so sorry, for some reason I remember the source being used being the same as the source from the lead, which is from 2002. Not sure why. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)