Please stop adding data for Hawaii to the table at List of countries and dependencies by population. Hawaii is neither a country nor a dependency. It's a state belonging to the United States. If you want to add Hawaii, then all US states need to be added, as well as all the Australian states and so on, but this is not the purpose of the article. You are already aware that "areas that form integral parts of sovereign states" are not included, so I do not understand why you are adding Hawaii at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to delete France's five Overseas Regions -Guyane, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Reunion - with exactly the same arguments - they're neither countries nor dependencies but full part of a listed country, yet the changes were removed by differents people, so I thought adding them was indeed "useful information".

If you thinks otherwise for Hawaii, can you do the same for the above regions? Or post your opinion on the matter in the talkpage. It would be helpful.--Aréat (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of countries and dependencies by population. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 08:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've given you this warning because you are clearly edit-warring. Your edits have been reverted and yet you continue to reinsert them. It is up to you to convince other editors to accept your changes by discussing the matter on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD. Simply forcing your edits into the article will lead to only one conclusion - you will find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia at all. Per WP:STATUSQUO, the unmodified version of the article rules until discussion is complete. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted a request for help and the answer was that the discussion hasn't been fully completed. The other parties aren't contibuting anymore. How long should I wait without an answer for an eventual change to be accepted as not being an edit war?

Beside, if you removed Hawaii on the ground it's neither a country nor a dependencie, would my removal of the above mentioned french regions on the same ground be considered an edit war?

I updated Mali TFR map, per your request. (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg ) Thanks for noticing the mistake. Innab (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aréat. Has the referendum been confirmed? I've seen a few news stories saying that the President wanted one, but none that it's been officially called. Cheers, Number 57 23:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been confirmed, voted on during a Council of Minister and officially scheduled for 15 july 2017 by the government, yes.--Aréat (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! Number 57 15:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source does give a date, but the article I linked reports the electoral commission's chairman as being "silent on when the second and final round will be held". [1] Also, if you object to only part of an edit, could you try to avoid reverting the entire edit? Everyking (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that if you got a source to back your change, include it in the article, not in your edit description.--Aréat (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Alternative for Germany ‎. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you on the talk page. I added a full source for the handful of words I added to the back of a sentence to further clarify it. I believe I've been sourcing more thoroughly than most. As for the edit war, I'm rather surprised. Did you read the source ? It contain what I added. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Next Japanese general election. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Japanese general election, 2017. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Japanese general election, 2017. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —Guanaco 15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This notice is because the duplicated article was created on top of your redirect, from when you moved the page. —Guanaco 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I was getting a bit confused here.--Aréat (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say I know how difficult it can be to contribute in a non-native language. It takes a special kind of willingness and dedication. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks you for the message. It look a bit infantilizing to me, to be honest, but I sure appreciate the intention.--Aréat (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just wondering where you got the seat figures from? I can't find them on the TSE website or on any of the Salvadoran news websites I checked. Cheers, Number 57 21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got them from the spanish page. I assume the users here know how many seats these numbers represent once 100 % of the votes have been counted, or have access to Salvadorian medias. Not that it wouldn't be better to eventually have a precise source, but it will do in the meanwhile. --Aréat (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The results on es.wiki are now different (they have ARENA on 37 seats not 39), but still unsourced. I am quite wary of using unsourced seats as I've seen a few editors miscalculate them over the years... Number 57 21:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just wondering if you got the ping I gave you yesterday? I pinged a few editors but got no responses, which made me wonder whether it worked (it can be quite tempremental). BTW, in the Bhutanese results, I saw one candidate was elected with only 13% of the vote (in Mongar District); I wonder whether this is a record for the lowest amount received by a winning candidate for a national parliament seat... Number 57 12:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for the lack of message. I'm a bit busy these days and honestly found myself a bit confused by the matter at hand, so I refrained from giving my opinion on a question I don't fully grasp. As for the Bhutanese election, that's quite the original result indeed. With this many candidates it look like there's a growing eagerness to participate in the political life in bhutan. I sure hope so, anyways. Seeing a democracy blooming over the past decade was fascinating. With both wins and struggles. I recall that in the previous election there was a constituency in which there simply was only one candidate, with the vote there turning into a direct yes or no referendum for the candidate. ^^ I find these sort of relatively small sized election very interesting, like the ones in the Falklands or in many of the pacifics islands. Imagine having your representative simply campaign door to door, and the vote being won over a handful of convinced electors. Very neat.--Aréat (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were noticeably more candidates this time around, and I thought it was also notable that several of the incumbents were heavily beaten, so presumably not impressing the electorate. I wonder whether some of the low vote shares for winning candidates will make them think again about FPTP. I contacted the chap who runs the Election Passport website and he mentioned that candidates used to win regularly with less than 10% of the vote in Papua New Guinea before they moved away from FPTP. Number 57 15:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here, in the Wikipedia, the colour of the Jobbik is black since the 2010 parliamentary election. See, for instance tables and maps. There were/are numerous parliamentary parties which were marked with green in different shades (MDF, KDNP, FKGP, LMP, PM etc.) --Norden1990 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But none use the distinctive darker shade, and most are <1% very minors parties, while the MDF went extinct before Jobbik was created, so they're not on a page at the same time. If we want to make distinctive colors, it is logical to use either one of the three color used by the aprty instead of a different unused one, or change the colors of the benign parties, don't you think so?--Aréat (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Months (June, July etc) are written with a capital letter! Thanks for all your recent work :) Number 57 21:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aréat. Would you please explain this edit. You offered no edit summary and it's not obvious to me why you made the change you did. Thank you. Dayirmiter (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't neutral enough for an intro. That's the sort of details you must add in the article further on. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, thank you for the reply. I am very much in favor of maintaining a neutral point of view. I do not, however, believe that this includes or should be understood to allow the suppression of facts. The material you excised ("Researcher Angie Heal, herself hired and then ignored by local officials"), in addition to identifying the source of the quotation, contains the facts that

(1) Angie Heal was a researcher,

(2) Angie Heal was hired by local officials, and

(3) Angie Heal was ignored by local officials regarding child exploitation.

The first two facts, well attested by the sources, are surely uncontroversial.

I understand you might feel the assertion that Angie Heal was ignored by local officials seems condemnatory and thus non-neutral. But this is one of the fundaments of the article: the scandal of local officials ignoring evidence of child abuse over many years. Local officials did, in fact, ignore Angie Heal's warnings, again as is well attested in the sources. To state that this occurred is not non-neutral. To illustrate this ignoring of evidence by local officials with concise reference to a central actor in that aspect of the case is, in my opinion, completely appropriate and desirable at this point in the article. If I have missed something here, please let me know.

In the meantime, I will replace the identification of the source of the quotation. Thanks again for your work on this article.

By the way, at a slightly different level of analysis, I would respectfully suggest further consideration of the idea that material may be "not neutral enough" for one part of an article but okay somewhere else in the article. It seems to me that if it violates neutrality in the lead, it will violate neutrality anywhere it appears. Conversely, if material is sufficiently neutral to appear anywhere in the article, then lack of neutrality cannot be a condition on which to exclude it from the lead.

Dayirmiter (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. It was listed at the African Elections Database at the time I created the article, but was later removed. It was a mistake on the AED's behalf – they had confused it with Republic of the Congo constitutional referendum, 1973. I've deleted the article as I was the only significant contributor to it, and it was clearly incorrect (no other source lists it). Cheers, Number 57 21:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. The page had left me rather confused as I couldn't find mention of it. These damn two congos always inducing quiproquo. :P While we're at it, thanks for your tremendous works on election articles and templates. They've been of great help over the years.--Aréat (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. If you're interested Antemister and I did some work a long time ago to try and ensure that all the national election templates were complete. There are still quite a few outstanding, so if you have anything to add, please do! Cheers, Number 57 16:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be sure to give a hand if I find things to improve. --Aréat (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sam Sailor. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Russian regional elections, 2018. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sam Sailor 13:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

My bad. I do know it should not be done. It was an error while editing several tabs. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Flag of New Caledonia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Without a consensus, you've moved and rewritten the article more than 3 times in one day. It's "Bold, Revert, Discuss", not "Bold, Revert, Bold, Revert, Bold, Revert, Bold." Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page so y'all can discuss. Be advised that a block for edit warring would also stop the disruption while not inconveniencing uninvolved editors, so consider this is boon.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does you change the colour of Bangladesh Awami League. Ehsan2186 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bangladesh Awami League/meta/color. --Aréat (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Caribbean Elections website is wrong. Their totals for Regions 7 and 8 do not match the GECOM reports (7, 8, Overall), and this is the difference between the two vote tallies. Cheers, Number 57 21:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! --Aréat (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Aréat,

I'm a little leery of just changing the color of the map per your comment without any indication from you that you think my suggested color would be an improvement, since I just changed that color and I don't want to make things too chaotic. Although, what I came up with in response to you comment does strike me as an improvement. Do you agree?

Please ping me if you answer, or reply on the SSM talk page. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I like it. Although imo the green coukd use a less flashy shade. Help:Using colours --Aréat (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the green, but since the argument was about the distingishability of the colors, I wanted to be sure it was distinct! I'll copy your answer to the SSM talk page and upload the purple map since no-one else has commented one way or the other. (With pigments, purple is a blend of blue and red, so it's an iconic match as well.) — kwami (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could still use green but simply chose a dimmer shade. --Aréat (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mauritania Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for your contributions at Flag of Mauritania, which solved a year-long question regarding which version of the new flag is to be displayed on Wikipedia! Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrendonTheWizard: Thank you Brendon! My pleasure, really. Speaking of flags, is there any way you could help me or advise me on how to make Template:Country data New Caledonia fit with the consensus we had on Flags of New Caledonia. The standard template should really be the one with the "both" qualifier, now. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could start a Request for Comment on the talk page Template:Country data New Caledonia where we mention that a previous consensus was reached to display the two flags together on the main article, therefore to ensure consistency we also make the "both" qualifier the default setting for the template? Since we don't have the Template Editor permission to do it ourselves, I'm sure we could get someone to agree to do it per the consensus we reached. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sadly quite inexperimented with such a procedure. Even more so on the english wiki. Is there any help page in which I could learn how exactly I could do this? --Aréat (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at Template talk:Country data New Caledonia. For information on the procedure for getting a consensus, there is helpful information on the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful. Thanks a lot!--Aréat (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aréat. Are you able to fix png files so that the background is transparent? As you can see, the ones used in 1989 Polish legislative election#Results don't work! Cheers, Number 57 17:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Ah, learning how to make .svg is actually pretty far up on my to-do list, as I have run in the same problem with electoral maps in the past. So I can't help you directly there, sorry. BUT I can recommend you the Parliament tool website [2] which I frequently use. It's pretty straightforward, but if you have any question on how to use it, don't hesitate to ask me. The tool add parties starting from the left. ;) The polish article doesn't seem to fit the color template, though, and I don't know about the left/right positions of these parties. --Aréat (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aréat, I've had the 2019 Moldovan constitutional crisis on my watchlist for a while, great work. I'll add more to it soon. Could you take a look at the Talk page to discuss the Reactions section? Many thanks.

PS: also, don't forget to write a few words after each edit, it really helps out to understand who is doing what. A très vite. Pilaz (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but while I wrote the french article, I didn't add much to the english one. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2009 Uruguayan general election into 2009 Uruguayan referendum. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

My bad, I will be more careful in the future. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what is exactly your problem with the color changing? Maps nor even use yellow and most diagrams didn't use it either before I made them with yellow, which is almost never associated with the Broad Front and there are other Uruguayan parties that use yellow. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All sources I've seen for years have been coloring Frente Amplio with the yellow shade of color [3], [4], [5], [6]. There's been no change of logo or use justifying changing it on a whim.--Aréat (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For years? All thse examples are from 2019. I choose the yellow color for FA for the last election, the polls just started using after me. I also made the polling diagrams using yellow. Before that dark blue was used. And I can proved it in case you wonder. In any case, it never took off in Spanish, the graphics use for Senate and Chamber always used dark blue and also the new graphics for the current election. The maps also were made in blue because I never did them. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please not revert me while I prove that your cherry picking about the yellow color is wrong? Just wait a little, nothing is going to happen just because blue is use for a while. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for years. I didn't collect random article for an argument a few years down on color. Those are sources of the yellow color use. If you believe a blue shade should be used, then present sources for it. And as I said, on wikipedia if people are disagreeing it's the previous situation which should remain. As you said, nothing is going to happen if you can't add your changes until proving it.--Aréat (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, if you don't want to co-operate keep the wrong yellow color while I prove you whu yellow is wrong. First, this is the Broad Front oficial flag, do you see any yellow? Second, do you have any evidence of the use of yellow before 2019 for the FA? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this is its logo.I'm cooperating right now by having this discussion. Don't start being unpleasant just because you can't force your changes and only then explain it. I've provided sources of use in medias, where are yours? Listen, I don't intend to discuss this for ages over a color. Add sources, and/or have others users comment to agree with you, and it will be settled.--Aréat (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

• The idea that FA’s more representative color is blue (whilst PN is lightblue) is old, as you can see here since 2009.
• Blue has being the color for the party’s article in Spanish since at least 2014 (although originally was [red)
• No election map of Uruguay uses yellow for FA, generally the color is red or blue
• Yellow is use only in poll’s graphics made by me btw.--Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. These are colors used by others users here and there, with not one agreeing with the other. Please use real sources.--Aréat (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't finished. Diagrams made by Uruguayans for each one of the legislatures, use blue

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVII_C%C3%A1mara_de_Diputados_del_Uruguay.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVII_C%C3%A1mara_de_Diputados_del_Uruguay.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVII_Legislatura_de_la_C%C3%A1mara_de_Senadores_de_Uruguay.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_C%C3%A1mara_de_Diputados_del_Uruguay.svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_Legislatura_de_la_C%C3%A1mara_de_Representantes_de_Uruguay.svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_Legislatura_de_la_C%C3%A1mara_de_Senadores_de_Uruguay.svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XLVIII_Senado_del_Uruguay.svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C%C3%A1mara_de_Representantes_de_Uruguay_(2015-2020).png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C%C3%A1mara_de_Senadores_de_Uruguay_(2015-2020).png

What is for you a "real source"? I choose yellow for FA, no one else used it before I suggested. Is not even part of its official flag. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also we can hold a vote and maybe call the Uruguayan users and/or hold a vote in Uruguay's Wikiproject talk page by the way. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing sources That's the basic. Sources are from external medias, like the four I provided above. You have provided none so far. And different language version of wikipedia don't have to follow each other in any way. As I said, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source : works by others wiki users aren't valid sources. The example above don't even use your shade of blue! --Aréat (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact @Jopevidal: and @Santga: both have English accounts. Maybe they can help to resolve the issue giving us their input. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any one can cherry pick, if those are your “sources”, I can find sources that show FA in another color, for example:

• Green http://radiouruguay.uy/fa-lidera-intencion-de-voto-con-un-34-segun-ultima-encuesta-de-cifra/ https://planetapolitico.com/elecciones-en-uruguay-ultimas-3-encuestas-dan-resultados-diferentes/ https://www.cifra.com.uy/index.php/2019/09/12/intencion-de-voto-en-las-elecciones-nacionales/
• Darkblue https://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2019/10/encuesta-de-opcion-por-primera-vez-cabildo-abierto-se-coloca-en-tercer-lugar-por-encima-del-partido-colorado/
• Torquise https://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2019/7/encuesta-de-grupo-radar-posterior-a-las-internas-el-fa-venceria-al-pn-en-las-elecciones-nacionales/
• Orange https://www.montevideo.com.uy/Noticias/Encuesta-de-intencion-de-voto-situa-a-FA-y-PN-en-situacion-de-empate-uc717656
• Blue http://www.perfiles.uy/texto-diario/mostrar/1410658/encuesta-opcion-consultores-empate-entre-frente-amplio-partido-nacional --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to have sources for the shade you're proposing.--Aréat (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's the case your shade is not the exact yellow that appears in your sources. I have no problem to change the shade to another shade of blue if that's what worries you. One that -I guess- corresponds with the graphics of whatever source you like. But the truth is, there's no way to establish which is the right color for FA, as different news reports have use all sorts of colors from blue, dark blue, green, orange and red. So, we have to choose one but certainly would not be by checking polls' graphic as there's no such thing as one. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seem to me the sources I gave all use a goldish shade of yellow. Anyways, if you believe there isn't one shade, even adding sources for green or orange, why are you insisting so much on changing it in the first place?--Aréat (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm convince that yellow is not the most representative color, is dark blue. I myself suggested yellow in 2017 but my rationale was that as no one objected, there was consensus. Now, I should be all for keeping yellow as was my suggestion, however I came to realize that most graphics and maps use dark blue, and is easier to switch yellow to blue than the other way around. Besides there are other relevant parties that use yellow, for example Cabildo Abierto. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense. Fine, then, let's go with the shade of blue you're proposing. I will make the according change on the french wiki. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I am very sorry if I acted too rude, I sometimes let me carry away. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't throw you the first rock, it's not like it didn't happen to me as well in the past. But the wikipedia's way of doing those is pretty solid in the end. After the few first back and forth edit, just freezing it and discussing, with sources and arguments, bringing in others users if needed. It work out way more often than not. Have a good day. ;)--Aréat (talk) 11:00, 28 October 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]

Your recent editing history at Papua conflict shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please do not edit war in a source which does not support the claims being cited to it. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]