Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

		The Original Barnstar
		For your great, utterly diligent, detailed and impressive work at Spanish general election, 2011 and other Spanish elections' articles. Your accomplishment is very much appreciated. RJFF (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, Impru20, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Spanish general elections, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Time to share a beer!
	I thought those of us who worked to backdate Green shares at Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election and clear up the mess of the UKIP 2011 shares there should share a beer to celebrate finishing that task. DrArsenal (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your tireless contributions in Spanish election articles, especially in Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015. You are incredible. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! KrakatoaKatie 05:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I've been following the opinion polls for the Spanish General Election. Thanks for all your work on keeping the page up to date :) Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Muchas gracias por sus ediciones en los artículos de los elecciones generales españolas. ¡Es muy apreciado! :) TwoWholeWorms (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent work creating detailed, informative and thorough articles on Spanish elections. Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Not the first and I imagine not the last Barnstar for your extensive and extremely high-quality coverage of Spanish politics! You should be proud of both 2015-16 Spanish government formation and 2016 PSOE crisis, among the best English-language news sources on the web! Muchas gracias! Jdcooper (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gràcies. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you very much for single-handedly dealing with all those edit requests relating to recognition of Catalonia! My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 11:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For all your calm and measured efforts at Catalan Republic (2017) and at 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis. And for clearly explaining at the relevant talk pages. ! --- Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just saw your overhaul of Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election – great work as usual, and thanks for all the work you've put into articles on Spanish elections, polling, and politics both past and present. Mélencron (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded, and thoroughly deserved, for the exceptional work you performed in improving Catalan regional election, 2017 through the use of citations and civility. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CDC has been replaced by PDeCAT but there are no source that CDC has been dissolved. The party have not any activity but still exit. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we are in the same case than Our Ukraine (political party) or Democratic Party (Japan). But sources does not talk about dissolution. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please replace "Dissolved" by "defunct" in the infobox. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could add special items like for others infobox "1blankname/1namedata" or adding a parenthesis and a note. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got sources about deputies who has been registrated as members of PDeCAT, CDC and independents ? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think we should consider that there are 13 PDeCAT, and we should reintegrate Elsa only if there are source who said that she is now again member of the party. We could add that in the articles. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Why did you wrote that the party has been merged ? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Are you agree if I add the number of JuntxCat deputies who are members from PDeCAT ? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, Hoss--I was busy reverting but you jumped in: you certainly don't need to be reverting any more. Remember, it takes two to edit-war, and edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Next time, leave it be and file at WP:ANEW, OK? Drmies (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, they did it again but I gotta get out of here--can you file at WP:ANEW if some nice admin hasn't blocked them yet? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru! In the article Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2018, a user upload a graph about the opinion polls for coalitions; I must admit that his graph isn't as so "good" as yours, so if you want create a graph for coalitions, it will be great! Thank you so much :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 – if it isn't too much trouble and you've got some extra time on your hands it'd be nice if you could make one, though I realize that you've probably also got other priorities on Wikipedia at the moment. Mélencron (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep adding an old graph in the page Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2018, claiming that it plots data "poll results from 25 February 2013 to the present day". This is incorrect, since the data displayed is only until mid-December. So please update the graph with the latest results, or until then Wikipedia should not report wrong claims. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.0.109.81 (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "First Secretary of the Parliament of Catalonia" is not the "First Secretary of the Partit dels Socialistes de Catalunya". Correct your foolish mistake.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spanish local elections, 2007, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Torrent and Las Rozas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ehm... were is the discussion in which it was decided to eliminate the third position in the page Italian general election, 2001?--Wololoo (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been doing a lot of great work for the articles related to party politics in Spain and its regions. There is just one thing missing, though, on the article on opinion polling in Spain, namely that it is not possible to sort the table by pollster. As you know pollsters may widely differ, because of the polling method, the wording, and so on.

I have spent a few hours to make it work. The results are very good, in my opinion: take a look at my sandbox page. Once you sort by pollster, you can best observe the trends of Ciudadanos and PP.

You may frown at the creation of a 'Source' column out of the 'Polling firm/Commissionner' column. However, I had no choice. The sorting doesn't work properly when there is a reference number inside the cell, for instance 'Celeste-Tel/eldiario.es [123]'. I also had to remove the "p" reference group, so as to gain space. It could be possible, for aesthetical reasons, to move the Source column further to the right, with the Visual Editor, in order to get a table somewhat like on the Swedish Wikipedia.

Another change is that I added a 'data-sort-value' attribute on each of the date cells, to make the sorting work seamlessly.

If it is perfect, feel free to copypaste. Otherwise, I am eager to receive your feedback.

Kahlores (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Ok, I've taken a look at your suggestion and chose to do some tweaking myself to make it work properly. While I've known about the sortability function for a while, I was not a big fan of it because it affected the table's mechanics (i.e. increasing each sortable column's width beyond its established one; the issue you mention about references and so on). However, it seems a lot of people find it useful and it looks like the trend nowadays is to make these tables sortable by pollster and date, so it's ok.

Nonetheless, I had to make some tweaking to your proposal: firstly, you indeed guessed out correctly that I'd frown at the idea of creating a separate "Sources" column (not only because it'd be a break in consistency with all other opinion polling tables in other articles for Spanish general/regional/local elections, but also because you won't always be able to properly fit this into the table; specifically if polls report a large number of parties and the table is too wide). However, by using the 'data-sort-value' attribute also on the "polling firm" cells, I've essentially added the sortability function into these two columns while preserving the table's overall shape (I've also managed to get it so that you can return it to normal after sorting it by pollster).

The change can now be seen right here; hope it works as intended.

Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to have a sortable table and now we have it. The 'Source' column was only a workaround.

The only thing I would suggest would be to remove the space-taking "group="p"" attribute (which could be done in less than a minute with an editor), whose utility seems very obscure to me.

Many thanks.

Kahlores (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a (fairly pointless) discussion on the article's talk page about the template (where you can see who the owner of all the IPs is). Could you keep an eye on all the other UK referendum articles as he's reverting across all of them. I was thinking about asking them all to be semi-protected, but last time I did that, he logged into his account and edited that way instead. Cheers, Number 57 11:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20, when you have some free time, could you complete the graph about the 2018 election’s polls and start the one about the next election? Thank you so much :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20 firstly thank you for doing the graph on the Italian opinion polls. I am just wondering do you know how to do map's on wikipeaida? Leftwinguy92 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to apologize about the edit I made about the Main Opposition and Other Opposition, I read and found out that there is no such thing as Main or Other Opposition. I hope that our disagreement didn’t cause anything to happen. --Pizzalover12 (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2018 Pizzalover12 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

I bona nit i bona hora. CodeInconnu (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A username, his/her obssession with a political party, his/her indefinite block, a suggestion to run a cross pattern of contributions with another user here and take the later along some diffs here. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I didn't remove the office of Leader of the Opposition, that I too think is important, I merely placed the office of Secretary General of the PSOE above of it, since it is an office in which Pedro Sánchez is still an incumbent, and, if I may add, one is exclusively dependant on the other. M. Armando (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I've created a vector version of the map that is being used for Spanish elections.

Please let me know if you have any feedback on it.

Many thanks

--RaviC (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've created a version with a colour scheme. --RaviC (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not re-interpreting the legal sources, but following valid legal criteria - the same that have been followed with former Spanish Prime Ministers - to determine when Rajoy's term ended. Please read this message. Thanks a lot for your attention and sorry for the inconvenience.

Rajoy's term ended on June 2, not on June 1. It specifically ended when Sánchez became Prime Minister. There cannot be a power vacuum between both days. The Royal Decrees published in the Official Diary of the State were signed on June 1, but were published the following day, and therefore did not come into force until that same day. The day the decree was signed has no legal validity. Please check how the Decree which made Rajoy Prime Minister in 2011 was also signed one day before it came into force - it was signed on December 20, the day he was elected by the Congress of Deputies, but Rajoy only became Prime Minister one day later, when the Decree was published and he was sworn in. This same article states that his first term began on December 21, so there is an obvious contradiction between both dates, because two different criteria are being followed. I can guarantee you that the correct criterium is the 21 December - 2 June one, which is the one that has been followed to fix the date Rajoy's term began and also to establish the dates when former Spanish Prime Ministers began and finished their terms. Thanks a lot for your attention. Check: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/12/21/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-19861.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas, Impru. Viendo el artículo del gobierno de Pedro Sánchez me ha llamado la atención la traducción de lo que creo que es "formación profesional" como "vocational training". No puedo más que preguntarme de dónde sale está traducción tan, no sé, extraña. Un saludo y gracias por tus aportaciones. Asturkian (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Why did you color Pastor in grey in the PP leadership election ? --Panam2014 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor is considered as an independent politician. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Cifuentes not Pastor. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you've taken the decision to temporarily undo my edits. However, the logo is not copyrighted as it is a derivative file from the logo of the Albanian Socialist Party, which is extremely similar to that of PSOE, but falls under a different legal framework - that of Albanian law. I hope you can take that into consideration. Regards, --Fer1997 (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't get to understand is that a derivation from a perfectly fine logo is, all of a sudden, a copyright violation. Even more so if, when both logos are compared, there are certain differences in height and some of the shapes. I hope this matter is fixed in the deletion page. --Fer1997 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Party (Spain) leadership election, 2018, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have seen that you have created graphs of Electoral statistics and I would like to know with what program you do them, so that I can also contribute to make diagrams of that quality. Thanks! --Stalin990 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20, how are you? I'm writing you because I would like to know how do you create your amazing maps regarding Spanish politics. In fact I would like to create similar maps for the Italian elections, but I sincerely don't know which program I could use. Thank you :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean exactly by "The .svg cannot be made workable to be consistent with previous articles"? As I showed you with this file, it most certainly can. --RaviC (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted changes in Basque national party page

The official name of the party in English is "Basque National Party"

https://www.facebook.com/basquenationalparty/?ref=br_rs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.79.62 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you in the article's talk page. Impru20^talk 14:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i am not editing, i am reverting the edit that this person did. He is removing some information that was there, i am reverting the edit. So if that info want to be delated, is that person who should open a disscuission.

The info in equo party have been there for a while with no changes or complains. Because it was intended to be reverted with no explanation, i added some sources, but if it is a disccuion about it, then it should stay for now how it was before the different point of views started, so that info cannot be removed.

so the problem is the sources? the disscuss about them. one by one.

I must say you are right regarding Crida's project, regarding WP's Crystall ball policy. Just read the policy's text once again and you are right. Apologies for the unreversion. :-)Kippelboy (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 509 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

-- Dolotta (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jaime Blanco García has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Natureium (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20 . I noticed that you recently used ethnicelebs.com as a source for information in a biography article, Ada Colau. Please note that there is general consensus that ethnicelebs.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Javier Otano has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Natureium (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joaquín Leguina has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have a comment regarding the translations of the demonyms included in the names of political organizations in local elections. As I see it, there are five ways of doing it, and I think we should stick to one of them and be consistent:
1. Preserve the original word (Convergència Poblera --> Pobler/Poblera Convergence)
2. Adapt the original word to English (Pobleran Convergence)
3. Use an English denomyn from the toponym (Poblese Convergence)
4. Use the form "of+toponym" (Convergence of Sa Pobla)
5. Use only the toponym (Sa Pobla Convergence)
With the exception of some places as big cities, the majority of places doesn't have an English denomyn, so options 2 or 3 would mean making a word up. Option 1 would take the word from the place's Wikipedia page, and it could be used adapting it to the genre of the name or preserving the masculine singular form, which would be as the English language would use it. Options 4 and 5 would be less controversial.--Togiad (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Los artículos de Torre-Pacheco y de La Unión, Murcia tienen el rango de Stub. Este corresponde cuando el artículo solo da una introducción y una descripción muy básica del tema.

Estos dos municipios a principios de año sí cumplían con los requisitos para ser «Stub», pero desde hace unos meses añadí mucho contenido a estos: su historia, su demografía, su geografía, «Main sights» y personajes principales. Además hay otros usuarios que me han corregido mis faltas gramaticales y ortográficas.

Creo que por lo menos estos dos artículos se merecen una el rango «Starter» y me gustaría que se evaluasen. Ya lo puse en la sección de evaluación en su momento, pero no ha dado resultado. Bueno, sí el de Torre-Pacheco lo revisaron e indicaron que había faltas ortográficas y gramaticales y pusieron el cartel de que requería copyediting, pero tras esto y con las faltas corregidas no ha habido mayor intervención en cuanto a su evaluación.

--Yolanda95 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Yolanda95[reply]

Okay, I didn't mean to create a messy table, and I see why you undid the edit. However, I have been reviewing the results and found some errors in the ministry page. In any case, I think there should be a consistency when putting parties and candidacies in these kinds of tables. Maybe if the table is too long, then the threshold can be raised. If not, it is difficult to suppose which candidacies are important and why they are more important than others, it would be too subjective. Nevertheless, my intention is not to complicate or confuse things, so I'm open to suggestions.--Togiad (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. Results in Sa Pobla in 1983 for PSM and CP (INDEP in the Ministry page) are swapped. CP obtained an absolute majority. Some sources are: [2], [3], [4], Page 96. If you don't believe me or the sources and you will just leave the table as you want, then just please do not compare PSM results to CP, that would not be correct at all. Thank you.
PD1: If you want more proofs of actual names of independent candidacies, I'm looking for them and putting here the most relevant if I can find them. It's a bit frustrating that you erase them but maintain some others for no reason.
PD2: Apart from this, you reverted me more than once and then ended up with a table very similar to the one I constructed... So I think you should not be so fast reverting others' edits. Thank you.--Togiad (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there you have it [5], from page 6. I made a wrong assumption and I apologise for that. The swap in the Ministry page is triple. The actual results were: CP 3,260v/9c; AP 2,781v/7c; PSM 350v/1c; PSOE 302v/0c. This way, the councillors shown in the Historia Electoral page for PSOE and PSM coincide. I think it makes sense.--Togiad (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas tardes, Impru. Te escribo porque leyendo periódicos me he encontrado este particular artículo de El Confidencial en el que se trabaja el estudio de campo del CIS y utiliza la que según ellos fue la metodología anterior al nuevo CIS tan manido últimamente. ¿Puede servirte para ponerlo como una encuesta más o no tiene valor más allá de la curiosidad? Un saludo y gracias por tus aportaciones. Asturkian (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to defuse the situtation, but there was really no need to change the reference format – the tagging was purely disruptive/point making and unfortunately I think your edit might only serve to embolden them to start being disruptive elsewhere... Number 57 11:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas. Sí, es cierto que faltan muchos concejos en las elecciones locales de 1983. Sin embargo, los resultados se pueden obtener en la hemeroteca de El Comercio. Más en concreto del día 10 de mayo de 1983, entre las páginas 11 y 14, vienen los escaños en todos los concejos asturianos y el recuento de votos en Gijón, por si te sirve de algo para salir del paso. Igual no es suficiente pero me apenaría que por un fallo del Ministerio no pudiera tener/poder ayudar en estos artículos. Un saludo. Asturkian (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your edit in Parliament of Catalonia because the members aren't legally suspended: https://www.parlament.cat/document/bopc/275863.pdf#page=70. The section B was passed but the A wasn't. Adriaesc (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their votes may not be valid to vote but they are legally deputies, so they number of deputies has not changed. Adriaesc (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As we've previously discussed the existing issues with this page, you may be interested in the ongoing deletion discussion there

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_shortest-lived_sovereign_states

Hi, the change that I was making to the titles in the EP infoboxes is simply standardizing the title. The format varies a bit from county to country and year to year. I picked the commonest one and used that one. Spleodrach (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The majority were actually in the format County European Parliament election, YYYY so that's why I went with that, e.g. United Kingdom European Parliament election, 1984 which has been in that format on that article for nearly 10 years. Your decision to a different format in not correct, just your personal opinion. So since you think you are correct, you can standarise all the articles to your format. My main concern was standarising the headings, I really couldn't care which of two equally correct options is chosen. Spleodrach (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained in the Badalona one, for starters as long as having reliable third party sources available dealing with the event (which I am sure it is not the case with all the municipalities of Spain). Second, adhering to the same "arbitrary" criteria the 2015 Spanish local elections entry uses (arbitrary, but falling short of the 8,000 municipalities) is another possibility.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because that compact format using the legislative election template fits the purpose of a "election for electing a full chamber" best, with the other one you mention giving not enough importance to the focus of the election (electing councillors from a list) detracted by what it is not actually elected in the election. This user has not invented the template, and it may be seen in other elections (with an awfully similar election system) such as the 2018 Belgrade one. In any case, I don't have a problem with discussing the merits of each one and how damaging may that be for Wikipedia.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You considering WP:POLITICIAN in regards of assessing the individual notability of biographies does not change the ultimate nature of any election. Mixing two different things here is an editorial disservice. I can certainly show you examples of how reliable sources tend to summarize elections in Spain using tables and graphics.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria? You accuse me of not reading, but you are also reading me sketchy at best. Barring the use of the standard "you have sources, you create content based on them" criteria (outrageous, right?), the same criteria the 2015 Spanish local elections entry uses for summarizing the change in city control ("Provincial capitals and municipalities above 75,000").--Asqueladd (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, man, sorry for the personal remark, but you literally blanking the Zaragoza one (5th municipality, 666,058 inhabitantes) while also creating the Seville one (4th municipality 693,878 inhabitants) should mark a milestone of unconstructive editing in Wikipedia, certainly worth of some personal introspection.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also claim I need to "abide to BRD". Have you considered that returning entries created some time ago (all of them reviewed by third party users, not me, not you) to the original version, may be the stable version while you may be the one violating BRD when you repeatedly blank them?--Asqueladd (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consejos vendo que para mí no tengo. Let's see:

• Out of the blue you decided to create entries for the local elections of the four biggest municipalities in Spain since 1979, some of them without providing a single friggin' source offering context/analyzing the actual election!!!! Is 4 a magic number or something?
• When a user different than you create entries for the same thing in case of other big municipalities (including the next most populated municipality!, and all of them deemed within the group of "relevant" municipalities in the entry about the 2015 Spanish local elections), all of them providing at least a reliable source offering context for the election, you bluntly blanked all of them (because going down the slippery slope, you can't have articles for "8000 municipalities"!). That cognitive dissonance is rich, and foremost, it is disruptive and a pattern of abuse.
• You blatantly gave a bad assessing about the content of the entries you blanked, like if they were any different from the ones you created. The reality is that barring the inclusion of polls in some of the later, the former actually feature more content about the actual election, with the ones created by you being larger in size mostly because of the inclusion of the same bloc of redundant information about the electoral system across entries that could be better adressed in a potential Spanish local elections entry dealing with electoral legislation and the likes.
• Is it rich, isn't it. The reality is that local elections elect local councillors regardless of the individual notability of those biographies to merit and standalone article, and you can't trump that reality (this goes about also the infobox structure and the information in the body of the entry). But then an arbitrary (unlike the former criteria) list of city control change of notable "municipalities" can be included in the 2015 Spanish local elections to the dreaded 8,000 municipalities (which needless to say, it is not the purpose of the election). And at the same time, none can apparently use that same arbitrary list to extract a criteria of notability of municipalities (other than "4 is enough, because four is the number I got to"?).
• And finally you try to position yourself in a place of power in this dispute pointing out in a patronizing way that I "need to abide to WP:BRD", when any editor will tell you that the one not abiding to WP:BRD, when you are repeatedly blanking reviewed entries, is you. All of them while "we discuss". How considerate! Why you don't blank the articles of local elections in Spain created by you while "we discuss" too?

I will continue.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, I see you keep on repeating a twisted line of thinking, pulling the same one also in regional elections (where it was solved not because of going to the point, but because of adressing notability of standalone biographies). In the most intransigent fashion, you sport the combination of WP:LIST and WP:POLITICIAN policies to deny the addition of whoever was elected in a given election in the article of that election. That's really really going over the top at interpreting policies, because that is not just a mere "Wikipedia list of people". It is also the frigging "result of the election" (the purpose of the whole event, and therefore a core element, if not the core element, for the comprehension of the article). If you question the notability of the results of any election you may be better served questioning the full entries altogether (not just a section), instead of using the argument to distort the meaning of those elections. Because failing to do the former, thus trying to describe a process considering the purpose of that process non-notable, you are bound to create foul creations.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2000 Spanish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1977 general election (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just wanted to say well done for getting all the Spanish election/referendum articles moved, reformatted etc so quickly! Number 57 17:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a member of Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language and is there because MediaWiki does not recognize Valencian as a language name. The cs1|2 templates put articles in that category when the value assigned to |language= is not a language name or ISO 639 code recognized by MediaWiki. There is no direct ISO 639 code for Valencian but there is an IANA language tag, ca-valencia, which is as close cs1|2 can get at present.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: language=ca-valencia shows up as "Catalan", which in essence is the same as if you used language=Catalan, which is obviously not what intended when using "Valencian", which is a officially-recognized language according to the Valencian statute of autonomy. Possibly, it should be either made as a recognizable ISO 639 code by MediaWiki or else, but changing the name from "Valencian" to "Catalan" in those articles where the first is intended as the proper ref language tag to use is not the most appropiate solution, I think. Impru20^talk 10:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint against me was: This gave no error so I don't know how this translates as a "cite repair". I came here to show that there is an error and to explain why it is there, all in defense of your accusation that I was doing something other than 'cite repair'.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: And your language tag change edit summary was cite repair, which was not an obvious thing since the cite itself did not give errors within the article. In fact, when you explained where the error was, you did not even mention the words "cite" or "repair", but argued that "There is no direct ISO 639 code for Valencian". This is not the same as a citing error (of which there could be multiple ones) nor a cite needing repair. A clearer edit summary in the first place, explaining that this was due to the ISO 639 code issue, would have worked better. Impru20^talk 11:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a message in the article. To see the message and others like it, you must enable them; instructions for that are at Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have hacked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox to support |language=Valencian and |language=ca-valencia (MediaWiki still does not):

{{cite web/new |title=Eleccions Autonòmiques |url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgSVrTjCEAAchaz.png |language=Valencian |work=PP |date=12 February 2014}}

"Eleccions Autonòmiques". PP (in Valencian). 12 February 2014.

{{cite web/new |title=Eleccions Autonòmiques |url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgSVrTjCEAAchaz.png |language=ca-valencia |work=PP |date=12 February 2014}}

"Eleccions Autonòmiques". PP (in Valencian). 12 February 2014.

After the next cs1|2 module suite update, templates with these language-parameter values will categorize into Category:CS1 Valencian-language sources (ca) as a subcategory of Category:CS1 Catalan-language sources (ca).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should at least mention the connection between Catalunya Sí que es Pot and Barcelona en Comú, because they are largely identical and it was also made in the regional election in Catalonia 2017 (heir even in a column). Braganza (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Impru20 I know, but it can be confusing for readers to introduce extra columns for sister parties, especially if you list En Comú Podem and Catalunya en Comú–Podem anyway. Braganza (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Since you're a very experienced Wikipedian, and on opinion polling articles especially, I would like to ask you two questions:

• what is the Wikipedia consensus on the arrangement of parties from left to right?
• what is the Wikipedia consensus on the splitting of long lists of opinion polls?

I have come in disagreement with editors on the Israeli page. I have split up the long list into more readable yearly lists (as was done for the UK, Italian and Polish opinion polls). Others disagree and suggest a post-dissolution/pre-dissolution split. I am open at this but I wonder if there is some kind of rule or consensus.

A more problematic issue is my suggestion to arrange the Israeli parties according to the left-right axis (as is done for the French opinion polls). It works very well for Israel, as there are very well defined categories with little to no overlap (Arab, Secular Left, Center, Right-wing, Orthodox, Haredi). Such axis would be a great improvement as most transfers are within one category, or with the category nearby. But people complain of NPOV. Kahlores (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas, Impru. Estos artículos resultan muy útiles y son un currazo de la leche por tu parte, pero creo que estaría bien enlazarlos con el artículo principal de cada una de las elecciones locales. En este de Asturias 2003, si ves el "What links here", apenas abarca las plantillas y poco más. Un saludo y feliz año 2019. Asturkian (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20 I don't counting C, V and L as in the government, there was a note that put it right ...

The incumbent government is the Löfven II Cabinet, it is consists of S and MP and it is supported by C, L and V (see here) and was sworn in on 18 January 2019.

Braganza (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There is historiography that estates the position of President of the Generalitat of Catalona was created in 1932 and the first president was Macià. That's why many historians says that Quim Torra is the president number 10 as you can see here: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] . So as there is two points of view I propose you to add both numeration each one with its references. Regards. --Kurrop (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody sees Venezuela or China as democracies despite the official version that says so. So as there is controversy I think that both versions should be reflected on the article and don't let a tendentious idea to the reader or sending him to another article in order to have a more clear idea of the matter. What would be your proposal in order to do more neutral the article? Thank you in advance.--Kurrop (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2008 Spanish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antena 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election#Final voting. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rafael Simancas has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Otr500 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Will the party contest the Spanish election? And PDeCAT or JuntsCat? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And did you know how many MP, MP of Generalitat, etc, have joined Crida? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Call for the Republic: the number of senators, deputies and Catalan MP is souced? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2008 Spanish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Greens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy. Up to this point you can't source there is going to be a party coalition between both parties. If so, source it, please. If barrying a probatio diabolica we can assume until confirmed there is no coalition (or rather, given the explicit name of the candidacy, until proving something more straightforward: the nature of something going under the name "Más Madrid" as electoral coalition), Equo candidates will stand as candidates in a Más Madrid list as independents for all legal purposes (just like in 2015 for Podemos). I assume the criteria underlined by your edits at 2019 Madrid City Council election was to only include "sub-parties" when they stand in a coalition, not through the means of "incrustating" candidates in a party list (as the later can be done both by a "party" as by a "neighbor association", the later case being an extreme example of the problems posed by you vis-à-vis "Bancada Municipalista").--Asqueladd (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same than about Equo in the regional election could be said about Actúa (another political party) willing to incrustate in Más Madrid for the municipal election (through María Garzón?), by the way.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we can add them in the municipal election (I am not yet sure if we ought to, though). Just to be clear: my interest is to regulate arbitrariness in what it seems to be a circumstantial discardable box (which I actually abhor). Once accepted the existence of the box we can take two approaches (I personally would lean towards hardcore version of a)):

• a) stick to the nature of the candidacies (that entails waiting to know their nature: 1) a party, 2) a party coalition, 3) a grouping of electors or 4) a party federation, with only 2) and 4) being able to structurally include "parties" within themselves)
• b) adapt in the run on the basis of what the sources actually "say". The later approach would mean that if sources deal with an unnamed candidacy which it is a "confluence" of three organizations, so be it (not two because we don't "like" it when they are not political parties, as it if being a "political party" held any meaning in the case of the umbrella candidacy being an "instrumental party" or the likes). Or if sources say a party will run within another party, so be it (instead of making that "another" party both an umbrella organization and the organization under the umbrella when that cannot be inferred from the source).

Any deviation from (or mix of) a) and b) adds further whimsicallity we can do without. IMO.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we agree to disagree. Nothing more to say about Equo and Actúa. Regarding the unnamed list if it ever gets a name and the sources still consider it a confluence of three organizations, I may bring your words of "miss key information that may be relevant for some readers" if you drop a name because of "not being a political party" when actually bringing councillors to the (circumstantial) box (Carmona and Galcerán, IIRC). Please don't take it as a blunt "disruptive way to illustrate a point" and accept a reflexion about it.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep track on developments "Municipalistas" (the Spain-wide referent of La Bancada) registered as party on 4 March 2019, "Anticapitalistas Madrid" registered as party on 1 March 2019. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spanish general elections has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spanish general election, 1979 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Since I noticed that you had to deal with similar situations, I come to you so you can take a look at here: Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Disputed. I don't understand the point of having a permanent template in the article saying "disputed" on something that is clearly not disputed. And as far as I know, users need to expose reasons in talk page before making any change. But this seems straight bad faith. I understand that Carles Puigdemont is a polemic figure for some people, but whether we like it or not he was indeed a president during his mandate. --193.153.142.71 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impru, excuse me for participating here, but the ip 193.153.142.71 is quoting me. I have made a proposal in the TP [11].

193.153.142.71, remember that you must assume good faith WP:AGF and comment on the topics of the pages and not on the users WP:TALK#USE WP:TPYES.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basque_Nationalist_Party&diff=887314465&oldid=887313490 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3CA0:2D3:A461:CE81:E6A7:30AC (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru. You'll probably have noticed that I've removed placeholder images from several Spanish election articles. As you'll see from Wikipedia:Image placeholders, usage of placeholder images is deprecated on en.wiki (and just to clarify that page as the tags may appear to be contradictory at first glance, the top tag "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." refers to the fact that the page used to be a guide on how to use placeholder images before they were deprecated, not that the deprecation is a historical issue. Cheers, Number 57 22:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. Please stop adding placeholder images back into the articles. I'm currently going through them all to address the width issues. Cheers, Number 57 22:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to have to do this, but if you don't stop reinstating them, I am going to have to raise this at WP:ANI for action. Cheers, Number 57 22:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am addressing the width issues; I'm going through the articles at the moment. Number 57 23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, I'll file a report shortly and ping you. Cheers, Number 57 23:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Report filed. Apologies again, but if you'd engaged in discussion as a first course of action rather than immediately start reverting I wouldn't have done this. Cheers, Number 57 23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sorry, that was way OTT and I've removed the report. I need some time away from here. Number 57 23:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15 March

Hi Impru. My apologies again about yesterday, it had been a bad day but that still didn't excuse how I acted...

My recollection from many years ago was that placeholder images were formally banned following that discussion, and that they were all removed as a result. I guess they may have started creeping back in in recent years as people forgot about it, or new editors appeared who weren't aware of it. Perhaps the best course of action might be to raise the issue at WP:Village pump (policy) to see whether there is still any form of consensus over it. That would result in a much better outcome than any kind of agreement reached between us, which I suspect would be ignored by the editor whose insertion of placeholder images in Montenegrin articles sparked my sudden clampdown. Cheers, Number 57 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on using them either way (I was just enforcing what I thought is still a valid consensus), and would probably not !vote either way in the discussion. However, I feel it would be useful to clarify whether consensus still exists on the issue, as I do see them occasionally on other articles. Also, it might be good to clarify when and what type of placeholder should be used - either a shadow image, or the question mark boxes you've added more recently. I certainly agree with your point that placeholders stabilise the width of infoboxes better than Noimage.png, although I guess that could be resolved by having another version of that image with a different height-to-width ratio.

Perhaps it could be a three-part discussion along the lines of

1. Should placeholder images be used at all?
2. If they should be used, when should they be used? In all situations or should they be avoided in certain articles (e.g. biographies)
3. If placeholders should be used, what type of placeholder would be preferable: Shadow images or question mark boxes.

Number 57 15:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Should we create a new article or move the first article ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But sources from 2019 use Unidos or Unidas? Also, official name is still registrated as Unidos? --Panam2014 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What name have been communicated to the electoral commission? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about Crida. Did it join JuntsCat? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The new name is Junts. Should we edit the article and add the new logo? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But we could add the name of the alliance. Is National Call for the Republic part of the alliance? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Will the party contest the municipal election in Madrid? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

En Marea have been replaced by En Comun-Unidas Podemos. Should we create an article? Also, what is the name of the coalition who have replaced A la valenciana? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But should we have an article for En Comun-Unidas Podemos? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Crida have really 20 MP in Catalan parliament, 3 deputies and 2 senators? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make a chart for the coalitions like for Denmark, thanks ;) Braganza (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On one of my sandbox pages I merged the colorful provincial recaps that you made for each constituency, on one page. I think it looks very good and could be used for a potential Wikipedia article to give a quick, overall view of the trends.

I applied the same system for the recent history of the Catalan and Basque Parliaments. It's captivating to see electoral history recapped this way.

Cheers for tonight and the next days. Kahlores (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed that you have recently reverted some edits I made to articles in good faith, citing vandalism. I would not hesitate to argue that your own reverts constitute vandalism, given that they are unsubstantiated by the larger editorial collective. I would appreciate if you brought your concerns to the arbitration committee going forward. Thank you and have a blessed day.

Some vandalism is to be expected for an article that's on the Main page. But in this context, the current volume of these is not that disconcerting. I am applying blocks liberally, however. But there is no need for further RfPPs unless the situation becomes truly dire. Thanks. El_C 17:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Do you have the list of the Podemos-led platforms since 2014? Also, Comun is a name of a party, ideology or other? Also, do you have new opinion polls? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coalició Compromís, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enric Morera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Could you upload new logo? --Panam2014 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you removed my images because of copyright. So, how can I add the images in a way they aren’t copyrighted and which licence should I use? Thanks. Rodrigospascoal (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I very much admire your work on Spanish political issues. Cantabrucu (talk) 18:301, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way Impru, who is this Asqueladd guy, and is his relationship with Maragm anything to do with sock puppetry?

Lo peor es que soy de México y a pesar de estar creando artículos sobre nobleza española, esta despreciando mi trabajo. ¡Quién diría que el es el español!

--Cantabrucu (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you recently edited People's Party (Spain). Could you please leave your thoughts on the talk page regarding the current dicussion at the bottom of the talk page about whehter the infobox needs updating to remove the liberal-consevative label, as it may no longer be up to date? Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...in my continuing to give you space to express your failure to understand in the discussion at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election.

My contribution to the debate there is perfectly clear for anyone who wants to read it, and who has an interest in clear, balanced, factual information, appropriately weighted and presented. Kevin McE (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor form to make public accusations about off forum posts. You really should read what you write about. Kevin McE (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the above user didn't feel it was worthy enough to address my reply on their concerning behaviour shown above. Impru20^talk 17:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Impru. Just an FYI, 'statutory' is only used in the sense of something being a legal requirement – for instance, it is a statutory duty of local authorities to provide waste collection services. It does not mean 'related to a statute' in the sense that you were using it for article titles. The subject of the referendum was the question of autonomy. The only possible title if you want to include the word would be something like '1935 Galician Statute of Autonomy referendum'.

I see you are moving the articles again. Please don't do this. You should go to WP:RM if a move is undone. Cheers, Number 57 17:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of 'statutory' cannot be used in the sense that you are trying to use it. Whilst the definition you refer to says 'of or relating to statutes', it is still only used in the sense of 'required by' or 'defined by'. As a result, a 'statutory referendum' would be a referendum required by statute, not a referendum about a statute, so the meaning (if used in the article titles you have proposed) would not be correct. Perhaps it's one of those areas of English that is difficult to explain exactly why something is not right, but please take it from a native English speaker (and one that taught English), that this is wrong and not an 'error on my part' as you claimed in the edit summaries.

As I said above, if you really want the word statute in the title, then you can use 1935 Galician Statute of Autonomy referendum or similar. Number 57 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think titles like '1935 Galician Statute of Autonomy referendum' would be controversial, so I don't think there would be any need for an RM if you wanted to go ahead and move them. My objection was purely to the use of 'statutory'.

With regards to 'constitutional' you are correct that it has a primary meaning similar to that of statutory, but the term 'constitutional referendum' is also widely used and recognised as referring to a referendum on a constitutional amendment, so I don't think poses the same issue. Number 57 17:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Cheers, Number 57 18:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite of a 'consultative' (also described as advisory or non-binding) referendum is a 'binding' or 'legally binding' one, not 'statutory'. 'Statutory' would mean legally required in the sense that the referendum is required by law, but this isn't really something that would be put in an opening sentence as it's not a key detail about the vote (whereas binding or non-binding would be). Number 57 20:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. 2012 Icelandic constitutional referendum, 2008 Georgian referendum or Referendums in Sweden. Number 57 21:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word 'statutory' is really not appropriate at the start of these articles. I do not think it will be entirely clear to many readers what it means, and it is of secondary importance to the referendum being binding. Your insistence on using it just looks like you are trying to make a point after our discussion yesterday. Please replace it with 'binding'. Number 57 21:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory really doesn't work here, but it seems you are unwilling to accept this advice. I will seek input from other English-speaking editors. Number 57 21:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not changed my motive – I have never said that the term 'statutory referendum' would be appropriate in any sense; I was merely trying to explain what the term would mean if used. However, it is barely used and so is not appropriate for the first sentence of these articles. This is nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT; it's about writing something in English that is correct and understandable. Number 57 21:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said "it effectively means" – i.e. what could be deduced as its meaning. However, this is not the same as saying "it is normal or ok to use this"; In all the time I have been researching to write Wikipedia articles, I do not recall ever seeing the term 'statutory referendum' used (the closest is the (still awkward) 'mandatory referendum' used to describe certain Swiss votes. 'statutory referendum' is not a common term to use in English and I would say a decent proportion of readers would be confused by its meaning even though they understand the two words independently. Number 57 22:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Which was the rationale for merging the articles of different mandates of J.L. Rodríguez Zapatero within a single one? Could you provide me with a link to the particular discussion? I may be willing to propose revisiting the idea of merging. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it looks to me an overconcern to try to enforce consistency across different contexts (for example across different constitutional eras). Despite good intentions it is more of a disservice than a positive. Besides, to be fair, the most tricky case is not the Restoration (with PM mandates being actually rather straightforward barrying some acting capacities: the King tasks the PM with forming a government and the later forms it, period; another thing is the notion of legislative term, though, but that is unconsequential here) but the francoist dictatorship (as differentiating mandates of the head of government for the period with Franco as head of government can be a haphazard task). In any case Urquijo Goitia's classic provides scholar response for both cases. Then again, I won't necessarily worry about articles needing the same structure in a different "constitutional" [sic] era of sorts. I wouldn't shoot myself in the foot tying the content of any recent cabinet to an oddity of an Isabeline governmnent, Francoist government or whatnot. I know that sometimes (current) governments are referred to the full continuous PM rule interval (as well as sometimes governments are subdivided into further cabinet crisis/big reshuffles below the mandate level), but the most common understanding is associated to each PM's mandate (interval in between each sworning off of the post, that is). All in all, with what you tell me, I will strongly vouch for (re)spliting the entries, having different entries for post-1975 "the Juan Carlos/Felipe era". Or if you wish with the post-1979 era (the "fully democratic era"), the post-1973 era (the "clearly defined president of government era"), the post-1977 era (the "era after the 1977 general election"): it is not very important, to be honest. Regardless of what happens with ancient governments (which for the most part they don't even exist so far and that would also offer different challenges because of different context). Regards. PS: not to say that in the case concerned, the Zapatero Government, the very same structure suggests the split into two is only natural. PS2: In any I am going to start with disengaging the entry from the other wikipedias, as the entry is not the same thing as those.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with recognisable surname(s)+government+optional roman ordinal as default, with alternative options when problems pop up. Cabinet could do it too, but the Spanish notion for the PM's office may suggest selecting the other. Council of Ministers while probably the most accurate is not very used in English language sources (or Spanish-language ones, for that matter). Besides relating the particular government to the head of government and a preference for a certain model of table formatting when possible, which should be the common thread "across ages"? Legislative term cannot be a common thread. The mandate as in suggested above following the sucession of "swore in the office-swore in the office-..." can be used for most of cases although it presents some problems when dealing with Franco. In any case I think we are worrying too much, so far, the cover of the topic in "ancient eras" is dire.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your revision: The raw data is annotated with significant political events that give context to shifts in the opinion polling. It is not practical to show this information on the long-term chart. With the 2019 short-term graph, this is feasible. An annotated graph will make it easier to interpret at a glance the dramatic shifts in opinion polling during the past year. If you are unhappy with the aesthetic aspect, it can be revised. Gustave.iii (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, though I don't see any such discussion on the talk page. Probably could be made more clear if you're unenthusiastic about casual editors making changes. Gustave.iii (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make you aware, I transferred your comment about Más Madrid over to the Nov 2019 opinion poll talk page from the April one. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you rollbacked my edit in this page? Those tables are too long, and the page overflows --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not understand what I mean, the length is not the same, with the full name of the coalitions those tables are not entirely in the perimeter of the page, it is a bad effect that can simply be solved using those abbreviations, otherwise it's necessary to move the page to the right to view the entire table.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case it takes very little to avoid this effect, so why did you roll back my edit?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm... no, you answered "The tables are the same length with the edit and without it", but it isn't true, and "An enormous amount of Wikipedia articles use similar or even larger tables. Sometimes, such a size is needed", but in this case is not needed and other abbreviations are already used on these tables. So so you didn't answer my question and you haven't explained to me where the problem with my version is. If you don't explain the reason to me, then I can restore the previous version...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original research? Unione and above all CDL are the offical or established abbreviations of those coalitions, it is a well-known thing (so now I answered you on this point too). You gave me three reasons, but they are wrong: do I restore my edit? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MP is the new name of MM. So should we merge the both? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So why MM/MP have been founed in February 2019? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Also, is it sure that MM still exist (not only for the parliamentary group]? And if MM still exist, are there others sections named Más + City? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MM is only for Madrid. But MP is a party and a platform for all the country. So MP is member of the coalition, not only MM. Because some candidates are not members of MM, Equo or Compromís and CHA. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should replace Más Madrid by Más País in the composition because not only the party MM but also MP is a part of the coalition. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And for Aragonese Union? The coalition have been cancelled? Also, for MP-Eqo should we create an article? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So why Aragonese Union (the third coalition) have been deleted from the article of the 11/19 elections? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20, I am Carlos Acosta from Wikipedia in Spanish. First, sorry by my english, I do not write in this language. Second, I want know how do you make the graphic in this article: Software used, how calculate the average opinion by party, etc. I want use a similar graphic in Wikipedia but I do not have enough information. You can write me in my talk page in Spanish site (Better in Spanish, but if you will do in English, I will try to understand you). CarlosArturoAcosta (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Next Extremaduran regional election. Since you had some involvement with the Next Extremaduran regional election redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain that I understand your point, about WP:CONSENSUS and I I understand that if bold edit gets reverted, one must seek a consensus for adding content, not to continue reverting. But in this case my bold editing was reverted without any explanation, and Wikipedia:Consensus policy also says that edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring.. And this is what happened, my good faith contributions were reverted without any explanation. It is impossible to find consensus if one does not know what is being contested. You seem to be a long stranding good editor, I do not wish to quarrel, just wanted to provide an explanation of why I've reverted and seek your help to improve the lead section. The lead section seems quite weak and has room for improvement. Thank you. --J Pratas (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas tardes Impru20, perdona que te hable en castellano pero veo que eres español (y no tengo un inglés muy fluido jajaja).

En primer lugar, te escribo porque veo que eres el miembro más activo respecto a elecciones y temas de política en España y quería comentarte un tema sobre esta tematica. Sabrás que fuí el que cambió el número de senadores en las próximas elecciones de 266 a 265 (aquí se puede comprobar).

Resulta que en estos últimos días he estado buscando información sobre la cámara alta española y he visto aquí que a partir de la XIII legislatura, el número de senadores designados por las comunidades autónomas ha bajado de 58 a 57. Investigando, encontré que la Comunidad Valenciana ha sido la que lo ha perdido (también un diputado pero se compensa con otra comunidad autónoma). La razón según esta web radica en un tema de población.

La cuestión es que creo que para la XIII legislatura ya se provocó que el Senado estuviese compuesto por 265 senadores. En el artículo de las elecciones de abril no se vió reflejado el cambio y creo que es erróneo.

No obstante, me está siendo muy difícil encontrar información oficial, pues la web del Senado ya aparece cerrada la XIII legislatura y ni te deja consultar cuales fueron los senadores electos y los designados (o la información es muy confusa). Me gustaría que le echaras un vistazo y me comentaras que opinas y que deberíamos hacer.

Gracias. Un saludo. --Jarl93 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why one should use a completely different calculation in the UK than in Italy and Poland and NOBODY responds to the discussion Braganza (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. En vista de la renuncia de Rivera a la presidencia de Ciudadanos, decidí redactar este artículo Next Citizens (Spanish political party) leadership election. Espero que me puedas ayudar expandiendo el artículo. Gracias. --Stalin990 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--BrugesFR (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for your answer.--Baprow (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, I'm really tired about your crusade. Ok, the colors have gone. Not necessary a fourth menace. But respect the previous version. --Baprow (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - not sure of protocol here, but I've edited my talk page in response to the proposed deletion, and fixed up the page itself in ways which might be helpful, removing the deletion notice.

I'm writing this here to make sure you don't think I'm ignoring you and changing things at random on the page.

As you can tell I'm pretty new...how does the consensus on deletion process work?

RERTwiki (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you have recently edited 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 United States House of Representatives elections, or 2016 United States House of Representatives elections, I am inviting you to an ongoing discussion taking place at Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives elections#RFC on inclusion of House elections. Orser67 (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be as civil as possible, as your latest editions in Catalan independence movement can only be explained by some sort of confusion and not by any bad faith. On the one hand you state in one edition summary, and provide a source confirming it, that the PDECAT is an extant political party, i.e., it still exists. On the other hand you revert my editions that say exactly that. My best guess is that you don't understand the word extant, otherwise I don't know what to think. --Jotamar (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Socialists' Party of Aragon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aragonese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus is not required for the Lead of an article (except in terms of what is written exactly), as the change pertained to the section in MOS:LEAD, under MOS:INTRO - "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." No edit war occurred - there was disagreement, but I have since sent the editor a note regarding this same matter. And if there are any inaccuracies, one should simply correct (evidence provided) or remove these. GUtt01 (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make clear on one thing. There was and may still be a dispute, but the other editor did clearly point out to me that I had made some inaccuracies when I rewrote the Lead, which I respected greatly. I did note him talking about Talk Page, but I wanted to clearly point out some in the MOS for Leads. The article's lead was clearly in need of a clean up, hence my effort to rework it. I won't go into the article to revert again. But do understand that my recent reversions in the last hour were towards guidelines under MOS:INTRO. I don't mean to intend being the one to unilaterally interpret this, but clearly going in to clean it when it may take time to get consensus for change when I first saw the article is a part of WP:BEBOLD? GUtt01 (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I have a conflict of interest on a page where I post somebody else's already published data on a page where no opinions are posted, there are no opinions posted and it was not promotion, surely by this logic they should all be removed as promotion?

I do not understand why my edit has been removed when I was simply adding to the database that was already there, how were the other predictions added?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BradleyC2019 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1980 Catalan regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union of the Democratic Centre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Happy new year, Impru20. Regarding the articles of cabinets I've just seen you have taken the split choice regarding the Sánchez's one. :). I've come to think about one thing. Would it be worth discussing to somewhat include if the member of the cabinet is an MP or not vis-à-vis the tabulated information? I mean, I think it is utterly redundant to include it as suffix in the individual biographies (it usually comes later in the infobox), but here it would actually make some sense (as an 'annotation', 'commentary', 'notes', whatever). What do you think (pros, cons...)? Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on 2. While the idea could enhance the table the fact that the condition does not necessarily extend for the full mandate is probably the main drawback. If somewhere were to add a "notes" column (concept, which I don't particularly like) the MP thing could be included there in some form, anyways. While some may argue they also border WP:TRIVIA, prosopographical sections are another option as container for the MP information, but those sections are best founded upon some reliable source already doing the prosopography.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Is there any provision in the manual of style addressing the suffixes in the infoboxes? I find the use of 'MP' to be quite inane in the infoboxes of articles such as Pedro Sánchez, Inés Arrimadas, Pablo Iglesias or Pablo Casado. In the end, even if it can be arguably useful for certain purposes (as suggested above these lines), English-language sources do not use it as suffix when it comes to address Spanish legislators and in this particular case, it is often redundant with content already included later in the infobox (not to say that it means nothing in Spanish, so it cannot possibly be used to state other thing than what it is already stated elsewhere using actual words)? Reckless IPs are actually going over and over the thing including the suffix (as it they thought the suffix had an intrinsic value of its own, rather than to serve a purpose). Might you be aware of what dark sorcery (or compelling argument based on sound Wikipedia policy) is being played in the articles of Angela Merkel, Jean-Luc Mélenchon or Matteo Salvini (all of them "MPs", IIRC) which I may transfer to some articles of Spanish legislators just to remove the cruft?--Asqueladd (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Thanks for your work on Spanish ministries. When you create something which needs a disambiguator, like Ministry of Consumer Affairs (Spain), please remember to make sure the reader can find it easily by adding it to the disambiguation page at Ministry of Consumer Affairs. (I've done so).

Please also link the article to the existing Spanish one: go to the "Languages" link in the left-hand tool bar, click on "Add links", choose "es" and select the right item. Thanks. PamD 09:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "specific formatting"? Why didn't you take part in the discussion, so that I could take your remarks into account? Kahlores (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up discussions at 2019 Australian general election & 2020 New Zealand general election articles, to see if they'd agree to changing up their Subsequent Prime Minister to Prime Minister after election, as we now have for the Canadian & British general election articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

González I Government (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Fernando Morán and Fernando Ledesma

González II Government (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fernando Ledesma

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your most recent comments on WP:ANI and just wanted to let you know that the notice for AN/I discussions is required to be put on an editor's talk page when you open a discussion, but that editor is permitted to remove the notice per WP:OWNTALK. Schazjmd (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: Hi! Yes, thanks for the remark. I know about it, but I was replying to that editor's behaviour of "forbidding me" to cast any comment on their talk page in general, including 3RR warnings on actual breaches of the rule or ANI notices (both of which have been deleted), somehow hinting that he is above such Wikipedia's policies. That these are actually left on their talk or removed is not of my concern, though I acknowledge it is not polite for a warning, which was casted as a favour to avoid a direct report, to be dubbed as "shit" without any meaningful reason. Impru20^talk 20:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yes, I'm glad we could clear up the misunderstanding. And good catch on the IP user's edit, as you say I didn't notice that. Cheers :) Μαρκος Δ 16:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obi2canibe (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix your signature to match this edit. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colour shade @Impru20: Please stop the adding green colour to the party colour. On election and Council diagrams it was gray colour for few years. Colour is being corrected also on party page, because older party have same colour and this party is bicolour. --Klofáč (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in. Could you also remove the outdated turnout figure from the infobox? Cheers, Number 57 22:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you've already sorted it. Thanks again! Number 57 22:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth leaving in the TOI link as it is the source for the seat allocation (which isn't on the CEC website yet). Number 57 22:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like "CEC (votes), Times of Israel (seats)" at the bottom of the table would work? Number 57 22:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20, I've seen your edit comments asking for consistence because the data of the main graphic of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Spain and the data of the graphic in Stadistics section were unequal, and I obviously agree with that. May I ask you... could the different timezones be the origin of that mistake? I updated the data of the graphic in Stadistics section every night at 00:00 CET, and I didn't on the other graph. Thanks, --Mcsmp (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20! We've started the Case Count Task Force to gather information about the most reliable sources for each country and to coordinate updates. I hope you find the info useful, and feel free to update it directly. If you think you can commit to update a one or more countries frequently, you can add your username to the corresponding country in the table. Best, MarioGom (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your revert of the IP editor at List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. I reverted exactly the same edit, but from a different IP address on 20th Feb. Need to keep an eye on this one. Robynthehode (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quería saber el motivo por el cual has borrado la encuesta de OkDiario? Que pasa que solo pones encuestas de medios de la izquierda? Gracias Danielpm_87 (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the application you use to make moving average line diagrams like the ones you make and upload?--2A02:587:4D2F:AE00:C8B6:CDB9:79:8756 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you undid my edit on 01/05/2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_prime_ministers_of_Spain&type=revision&diff=954250879&oldid=954250075 Just so you know, I wasn't changing any information. When I was browsing through the article, the lines were zig-zagging across the timeline. I found that by putting the regime changes and historical events in date order, the zig-zags returned to being lines.

After you reverted my edit, the zig-zags no longer appear so perhaps an issue with the code at the time. Hopefully it stays normal.

Humongous125 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you update the stats for the above article as they haven't been updated for like 3 days now. To the point that they're all outdated now

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.119.221 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You've been adding new polls to the table here. That's great. However, you have to add a data-sort-value element to each entries so that when you sort the Lead column from highest to lowest, the values also get sorted depending on whether the Lead is Labour or Conservative. See earlier entries in the table to see what I'm talking about. It should look like this:

style="background:Template:Conservative Party (Norway)/meta/color;color:#FFFFFF;" data-sort-value="-0.6"| 0.6

currently, your edits look like this

style="background:Template:Conservative Party (Norway)/meta/color;color:#FFFFFF;" | 0.6

Thank you. --Spaastm (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20; apologies if I'm being too forward by writing here, but could I ask you to reconsider your phrasing in your reply in the Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#Flag in Infobox should not be removed discussion, particularly Since they did not get a consensus for removing it, some users resorted to mutilating it by pieces instead, including (among other things) removing the flag claiming that the MOS backed them, despite this not having been an issue in the initial discussion about infoboxes? I would like to participate in the discussion but I'd feel more comfortable if the discussion were operating within the bounds of assuming good faith from other editors. You and the editor I believe you're referring to here are both experienced and respected users and I don't think accusing them of damaging the encyclopedia because they didn't get their way is fair, and nor can it help a productive conversation. Ralbegen (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. A efectos legales, Marea galeguista es la sucesora de la coalición En Marea, por lo que debe figurar en la segunda fila de la tabla, teniendo en cuenta que las candidaturas están dispuestas según el número de votos en las pasadas elecciones y no según los datos que proporcionan las encuestas. Yo ya lo he corregido en la versión en gallego de este artículo. En esta página solo me aparece la opción de "editar la fuente" y así no sé hacerlo. Te lo digo a ti porque me parece que ya diseñaste tú esta tabla. Gracias, un saludo!!--Ogaiago (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both New Democracy's and PASOK's pages have been subject to edit warring for many times over the last year. And why am I supposed to provide sources when other people aren't? Don't get involved into a dispute if you're not concerned about it. Because if you are, I don't think that it's as hard for you as it is for me to get reliable sources that verify my arguement.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2023 Seville City Council election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Seville City Council election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's time to open an ANI? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Democracy and Freedom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Francesc Homs

National Call for the Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 2019 Spanish general election

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to rename a category please follow the proper procedure rather than creating the new category, emptying the old category and requesting it be speedily deleted. In the case of Category:Junts per Catalunya politicians you could have done it speedily using WP:C2D. This saves you a lot of work and it preserves the edit history.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Galicia en Común (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 2019 Spanish general election

New Agreement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Catalan

Sobiranistes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sovereigntism

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fighting the good fight, but it seems hopeless for the moment. Rklahn (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Impru20, I would like to discuss reversion you've made on pages aimed for Opinion polling situation in Slovakia. The pages were collecting all relevant information for polling of political parties. These are not only polls themselves but also the situation which may change voters' preferences - change of the leader of party, constitutional crisis, parliamentary crisis, government crisis, the foundation of a new party (of former prime minister with strong support.) These could be seen in Australian page, British page, Czech page and few others. I would like to discuss a problem seen by you and maybe discuss possible standards of opinion polling pages.

Talking about the difference between 2024 and 2020 pages, this is going to be removed and I am planning to collect similar events as stated before and include them to 2020 page. The page 2024 page is talking about both government and opposition parties and aimed at the main events which dramatically change the situation of politics in Slovakia. The ″leadership changes of parties with 1%″ are stated with specific reasons - Most-Hid is former government and minority party regionally strong and SPOLU was until April polled together with PS and their coalition won the 2019 European Parliament elections.

As I said, I am open for any discussion with you and other wiki members.

Madeinslovakia (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. From your reaction I consider the biggest problem to be the objectivity of events to be written in opinion polls. In my opinion, leaderships changes are significant in any polling situation because in most Central and Eastern European countries are usually the leaders of their party the main criterium who to vote. Besides that, there is no background on Wikipedia for leader elections in Slovakia which could be used as link between opinion polling page and the event. For that reason, I consider presence of leader changes in opinion polling articles as an important part of them. As I've written in first comment, the selected leadership changes are related only to the main parties - PS, SPOLU, Most-Hid and SMK. All of these either won previous elections or are regionally strong minority parties. The foundation of a new party by former prime minister which immediately reached the support near 20% is in my point of view (and the sociologists' as well^[1][2]) the game changer.

Talking about government crisis in 2020 article (which was not written by me) or the ongoing theses scandal - these were and are the main topics discussed in Slovak media for long time strongly. However, if you think that these are not objective and not relevant for the article, it only shows your unfamiliarity with the actual situation in Slovak society and these may remain deleted. If you are familiar with it, let's work on 2020 in Slovakia together and you should focus on User:RI99 (Talk) whose 18 days old edit ″(or also Slovak: Pezinská Skládka)″ attacks, defends and depreciates the President Zuzana Čaputová because ″Pezinská Skládka″ is an insult and in English means ″Landfill or garbage dump in Pezinok″.

Madeinslovakia (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Galicia en Común

added a link pointing to Dark blue

New Agreement

added a link pointing to Catalan

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About your edit in the wiki article "Republicanism in Spain", wher you removed the sequence of events in the polling, mentioning that "Opinion polling tables throughout Wikipedia are mostly without events, and definitely all those of Spanish opinion polling", I have to disagree on that action. The events that were placed on the poll help to better understand the rise of republicanism in Spain, as a fact of cause-consequence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.6.227 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20,

Regarding this edit and others like it, I believe that the reference formatting used before the edits was correct, considering the examples here. I know that the automatic citation tool formats the website parameter the way you did it (putting the website url), but I believe this may be incorrect. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z33 AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Next Galician regional election. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Next Galician regional election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting and start a discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started one at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom#All-cause_death_charts, but there could be a better place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do all-cause deaths go against WP:RAWDATA while all the case and death charts included in the articles do not? The plot needs to be using the data from somewhere, but the type of chart itself is published by EuroMOMO, mortality.org and U.S. CDC. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also responded at User_talk:Dan_Polansky; please chose your venue and discuss your objections. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the discussion continues at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom#All-cause death charts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[12]. Do you think that the dropping of the numeral can be considered, simply leaving Manuel García Prieto, Marquis of Alhucemas? After becoming Marquis of Alhucemas he was indeed very commonly referred as such but the numeral is cruft if we take usage into consideration. The inclusion of the numeral in the title seems like an attempt to be educational for the sake of being educational, bypassing usage and concision. Not even entering in the issue that his successors to the dukedom do not seem to enjoy notability of their own or that the "García Prieto/García-Prieto" surname has been lost in the dukedom line.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice this? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I especially like his plea, "I am confused as I did not think that my clerking editing was in any way contentious". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of presidents of the Government of Catalonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tripartite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]