User talk:Panam2014

Dear Panam2014 : I'm in process of editing the Polls Section on a better fashion, please reinsert the 'prn' icon. My Edictions are stated on the specific page, I'm trying to transfer to the main article. Dirceu Mag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirceu Mag (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Panam2014, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We go by the WP:COMMONNAME and no one is going to call it that. It will be the constitution of 2014. ( or the constitution, but since there are multiple constitutions WP:PRECISION says we use the most precise title that will identify it - in this case constitution of 2014.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at a dozen major english language news outlets from around the world and a vast majority call it a "new constitution" and not one calls it an amended version of a previous constitution. We follow the sources. Unless you can come up with a dozen major news sources to support your interpretation, we go with new. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Egyptian news sources I've read call it the "amended constitution." Read Egyptian constitutional referendum, 2014#Background It began with amending the 2012 constitution, so those sources support calling it the amended version of the (implied 2012) constitution.David O. Johnson (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get consensus to do this? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Egyptian Revolution of 2013. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. You insist on edit warring by moving the page without consensus. Please discuss on Talk:Egyptian Revolution of 2013. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just make a controversial edit like that and then open a new section on Talk asking for consensus. I will revert and please don't edit war. +There are many sections discussing this so no need to open a new one. Please go to Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état#Coup or revolution?. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Egyptian Revolution of 2013 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/Egyptian Revolution of 2013 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. GreyShark (dibra) 19:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

If you want to change the article's name, especially when it's controversial like that, please check this to know how to make a request so people can discuss it. You create a new section in the article's talk page where you type this:

{{subst:RMtalk|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}

It has nothing to do with the majority of votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Revolution of 2013, it is related to the nature of the discussion, and i can defend the name there but i won't because it is not the appropriate place to discuss. So there is no consensus yet. You make the request and then notify the users who opposed the current title if you want. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should wait and see if the article survives deletion though. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Nicolás Maduro. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you move a page maliciously, as you did at Egyptian Revolution of 2013, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is the fourth time you move this page without consensus and I already explained to you how to request for the article to be moved. This is no proper way to move an article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might get us both blocked if you keep edit warring. If you are unable to properly discuss, don't edit war. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You discuss THEN make your change. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The info is at the top. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is your problem? I kept only one name at the top, the most common name too. It is important to include alternative names in the lead section and i kept only one. Also, this should be discussed in the article's talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

revolution is written down since there is controversy. I am oppose to keep the word and you haven't consensus --Panam2014 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a consensus either and all you do is parroting what some other users said before with poor arguments. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too. I offer you my new version and stop. Otherwise we will be stuck. It is useless to revolution twice.

. I am not a pro Mursi but I love the justice. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are stuck because of you Panam2014. The text was there in the beginning before you removed it. I already compromised by relocating "Second Egyptian Revolution" to the Etymology section because it is not as necessary as "June 30 Revolution" which is still a common name and should make it in the lead section. Your version should be discussed per BRD before being offered, even if i'm wrong. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you might as well go down there and explain revolution.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what our argument is about. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bah so justly.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep edit warring while the discussion is ongoing. And you should not be encouraged to do that. This will get us both blocked, not only me, and we don't want that. For the last time i advise you to discuss and seek the opinion of other editors. I will revert to the default version. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not come back and we'll be discussing if blocked--Panam2014 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you know we might be both blocked for violating the WP:3RR and you're still edit warring? Interesting.

You are also imposing your version over the original one, and then you tell me to discuss? Very interesting. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original version made ​​without consensus. And what about you?--Panam2014 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is still the original version. There is no consensus on your version either. But like i said, this is the last time i will revert you and we'll see what happens next. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus in the original.--Panam2014 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a logical explanation for this, or do you simply like to revert everything i'm involved in? If you don't, please self-revert and discuss with other editors active on the article's talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] it is you rather than iannule my changes.

If you make controversial edits like that, you must explain them by providing sources because other users hardly notice things like that. Also, note that there is an article called Inauguration of Hassan Rouhani where it says the event occurred in two rounds on both August 3 and August 4. This suggests even more that it is a controversial decision and should be discussed with the other editors on the talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Official should be in the article as Adly Mansour or Olekandr Turchynov.--Panam2014 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You see, that's the problem..

You always say "this is better", "it should be like this" or even "this is neutral", and you think no one will argue with you as if what you say is always the right thing and you are willing to edit war for that. This is not part of Wiki policy to denounce something as not neutral, because i can go around saying that January 2011 Egyptian protests is "more neutral" than Egyptian Revolution of 2011 and move the article without consensus. The last thing you said on Hahc21's talk page is "I can discuss" but all i see is orders, not discussions, on which you base your personal opinions, and what's worse is that you accuse me of "owning the article" and that i'm acting like a leader, while all i'm doing is denouncing the undiscussed removal of sourced content and that's not how Wikipedia works. The RM discussion was to rename the title, not to remove content inside the article like you did here, and i later compromised by moving "Second Egyptian Revolution" to the Etymology section and kept "June 30 Revolution" till we reach a consensus, but you insisted on relocating it without discussing. It's good to be WP:BOLD, i agree, but not when something is controversial like that per WP:BRD, as the removal of sourced content and the changing of dates when they could be debated. You should always consider that other editors will argue with you, and acting unilaterally like this on controversial edits can be considered very disrespectful to others and creates hostility when it leads to edit warring. Please self-revert and give a chance to other users to discuss it with you. Open up a new section in Talk:Hassan Rouhani about changing the date, and if no one replies for at least seven days, you can change the date later (that's the time needed for a bold consensus, and no one will complain later). Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Rohani nobody complains except you. For Adly Mansour is brought President since July 4 not since July 3 (appointment) and Tourchynov Ukraine on February 23 is placed not 22 even though he had been appointed to that date. For Egypt, we all agree that there were protests but revolution is used by supporters that we do not even know that they are the majority. We will not deny revolution so it moves and the view is explained. If Morsi was dismissed by the High Constitutional Court agrees, but as is the army so not really even if there were demonstrations. For the 2011 revolution, both sides see it as a revolution. For a president we put the date investituture. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Rohani nobody complains except you - Exactly, but do you know why? Because i'm apparently the only one who noticed. How do you know other users won't complain? Did you give them a chance to discuss? No.

And by the way, Adly Mansour was appointed on July 4 because the coup statement by el-Sisi started on the night of July 3, and by the time it had ended, it was already near midnight, therefore too late for Mansour to be appropriately appointed at the presidency. You could be right about Rouhani, but the infobox says "Assumed office" which can also mean "appointed" and many users could disagree about your decision. It is ok be bold, but this can be a debated change no matter how "small" it looks, and by the way, being bold does not mean you cannot be reverted if your decision was wrong. So like i said, the best method is to open up a new section in the talk page and give more space for others to discuss, then make your edit after seven days if no one replies. Sounds good?

For Egypt, we all agree that there were protests - That's right, i agree that they were protests. But who do you refer to by "we all"? Because i'm sure we all agree that the 2011 events were also protests. That doesn't mean we're allowed to remove sourced content without discussing.

revolution is used by supporters that we do not even know that they are the majority - I can say the same thing about the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état, but i don't. I also don't think The Guardian, Financial Times, Der Spiegel..etc are "supporters".

We will not deny revolution so it moves and the view is explained - But that's not what you did [2] [3] [4], and when i agreed that we can create a new paragraph, i didn't say we could remove all the names from the lead section but you left the discussion and made your change without reaching consensus.

Finally, i'm not trying to appear as the bad guy and i certainly didn't want to look rude (I apologize if you feel that was the case), but i'm very concerned about your decisions to make controversial moves, and when you're asked to discuss them, you don't participate and the only thing you say is "not neutral", "this looks better"..etc and this is all POV. I am willing to apologize and start all over from the beginning, but only if you acknowledge you did something wrong other than edit warring, like moving pages several times and eliminating sourced content without consensus, which was very disruptive and pushed some users like me and David O. Johnson, for example, to make technical requests. If you refrain from making such changes in the future, i will be more than glad to make peace and apologize. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The consultatiuons it begins. You can remttre partly revolution without removing the paragraph ^ but we must speak of financing the revolution. I invited you on Wikipedia in French because we need your advice. Use google translation. I would help you to Bourguiba.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can remttre partly revolution without removing the paragraph - It's not just about adding the word "revolution" to the lead section, it's about how you wanted to remove it. If you will refrain from making such edits, we will certainly come to an agreement that will help both of us. I'm apologizing for any rudeness that came from me, but you also have to decide what are you going to do in the future (about discussing controversial changes first).

we must speak of financing the revolution - If you have good and independent sources about that, i will be glad to help you by expanding the "Allegations of previous military involvement" section in the article. I personally don't think someone financed all the millions who took to the streets against Morsi, otherwise the person/government/organization that did that would go bankrupt. But i think you mean who financed Tamarod and other opposition groups, right? Do you have any sources that confirm that they were financed? Because as you see, the section is called "allegations", which means they are not confirmed and the claims are a journalists' personal opinion. If you find any reliable sources, you can expand this part of the article and like i said, i can help you. But please don't make it too long, otherwise we will have to call it conspiracy theories like the Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories.

I invited you on Wikipedia in French because we need your advice - I saw your entry in my talk page there, thanks. Can you provide me a link of the discussion where you're asking me to participate? Use google translation - It's ok, i'm a French speaker too :)

I would help you to Bourguiba - Thanks, but i can't do much about it now because i'm in the middle of exams. When i'm done with them, i will start translating and you can help if you want. Thanks again. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to [5], it is clear that President Sisi appointed a new government on 17 June, with Mahlab as PM. There's no mention that he's still acting PM, so please stop reverting. Cheers. --Sundostund (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand you. Please, look into the link which I posted - Mahlab stopped being acting PM on 17 June 2014. --Sundostund (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - [6] clearly states Mahlab was appointed as acting PM on 1 March. I'm sure many more media sources like this could be found online... Anyway, its clear he was acting on 1 March. --Sundostund (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dora and Friends.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your text diff, as it does not make any sense. Perhaps it was garbled by a technical gremlin. Please feel welcome to make further constructive contributions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed this notification here because you have initiated a couple of section about the page title on Talk: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant within the last two months:

• New name (21 August 2014)
• Alternative name (20 September 2014)

And I want to make sure that you have seen this post. If you have any questions about it then feel free to ask me on my talk page. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT make unilateral, undiscused, unsourced moves. Youre free to discuss it.Lihaas (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to 2014 Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Please do not simply redirect a DAB page to an existing article. The point of disambiguation pages is for the reader to find the article/s they are after. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adly Mansour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supreme Constitutional Court. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources http://www.columbian.com/news/2015/aug/22/yemen-al-qaida-seizes-key-areas-of-aden/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/23/us-yemen-security-idUSKCN0QS07820150823 all report Al-Qaeda in Aden. These are all reliable sources. The Yemeni Government, Al-Qaeda, and the Western media are all reporting this fact! Stop your vandalism. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbfreespace3: The model that you put (black and red ) is false , because AQAP does not control half of Aden but a neighborhood bribe from many quarters. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the icon that indicates shared control! There is no other option other than a contested icon, and there is no fighting reported from the city. What else would you have us do? The point is Al-Qa'ida is in Aden. That needs to be shown on the map! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbfreespace3: The control is not shared , since 3/4 of Aden is controlled by loyalist . I propose to create an icon that showcases shared control with 1/4 black and 3/4 circle in red. In January or in 2014, there were icons who did this . So AQAP is also to add in battle of Aden. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watch what I am about to do on the Yemeni map. See if you agree to it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbfreespace3: thank you. After , you should know that only the Tawahi neighborhood is controlled by AQAP. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please elude of overall changes in Template:Yemeni Civil War detailed map & obvious Vandalism without mentioning the source and certain documents (Contains: Web links, news battlefield, analytical articles, video and pic & etc) that's demonstrator accuracy of those claims.

Anyway, continuation annoying edits certainly can to report to administrators for intervene in this issue ends.

Regards.

• K!lluminati (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can't report people for "annoying acts." And I looked at the revision history, none of the edits in question constitute legitimate vandalism. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to know if the following source is from a reliable website. Thanks! LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• [7]

You use old map. New map show but new map showed difrante situation.here Khalifa trooper (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. K!lluminati (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Please see my post here at the edit war noticeboard. You have in my view not only edit warred on the page Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map, but technically broke the three revert rule, for which I or another admin can block you from editing for disruption to Wikipedia. However, as noted in the link to the edit war board I've decided to give you a final warning to not engage in any further edit warring and to take to the module's talk page to reach a consensus or otherwise seek other third party involvement. Failure by you to take this advice whereby you engage in another edit war, you may be blocked regardless of whether you breach the 3RR rule (i.e. even one more revert could lead to a block for disruption). Take to Template talk:Yemeni Civil War detailed map and sort this. NJA (t/c) 09:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NJA (t/c) 23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Panam, i already done some research about the new Aden battle, and i have already in my mind to create it, and i will, until the end of the month. As For the Nihm offensive, i will do an research for the battle, and if i find some sources, the article will created until the 5 of March. If you want to tell my something else, or if you want from me to create or improve an article on Wikipedia, send my a message. Thanks of reading--Tiseptiko (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info. I will set an article for the popular resistance, and i believe that it would by created until the half of the March. I'll send you a link of the articles when i finished them. if you want another article creation, send my a message. --Tiseptiko (talk) 9:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sana'a governorate campaign (2015-present) --Tiseptiko (talk) 2:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I find sources about the Midi. For the other one i have not searched yet, but i will do. When the Midi finished, I'll send you link. Send my message if you want something else.--Tiseptiko (talk) 4:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Second battle of Aden --Tiseptiko (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of port Midi--Tiseptiko (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey panam, i have founded sources, but aim still in searching. It seems that the popular resistance committees are most of them tribal fighters, and some are loyal to Houthi and some to Hadi, with a minority been affiliated with AQAP(as fare i have searched)--Tiseptiko (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks of info. I'll search it more, but it would take some time to create the two or thee articles. see ya--Tiseptiko (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. i will create the three of them, but don't expect to fully finish them before the end of the month. If you find something else, or you want new article that is missed from Wikipedia, be in touch and send a message. See ya--Tiseptiko (talk) 1:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Me again. I have a question if you know the answer. Wat's the main difference between the popular committees and popular resistance?(the third is obviously loyal to houthis, but the other two to whom are loyal? the southern movement joined force with hadi) If you now it, tell my, to continuous in more specifically searching.--Tiseptiko (talk) 1:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

hello panam. I read the two Arabic articles, and its clearly that the popular committees are loyal to Hadi. For the resistance, it seems as far i have read that are loyal to Ali abdullah saleh. if the are loyal to Saleh, are loyal to Houthis. So, in Saleh article, its wrote that during the houthi cup, the resistance,(tribal loyal to saleh) joined the Houthis. if they have joined Houthis, then they are now in the popular committees(Houthi faction). read the message and send my you opinion about that. see ya-Tiseptiko (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2016

I mistaken. The resistance its against the Houthis.^[1] The resistance are pro Hadi.^[2] So, we have the committees and resistance ailed with Hadi, and some committees ailed with Houthi. Read the sources and tell my.--Tiseptiko (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2016

Don't worry. I was in search and i have found pro Houthi popular committees sources. I have fund sources about 2014 battle of Amran also. Be in touch, and message me for anything else you want.--Tiseptiko (talk) 6:07, 5 March 2016

This documentary will be interest. I will watch it, and messag my again if you want. See ya--Tiseptiko (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2016

I have seen you message, but i haven't seen the documentary. I will probably see it tomorrow, an i will send you my opinion. See Ya--Tiseptiko (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2016

I can say that the documentary was very interesting. The downfall of Sana'a, maybe haves to do with the Yemeni government corruption, or maybe the Saudis ordered Hadi to let the Sana'a taken by the Houthis, for an explanation for their invasion. Send my another films like that. See Ya--Tiseptiko (talk 21:03, 8 March 2016

I have found about resistance, and i will set the article in three days. The film helped me about the battle . See you--Tiseptiko (talk 23:33, 8 March 2016

Battle of Amran--Tiseptiko (talk 18:33, 12 March 2016

Hi. Maybe its funny, but how can change a name of an article?--Tiseptiko (talk 24:33, 13 March 2016

I have find enough sources to create the popular committees, and i planed to create it tomorrow. About resistance, i believe in two or three days.--Tiseptiko (talk 21:12, 20 March 2016

Popular committees (Yemen), its not fully finished yet.--Tiseptiko (talk 23:24, 22 March 2016

Hey panam. I have put in mind to create first the Houthi committees and then resistance(surely, i will create them both in some 5 days) --Tiseptiko (talk 23:09, 25 March 2016

Popular Resistance (Yemen)--Tiseptiko (talk 23:44, 27 March 2016

Hey Panam. I have found sources, but i was not mostly on my PC in these days. When i find time, i will create the article. See you, and stay in touch.]--Tiseptiko (talk 23:09, 6 April 2016

Hey panam, i will create the article within this week. See you--Tiseptiko (talk 13:09, 22 April 2016

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. K!lluminati (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

according to this report alQaeda/AQAP/ISIS should be also placed as a supporter to coalition forces, my previous edit in the article was using this report which is the same but in Arabic, so I hope you view that report and then re-edit the article & place alQaeda/AQAP/ISIS as a third side(in east provinces) and as a supporter of coalition forces(in Taiz), & add alqaeda commanders & leaders YemArabSf (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thumps up for your last edit(adding AQAP/ISIS as Saudi supporter in Taiz at least) in Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen, you managed to unite our different point of views into one acceptable sentence for all different Wikipedia readers, as a Yemeni I know more and know that there is combat support not just in Taiz but even in Marib, but have no source to prove it, so I will leave it as it is then, it seems that we will continue editing this article without conflict so far, changed the layout made "In support of" separated in the last of the line to remove confusion of first look on article & added English sources. YemArabSf (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According a map both of villages Naqi al-Fardah + Milh and Brigade 312 also located inside Nihm District. So man, following your words, these objects are also in the disputed zone. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to this section. Yes, but the source is anti-Houthi orianted, reliable, but still. It wouldn't be the first time that Jazeera reports about the capture, but clashes continued for ages. Wait until they advance off the airport, then change it to red. DuckZz (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. K!lluminati (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that User:NJA gave you a final warning on 4 February. Pursuant to his warning, and the new 3RR complaint, you ought to be blocked for reverting the Yemeni map. You may avoid a block if you will promise *not* to edit any maps (Yemeni, Syrian or whatever) until May 1 and will also avoid their talk pages. Let me know. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! - ^theWOLFchild 18:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

• @Panam2014: Is there a reason why you refuse to add edit summaries to your edits? - ^theWOLFchild 21:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have added the information to the GNA and Cabinet of Libya articles :-) Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Dora grows up2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from {{{value1}}}. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. 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. Olowe2011 ^Talk 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, more clearly, what do you want to be done to page Haitian presidential election, 2015–16? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join WikiProject Haiti, an outreach effort which aims to support development of Haiti related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. If you'd like to join, please sign up here. L'union fait la force! Thanks!

Hi Panam2014, I noticed your interests in Haiti-related articles and thought I'd extend the invite to a completely revamped WikiProject Haiti. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Looking at some articles about Haitian elections here in Wikipedia, it looks that the partial Senate elections have their respective article. And because this Senate election doesn't have the same calendar or is under the same terms like the Deputies 2015-2016 election, it looks suitable to create a separate article for that (with the title "Haitian Senate election, 2016–17", considering a highly possible runoff), and keeping the article of the 2015-16 parliamentary election updated with the second round of deputies that will took effect on October. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he never took control of a competitive match does not matter - all that matters is that he was manager for nearly 2 weeks. Please do not remove it from the infobox again. GiantSnowman 07:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent unexplained removal on the Erdogan article is seen as Edit warring.

If you have valid and verifiable arguments, discuss them on the related talk page. Schily (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hosni Mubarak, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temer became President of Brazil, the moment Rouseff was removed from office. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he will sworn. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not immediately required, in this situation. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[8] --Panam2014 (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He became PRESIDENT, when his predecessor was removed from office. The oath is just a formality. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not then? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He will became president on 15 minutes. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Presidency IS NOT vacant. Stop being pig-headed. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is false. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think, [[User:Panam2014|Panam2014] you should explain the background of your behavior on this article or just desist with your frankly childish behavior. If you can show me why he didn't become President on the moment Rouseff was removed please do. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on ISIL territorial claims. 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. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to continue to edit war, can you at least try to do it in something where there could be some legitimate dispute? Starting times for seasons are somewhat arbitary as I hinted at, and even the division into four seasons is something which could be debated. But anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how the common four temperate seasons in are defined and how they're affected by the equator (and the relative position of Rio in respect to the equator) will know that you could say it's in winter or you could say it's in spring or heck you could even say these divisions don't make sense for a place like Rio. But it makes little sense to say Rio de Janeiro a city close to the Tropic of Capricorn (i.e. aways into the southern hemisphere) is currently experiencing autumn. Maybe this is a language issue but whatever the case, I suggest you refrain from anything to do with seasons as long as you think there's a case to be made for it being autumn in Rio. Incidently, depending again on your definitions, I'm fairly sure you can easily say it wasn't the first summer paralympics to be held in autumn. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeatedly adding the infobox on the Uzbek election article. You need to get consensus on the talk page rather than repeatedly restore it with terse edit summaries. I have started a discussion on the talk page. If you continue to readd it then I'm afraid it is likely to end up on a noticeboard. Looking at the other comments on your talk page, I suggest you need to tone down your aggressive reverting; you, like the rest of us, are expected to follow the WP:BRD cycle. Thanks, Number 57 20:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Javier Fernández is NOT leader of the party. He is President of the Caretaker Committee, but it is a collegial body. Fernández is NOT Secretary General of the party, and, of course, he is NOT Leader of Opposition. Btw, the Constitution says nothing about the Leader of the Opposition. It's parliamentary practice, not something that is provided by law. It's obvious you're just making up all of this and have no idea on how this works. Stop edit warring. Impru20 (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: In any case, I thank your effort for trying to improve on your own stance, seeing from your last edits to Pedro Sánchez's article, but this is still not correct. As I said, the Caretaker Committee is a collegial body. Fernández heads it because someone must coordinate the body's functions, but he is not over other members of the committee in that respect. The committee as a whole leads the PSOE, not Fernández. Impru20 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jack Guy Lafontant 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. J947 05:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a token of my cooperation, I have added more information about Jack Guy Lafontant, a notable political personality due to his position as new Prime Minister of Haiti. Thanks for creating the article in the first place. Now that we do have enough info and references about Lafontant, the deletion request set forth by another colleague is removed. Again thanks for your contribution on this page. werldwayd (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a symbolic page in Haitian Kreyol. He is the prime minister of Haiti after all and a page is needed. See https://ht.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Guy_Lafontant werldwayd (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already do have an article for Marina Kaye. You can edit there including whatever I have edited. Truly I started the article on 26 May 2015 based on her wonderfully fascinating interpretation "Homeless" ‎https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwKkjLOHd7s that has been number 1 in France and Belgium and also a charting hit in Switzerland, but I don't know why it hasn't been famous elsewhere. In any case, going back to the article, a lot of fellow editors have already edited there after me. You can do the same. But if you do need my cooperation, be my guest. It would be a pleasure to cooperate for improving our Wikipedia page for such a good artist as Marina. You can also use my email as you find in my contacts page werldwayd (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the official website and the Facebook page. But for now the photo in infobox is the only file we have of her in Wikimedia Commons. werldwayd (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a personal life section in which I reflected the feud. My hope is that this episode will not distract her from her career. Thanks for the four reliable sources you provided that I have used as references in the section "Personal life" werldwayd (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is clear that her earlier childhood experiences did effect her in a profound way and is reflected in the type of music she produces. But somehow for me public feuds are distractions. I feel very much disturbed when feuds involve parents. Now it is time she concentrated on her art as that's what matters to the followers. Hopefully both sides can all get over it. I kind of am troubled if what we added will become a hindrance more than a help. We should concentrate on the art of the artist as a priority. In any case let's wait for her next album and singles instead and hopefully she will get more international fame and success. werldwayd (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now formatted the link you added in her personal life section. I think the article is getting better and better all the time with references and additions. werldwayd (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were having a vote, take a look.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will create it is some days. ilisiapedia 2:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilisiapedia (talk • contribs)

This edit is really not great. You are inserting a false number of seats for the National Republican Alliance (they actually won 6) and don't bother changing any of the voter numbers that are actually in the source. Please be more careful and holistic next time. Thanks, Number 57 17:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, these are two different things. A Constituent Assembly is usually a temporary legislative body following a coup or the birth of a nation. A Constitutional Assembly is one that is elected specifically to draft a constitution. Cheers, Number 57 17:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved for the same reasons Venezuelan Constitutional Assembly election, 1946. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: --Panam2014 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes you have: one, two and three, so yes, this is a violation of WP:3RR. I'm not reporting you out of cortesy, but the violation is very clear indeed (three near-consecutive reverts on the same issue without it being one of the causes that may justify it).

Benezeuve is not leading the PS campaign. He's supporting it, and certainly he may not be fully withdrawing form politics, but he's neither the PS leader nor is he even running for election as MP (check link). Impru20 (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sarah Canbel. An edit that you recently made to United Arab Republic seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Sarah Canbel (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you can see, in the "Monarch(s)" column, I have a problem with showing that three different reigns (1990–95, 1995–96 and 1996–present) occurred during the 1994–98 prime ministerial term. Can you help with fixing that? --Sundostund (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still shows the 1990–95 reign as lasting only until 1994, without connecting to the 1994–98 prime ministerial term. --Sundostund (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can work this way. It shows all three reigns within the same term, and that's most important. Thank you! --Sundostund (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one unrelated suggestion - have you thought about creating your user page and putting something into it? Of course, its up to you to decide about it, and this is just a friendly suggestion. --Sundostund (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Nagorno-Karabakh presidential election, 2017 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. 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. MARK JHOMEL💣💥 01:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just take a look yo any other country elections template and you'll realize that no one includes indirect elections (i.e. presidential elections made not by popular vote) Regards! --Sfs90 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dora and Friends logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please make sure that you have completed one "Articles for deletion" nomination correctly before going on to another one. There were some errors in your nominations, and if you had fixed the errors in your first nomination you would not have gone on to make the same errors again in the other four. Next time, please see WP:AFDHOW and make sure to follow all three of the steps there. Thank you. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you have an opinion on this article, regarding its notability? I was thinking about AfDing it again (it was kept the first time, due to WP:RAPID) but wanted another voice, hopefully to avoid wasting time if it is indeed notable to you. By the way, many times I find your correct in AfDing an article but editors pick at your brief rationales. If you need help forming a rationale and I also believe it is unnotable, I would be happy to help you with your initial statement.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you made some changes to infobox of Shahid Khaqan Abbasi [9], however I have some concerns. Since the Ministry of Energy was created out of two ministries (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and Ministry of Water and Power) but you mentioned in the Preceded field only one ministry. Therefore in my opinion, it would be better to mention "Office established". Second, since Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources has been abolished, it would be better to mention "office abolished" or something like that in the Succeeded field. Let me know what do you think. --Saqib (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Ministry of Water Resources (Pakistan) replaced the Ministry of Water and Power. But the Power portfolio has been split from Water and merged with Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources. We should say that because nothing starts from a blank sheet for assignments. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Saqib (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—2017 Notre Dame attack—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - This editor participated at the AfD in June.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panam. In my opinion, the stabbing is not notable and news coverage is beginning to fade away already. Be weary, however, of the WP:RAPID arguments I'm sure inclusionists will employ to keep the article regardless of its merits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I apologize in advance if I already informed you of this but this page is worth watchlisting if you want to engage in more terrorism-related AfD discussions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that stub tags all go at the end, not the top, of an article - see WP:ORDER.If you had looked at the end of the article you'd have seen that Lob (haircut) already had the {{fashion-stub}} tag which you then added in the wrong place! PamD 14:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a user from the Opinion polling for the Austrian legislative election, 2017 article, but I wasn't talking about ÖVP's colour and I'm not the user who put the wrong one. Please, read again my message in Talk. 5.34.154.217 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have recently reversed my edit of the Austrian People's Party's color. Could you please cite any sources and reasons of this revert? Here is the article and you can easily see, that the new color is turquoise. --Melberg (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! The Kingdom of France, as was descended from Hughes Capet, had changed its laws over the millennia of its existence. However, the one law that continuously applied to the succession of the Capetian monarchy was Salic Law. When this pillar of the French kingdom was usurped in favor of constitutional succession the last vestige of the Kingdom of France ceased to exist, and thus a new nation was created. This is why the repeated edits to rid the page of any association with the July Monarchy/French Kingdom were pursued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:980:C100:14:7C8A:9BC0:C1B5:FEAE (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop making such changes to Catalan related articles. Catalonia's situation hasn't been settled yet. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday was October 27, when the Spanish prime minister had the Catalan president dismissed. Why are you retroactively changing the date to October 28? GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— fortunavelut luna 14:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi could you update the map ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't update the svg file, because I don't really know how to update Svg maps. I could try to update the png map file in December, because I don't have the time to do that right now, but there's a fair chance that I would get reverted. I could make a few changes to the source module, however, but I can't implement any large-scale changes right now because I don't really have the time to do that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you want, you can try updating the Yemeni Civil War Mao image. (I don't have the ability to edit the svg map right now, but if you do, you can try updating that map). LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I'm just no longer interested in the topic. Be patient, other editors will chime in at the Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: Hi, are you at all familiar with the background of this whole episode? The takeover was not really a "military operation". It started out as a protest movement against fuel subsidies removal and overall dissatisfaction with Hadi government, as well as Houthis' attempt to pressure Hadi into implementing other desired reforms. And Hadi had already lost legitimacy to the point that even the Yemeni army didn't defended him. I think my version of the lead was an accurate description of these facts. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Expectant of Light: hi, your statment is not neutral. It is Iranian-Houthi-Saleh point of view. In the fact, Houthi and Saleh organized a military operation, it is clear. The protests are not contradictory with the military operations. For reliables sources, armed Houthis took the control of buildings, presidential palace, and attempted to attack PM Khaled Bahah. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please post the answer on the entry talk page where we can continue the discussion? I just tagged you there too. Thanks! --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message template was placed here by Nihlus, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Yemeni Civil War (2015)". The case is now closed: please see the case commentary for the specific reason. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Nihlus 02:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comments by volunteer: None

According to article 162.3 of the Polish Constitution, since the resignation of the Council of Ministers by the President's decision she has been serving in the role of Polish Prime Minister, not holding this position anymore, though. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not restore removed talk page messages/notices/warnings[10]. There is no policy saying they must stay on the talk page, and their removal usually means they are understood, and acknowledged. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 17:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomer Vial: See here : it was not the same message. I have removed the warning. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using an 4im vandalism warning in that instance was also inappropriate. Apologies about my assuming you restored your own comments, however. I seen the IP quote blanking on their edit summary, and then I you post another message of the same size, so I assumed you re-posted it. Sorry, again. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 17:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually kind sir, your source is outdated and is even before Ali Abdullah Saleh, even died. This was in the midst of fighting, but here if it makes you feel any better a clear source that houthis are in control of Al-Bayda, [11] clearly giving names of places and areas that the coalition struck, admitting that there is a houthi presence from northern bayda all the way down to southern bayda. 128.175.87.38 (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a reason for removing the Southern Transition Council it is, because if we are to acknowledge areas of clashes, as areas of control then we must take into consideration Aqap has a large presence in Aden and the Southern Governorate's did you take a look at my source. Here [12] 128.175.87.38 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If wording is your problem, then provide me a source that clearly states that the Southern Transitional Council controlled area's and not just clashed, and I will be more then happy to provide you a source. 128.175.87.38 (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if wording is your problem, then provide me a source that clearly states that the Southern Transitional Council controlled area's and not just clashed, furthermore I would like to read this source that states specifically bombing are not clashes, when this practice was common in the Libyan Civil War 128.175.87.38 (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was talking about the Libyan Civil War when this was done in the Battle Of Benghazi, so I don't understand why your referencing Assad and the Syrian Civil War, and I don't understand how you consider someone canceling a party means control of an area, just like how you required me to provide evidence I accept hard evidence that they control such area's. 128.175.87.38 (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't why are you getting off the main topic, can you provide hard evidence that the Southern Transitional Council controls such areas? This has nothing to do with "POV Pushing" 128.175.87.38 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been proved then provide sources, but don't tell me that because a party was canceled that means that they have control in such areas. 128.175.87.38 (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "File uploaded locally prevents visibility of same file on Commons?". Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Trafalk09: Why did you change the photo in the article ? Please respond here. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CDC has been succeeded by all means and purposes by PDeCAT, so it indeed is defunct, despite its brand being still registered (but this is only a formality which the PDeCAT still needs for things such as receiving CDC's former public funding, and also because CDC is under judicial investigation due to corruption scandals). ([13] [14] [15] [16] [17]). The name remains, but the party as such does not. Impru20 (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the Democratic Party (Japan)... [18]. Doesn't say "dissolved", but "disbanded" (which would be close enough).

A political party may exist in name, but if it has no political activity (and further, when it has been clearly succeeded by another party), then it's clear it is "defunct", i.e. understanding such a word as "no longer in effect or use; not operating or functioning", not necessarily as "non-existant". A living being may die, yet its carcass would still pervive for some time. It is obviously "defunct", despite some remains still lingering around there. Impru20 (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that we can't. The infobox field can't be renamed and there's no other similar field with a different wording in the Template. Impru20 (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These can be added, but you can't control where they're placed within the infobox. The "blank1_title" field would be at the far end of the table, below the "colours". But I think a note could do it. Impru20 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Impru20 (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you will find any CDC member within the JxCat group. They would be all PDeCAT members now. As about independents and PDeCAT members, it'll be difficult, since they did not distinguish themselves on the ballot. I guess you would have to go one by one on the election list by province and spot which ones are PDeCAT members and which ones aren't. Impru20 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doing my own research myself, it'd seem the following elected people in bold are PDeCAT members:

Barcelona (5/6 out of 17)

1. Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó
2. Jordi Sànchez i Picanyol
3. Clara Ponsatí i Obiols
4. Jordi Turull i Negre
5. Laura Borràs i Castanyer
6. Josep Rull i Andreu
7. Joaquim Forn i Chiariello
8. Eduard Pujol i Bonell
9. Aurora Madaula i Giménez
10. Elsa Artadi i Vila (she was a PDeCAT member only for five months in 2017 ([19]). She is not a member as of currently, but is a close adviser to Puigdemont).
11. Quim Torra
12. Lluís Font i Espinós
13. Josep Riera i Font
14. Anna Tarrés i Campa
15. M. Isabel Ferrer i Álvarez
16. Francesc de Dalmases i Thió
17. Josep Costa i Rosselló

Girona (4 out of 7)

1. Gemma Geis i Carreras
2. Lluís Puig i Gordi
3. Marta Madrenas i Mir
4. Narcís Clara i Lloret
5. Lluís Guinó i Subirós
6. Jordi Munell i Garcia
7. Francesc Xavier Ten i Costa

Lleida (2 out of 6)

1. Josep Maria Forné i Febrer
2. Marc Solsona i Aixalà
3. Imma Gallardo Barceló
4. Xavier Quinquillà Durich
5. Montserrat Macià Gou
6. Anna Geli España

Tarragona (2 out of 4)

1. Eusebi Campdepadrós i Pucurull
2. Teresa Pallarès Piqué
3. Albert Batet i Canadell
4. Mònica Sales de la Cruz

So, it would be about 13 or 14 PDeCAT members (depending if you count Elsa Artadi or not) within the 34 seat-strong JxCat group. Impru20 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I actually thought the party had entirely merged into these both parties, then I saw it has 13 MPs in the House. However, where do these come from? DPJ did not contest the election on its own, and the CDP and the Party of Hope seem to preserve more or less their numbers in the election. Impru20 (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AKP went from 317 to 316 because Abdulkadir Yüksel (Gaziantep) died 6 months ago, leaving the seat vacant.

Don't think so, otherwise new MPs (including replacement for Yüksel) would've been elected by now. A by-election would require YSK to declare the previous election result null and void, something which won't happen because no irregularities have been reported during the 2015 election.

--Bibilili (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Creating articles for the Conservatives and MCP is definitely not a bad idea, though all of these were effectively incarnations of the same organization, unlike SHP and SODEP in the case of CHP's post-1980 successors. I think that if there is one article that should definitely be split up, it's Democrat Party (Turkey, current), which awkwardly merges information of the former DYP (which was a very influential party for many years) and the current micro-party DP, active under that name only since 2007. So while the arguments for new articles on MP and MCP are definitely well-founded, I personally think the priority should lie on the more prominent DYP/DP. To phrase it differently, it would be strange to have separate articles for the nationalists of the time, without doing the same for its much larger center-right groups. What do you think? — Μαρκος Δ 18:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Yes, that sounds good to me. Clearly there is a lot of work that needs to be done. I can create a separate article for DYP, and hope that you will chip in. The discussion that led to the merger of DYP and DP (2007)'s articles can be found here, but it happened over 10 years ago, and they never seemed to actually reach a consensus for a merger, so I think we're good to go. — Μαρκος Δ 21:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's a separate party, so it's fine for it to have its own article. I've made a new page for DYP here, with a link to the one from 2007 at the top. — Μαρκος Δ 22:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! First off, here is the leader of BBP saying his party will be part of the Cumhur alliance. We will only have to wait a few more days for the formal registrations of coalitions, at which point everything that is currently uncertain about alliances will be clarified. If it were up to me, we would wait with adding BBP to the Cumhur article until then. Secondly, the new anti-Erdoğan alliance is simply called the Nation Alliance (Millet İttifakı), while the old SP-BBP bloc was called the National Alliance (Millî İttifak). They're slightly different, so I'm both hoping, and assuming, that it will not lead to confusion. — Μαρκος Δ 00:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to wait, but I personally get the impression that Destici's comments have at this point not been given any final, official confirmation by both Erdoğan and Bahçeli, even if they have so far seemed positive about it. His comments have until now been very vague, and we don't really know if he's talking about presidential, parliamentary, or both. I am absolutely certain that in the end, BBP will join the alliance, but I think we should either wait for a joint AKP-MHP-BBP announcement/press conference, or even for the final confirmation from the electoral commission. The reason why AKP and MHP have already been added to the Cumhur article is that they have both bilaterally stated specifically that they will join, as opposed to BBP, which has declared it only unilaterally. When it comes to the new 4-party alliance, they have also made official statements and as far as I know signed a binding alliance contract, meaning that their alliance is now written in stone. — Μαρκος Δ 01:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've added it now. Thanks for the update :) — Μαρκος Δ 22:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Have you got a source ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added into the article. --Joseph (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! An article for the new DP? Do you mean for Vecdet Öz's new Justice Party (AP)? I don't know much about the party, but I can definitely try and dig up some information on it. If you know anything about the party, like founding date and leadership history, then just send it my way and I can create the article. And about a graph for the presidential election – so far I think there have been too many multi-scenario polls, and too many uncertain factors in general, to really make a graph for it. However, if the polling becomes more consistent from now on, since the parties have made their nominations, then I can at least consider it at some point in the future. Though for now, I still think it's maybe a bit early for that. — Μαρκος Δ 14:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, then I can probably get to work on it in the coming days. — Μαρκος Δ 02:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure, to be honest. It might be form of "populist" stunt where she wishes to show that she does not have to rely on TBMM to become a candidate. But I doubt it will have any serious implications on the election. Μαρκος Δ 18:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to be able to answer that, but I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with the specifics :/ Μαρκος Δ 18:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the Horn of Africa on this topic. It is only about Socotara that it was disputed between Yemen and the UAE and you deleted it without explaining the reason why. Kingston, CA (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingston, CA: we should add the fact that protests occured and UAE withrawn.--Panam2014 (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do agree with you because there were only a few days ago protests in the archipelago capital of Hadibu in which it support of UAE government, and they raised the flags of the UAE and pictures of Mohammed bin Zayed ruler of Abu Dhabi. Kingston, CA (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingston, CA: could you add it ? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here this the image link- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Ee1a4604b0ef5e33a5744eff32f3d01a_920_420.jpg Kingston, CA (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have uploaded this image before on Wikimedia Commons you can see it in my account uploads

Hi, I had seen the history merge request. It was partly my error in accepting the copy of the A6 / A6+ article without knowing that there is a A6. This I admit. However, since the 2 phones are closely linked and see what is A8 / A8+ which the latter title will be better. Upon seeing this mess, I decided that the proper course was to use the more correct title as the current title cannot be moved anymore unless we do a requested move which will by itself be controversial. The 2 pages have distinct content, one is mainly the infobox while another is the text which must be merged, which to which that is that is the question. I then decided that the best cause of action was to use the better title article and then move the initial one with attribution. I did not simply cut and paste, and had mentioned in my cut and paste that there is a need for history merging (from Samsung A6) in the edit summary and left the initial copy as a redirect. All the attributions are there, and I repeatedly make it very clear that I am doing a merging (with history there). I feel this is the best cause for action, any history merge will just cause things to get more complicated and with history merging having such a big backlog, with this I think the best cause of action will to let this be and I will also inform the admins involved that are regularly involved in this for assistance. Thanks and apologies --Quek157 (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also posted this over at AN/I so also notifying you about it --Quek157 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

What do you mean with "Ana Pastor in grey"? Impru20^talk 07:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? No, she is not. Impru20^talk 16:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you meant that. Well, she is not really considered as an "independent politician"; she is colored grey because she is as of now disqualified as a potential candidate and has not led any opinion poll, so it makes little sense to color her. Keep in mind that the other candidates using the PP color is provisional. Ideally, each candidate should use its own color rather than the party's color (as in Spanish Socialist Workers' Party leadership election, 2017#Opinion polls or Democratic Party (Italy) leadership election, 2017#Opinion polls, but it is still too soon as of now to know 1) how many candidates will announce their intention to contest the election, and 2) to determine which color should be used for each one (sometimes, the media themselves use a particular colour for each candidate). It seems likely that at least Feijóo and Santamaría should need a color in the near future (as both of them have led opinion polls). Nonetheless, right today a first map measuring the likely territorial power of Feijóo, Cospedal and Santamaría already uses a specific colour for each one (see it here), so I think we may use them. Impru20^talk 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm afraid I'm not yet sure when the formal inauguration is set to take place, and I don't know when the PM will be resigning, though I assume those will be taking place on the same day. I'll try to add it to the article if I find some more information on the matter. :) Μαρκος Δ 14:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in order to be serious & fair, if you look Hodeidah's map, Hodeidah University is the outskirts of the city, just in front of the airport. Putting all the city as disputed because there had been supposedly some firefights in a localized place in its outskirts is just manipulating the map & disinforming.--HCPUNXKID 20:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HCPUNXKID:

Totally wrong. The university is not located in the city center but the city of Al Hudaydah is not only the city center. Otherwise, thank you for being aggressive month with me, especially when you use this account intermittently. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014:

Wow! So now it's me who had used "ad hominem" arguments? OK, you know why I use my account intermittently? Just because people like you, who doesn't want to seek truth or seek a compromise, but to impose their personal beliefs agenda. I have told you to look a map of Hodeidah, something that seems you ain't done, to see that the bulk of Hodeidah's university (as two faculties are located in the city centre) is located just in front of the airport, at the city outskirts. I could point out more issues, but it would be a loss of time, patience & good faith, so do what you want. Bye.--HCPUNXKID 21:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been confirmed that under the new system, the terms of the president and parliament are interlinked. Specifically, if the TBMM is dissolved, then a presidential election is also automatically triggered. So to answer your question, yes, if there's another early election, it will be another dual election. :) Μαρκος Δ 23:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Did you know the party's membership of each new minister?

No, I don't. Most sources do not give this detail. 4 minister is also an MP.--Joseph (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--DBigXrayᗙ 21:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:INDENT it is important. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Well, this is not sure yet. For now it's the PDeCAT the one with presence in the Cortes Generales, but it won't be clear until after the Cortes are formally dissolved and alliances are formalized that we will know how and with whom will they contest the general election. For instance, some sources suggest the PDeCAT does not want to join the Crida ([20]) while others say both parties are probing a joint federation ([21]). JuntsxCat is an additional issue, because as of currently it is only the parliamentary group in the Catalan parliament and the electoral coalition in the 2017 Catalan election, and it is not sure whether it will be extended into the general election and, if so, how. Events will slowly develop and I guess we will know it soon. Impru20^talk 13:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I don't know. I did not put these numbers. Those should be sourced, indeed. Impru20^talk 20:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panam2014, I noticed you've made some unsourced changes to numerical data, such as this edit: Special:Diff/884169464/884614431, which also did not have an edit summary. This makes it very difficult to distinguish such edits from vandalism. Please at the least use an edit summary, as I see you have been requested to by other editors more than once above. Also, please provide reliable sources where the information you have changed can be verified, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the same article, as the alliance is essentially a continuation of the one already in place since 2016, just with less members.

On the move issue, I don't know. I did already create a redirect for Unidas Podemos but I'm unsure about the move, as it's not really a name change but a re-styling; the alliance could be named interchangibly, and Unidos Podemos would still be a WP:COMMONNAME as of now. Further, the alliance will be also adjusting its name for several elections (En Común-Unidas Podemos in Galicia, Unidas Podemos cambiar Europa in the EP election, etc). Impru20^talk 22:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name was agreed on several weeks ago but it was only communicated (can't be "registered" as it's not a party) to the Central Electoral Commission on Friday. However the name of the parliamentary group in the permanent deputation of the Congress of Deputies still shows up as Unidos ([22]). Impru20^talk 09:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's running as "Junts per Catalunya-Junts" in the 2019 Spanish general election, which is a minor re-formatting of the name. The logo is the same actually. We do not need to move every article just because there is a minor change in a name for a specific election. Impru20^talk 15:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky, actually. "Junts per Catalunya" is the same political entity overall, but it is currently formatted in two different platforms: one, the political party currently existing in Catalonia as a result of the 2017 regional election (which was born as an alliance, but then transformed itself into a party); second, the electoral alliance formed by PDeCAT, CDC and the JxCat party for the general election (the thing is, the JxCat party is concurrently formed by PDeCAT, CDC and the Crida, the later of which is, in turn, a split of the PDeCAT). I already made a mention of this in the Junts per Catalunya article, though I'll specify the name. Impru20^talk 15:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For now they said they won't. Impru20^talk 13:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No (not for now at least), as it's just the Unidas Podemos coalition in Galicia under a different name now.

A la valenciana has been replaced by the Unidas Podemos alliance in the Valencian Community. Don't know if they have a specific name. Impru20^talk 13:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no. "En Común-Unidas Podemos" it's just the label under which the Unidas Podemos alliance is running in Galicia. It's not a new En Marea nor a separate confluence. Impru20^talk 13:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Opposition Bloc — Party for Peace and Development.

User:Doomsdayer520 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for your new article on Opposition Bloc — Party for Peace and Development.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. The two are two different platforms, with their own structures, logos and such. Further, Más Madrid is still a functioning entity both in the Assembly of Madrid and in the local city councils where it got representation. Más País is a specific platform launched at the national level ahead of the November 2019 election. Due to the hasty election call and Errejón's sudden decision to contest it, MP is using MM and other parties (Compromís, CHA and Equo) as some sort of foundation from where to build up its structure. If I had to compare, I think this resembles Japan's Tomin First no Kai and Kibō no Tō. No reason to merge them both. Impru20^talk 20:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed out this at Talk:Más País. Actually, February 2019 is an unreal date. Más Madrid was launched in November 2018, however it seemingly applied for registration as a party in February 2019 (though the web itself says in a footnote it wasn't officially registered until 30 April 2019). Party registration date does not equal to foundation date, because a political entity could have existed as an electoral platform/alliance way long before registering there (IU in 1992 or CiU in 2002, for example). Nonetheless, the date collusion (February and April) already shows that these dates are not real, since these correspond to administrative procedures or technicalities, not necessarily actual foundation dates. Impru20^talk 20:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a result of a technicality conducted by the platform in order to hastily prepare for the general election. According to this, Más País exists since either February or April 2019, which is obviously not true. Registration does not mean foundation, and that Más País is now using Más Madrid as its laying ground does not preclude Más Madrid being a separate platform focused in the Community of Madrid. Impru20^talk 11:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. Impru20^talk 16:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a Más País-CHA-Equo coalition, which basically only adds one additional actor to the Más País-Equo coalition in the province of Zaragoza. We don't know yet how will this exactly play out; however, in other cases and up until now it has been frequent for similar coalitions to not being disaggregated in the table (i.e. PP-PAR, UPN-PP, PSOE-PSC, PSOE-NCa, etc), only confluences have been. As a result, this can be assumed to be part of the Más País-Equo coalition as of currently, unless the official website does separate them in election day. We will have to wait for that. Impru20^talk

You have not provided the IP address that appears in the message, which is needed to be able to look into this matter. If you do not want to give it publicly, you may give it privately using WP:UTRS. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC) @331dot: ‪2A01:E00:0:0:0:0:0. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a valid IP address; are you using a VPN? 331dot (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: nope. I am using a telecommunication company. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would wonder if they are running a proxy of some kind, however this is getting beyond my expertise, so I'm going to reopen your unblock request. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, and I don't see any edits being made from blocked addresses. What is the exact message that you get when you are prevented from editing? SQL^{Query me!} 22:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: I have been just unblocked? Is it a bug? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I don't see any edits from blocked ip's, and your account was never blocked. It's possible we may never know. SQL^{Query me!} 23:21, 11 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why did you remove duration from the list is there any problem lets work it out

Hi

Do you have a source that she is not senator now? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Let's not turn this into a political argument, OK? She is the interim president of Bolivia and that's it. Facts. (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the name of the senator who replaced her or her seat is vacant? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Bolivian so I don't know the process. Sometimes there's a stand in, sometimes there's a special election and sometimes the seat just stays vacant. Anyway, unnecessary information in the infobox given it's a proportional system not first-past-the-post. (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parliament of Malaysia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent (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) 09:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, due to your interest in Middle Eastern history, you are welcome to contribute to the newly created 1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Glades12. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Adil Abdul-Mahdi, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Glades12 (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has the Senate been abolished? Just wondering why the article says (repeatedly) that it's a unicameral parliament. Number 57 23:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: happy new year! No, I have only restaured the article because now the Egyptian Parliament is composed by 2 houses. We need an article for Parliament, another for HoR and another for Senate. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All three articles exist and the Parliament of Egypt one correctly states it is bicameral. The House of Representatives article should state it is a lower house. Number 57 23:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are. It is one of those rare cases where a phantom party is created to sustain an electoral alliance and/or to preserve the electoral brand. Impru20^talk 14:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peace be upon you, dear brother ◀️User:Panam2014, why did you do this on: List of heads of government of Libya? Why did you repeat the prime minister again?

أحمد الغرباوي (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that mean it would be Artsakh for someone elected after 2017? --Steverci (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steverci: yes but the PM office have been abolished in 2017 by the constitutional reform which renamed NKR into Artsakh. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to let you know that the Wikimedia ZA AGM will be taking place on 25 September 2021 See below for more details.

• Time: Saturday, 25 September 2021, starts at 10:00 to 16:00. With intermission at 13:00
• Location: held digitally online this link

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Panam2014. I have a question: Why you were fighting to keep the Battle of Starobilsk so much? The fact the creator has to PROD the article is honestly sad and surprising that you aren’t contesting the PROD with the effort you did to save the article from a notability merge/redirect. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Why are you asking to provide source when I have already provided it in the introductory paragraph? 🔮Plpm2021💬 05:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plpm2021: he is not not yet delisted as PM by national gazette. Provide source that President could not appointed himself as PM. Panam2014 (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have to wait for delisting gazette and ignore these sources which say post of PM is vacant. The moment he became the President, he automatically stepped down as PM. And how can a President appoint himself as the PM? Thanks. 🔮Plpm2021💬 05:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plpm2021:And for portfolios led by Ranil Wickremesinghe? Panam2014 (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any talk in the media that ministerial portfolios led by him are going to be vacant? I only saw about his post as PM and his Parliament seat from National List going to be vacant.Indian Express. I think that was because there is no need to step down from ministerial portfolios upon becoming the President but he automatically loses his post as a member of Parliament. 🔮Plpm2021💬 06:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plpm2021: and source about the fact he became Defence Minister ? Panam2014 (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Him becoming Acting Minister of Defence on 13 July 2022, I didn't see any. The editor who put it in the infobox must have thought Wickremesinghe automatically become Acting Minister of Defence upon becoming Acting President.

🤔BTW, why are you keep asking me questions without answering mine. (I wished you explain about President appointing himself as PM.) Let's end it here as this seems not to bring us anywhere.😊Thanks. 🔮Plpm2021💬 06:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics § 2023 Nigerian general election. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Cryw 9. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please have a read of WP:AGF and WP:SHOUT. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NLT, please immediately and specifically provide evidence for the claim that including the frequencies in the article is illegal under US law. We take these claims very seriously and making these claims to win an advantage in a content dispute is a very serious violation. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: not only under US law but too European countries laws. Admins have blacklisted ISIL link in en.wiki for the same reason. We could ping the administrator who have banned the links. Panam2014 (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the specific prohibitions. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2017#Terrorist_propaganda, several ISIL-affiliated domains were globally blacklisted, but I'm not sure that this was for legal reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: we could ask them. Panam2014 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that discussion justifies you saying that it’s “illegal”, on the contrary you were told that Wikipedia is not censored just as I have told you. Now please cite your specific reasoning for saying that or retract your statement. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: it is implicite. Please wait some time. Panam2014 (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not implicit. See WP:NOTCENSORED. If that is your only argument, you will have to stop making that claim. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: it is implicite. And if you insist you are free to ping the admins who have blacklisted the sites. Or ask a large bench of administrators. Panam2014 (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At meta-wiki, I have asked the admin who added the ISIL domains to the global blacklist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They said they were added as propaganda websites, similar to "warez sites or any commercials", and did not comment on any legal concerns. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: you ignore that in ISIL media there are illegal contents, violence, it is the same than pedopornography link Panam2014 (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panam, this is your last chance, you need to specify, cite, or explain why EXACTLY you are making the claim that including the content is illegal (in the United States), so it can be removed, or you need to specifically state that you are retracting that claim. Those are your two options, otherwise I am going to be blocking you indefinitely for making legal threats. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Panam, I just wanted to drop in and explain in perhaps friendlier terms what you're being told here. In the US, it is under no circumstances illegal to share that link. In fact, it could never be. The 1st Amendment protects exactly this. Hate speech is not a concept in American law, hate crimes are and speech, with extremely limited exceptions that dont apply here, can not be a crime. We could very well decide to remove it as an editorial issue, but that is up to us. I have no idea how EU law works on this but wikipedia's servers are in the US so it doesn't matter to us. Argue policy reasons to take it out and stop bringing up the silly legal argument. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Stop twisting my words. I have never threatened the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia with legal action. This is a lie. On the other hand, I feel threatened, harassed and intimidated by you because she has blocking rights. An indefinite blocking cannot be decided by an administrator alone. I have the right to request arbitration or a passage through the bulletin of the administrators. You don't even give me time to bring you legal proof of what I'm saying. Panam2014 (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@127(point)0(point)0(point)1: give me time. Panam2014 (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually indefinite blocks can be decided by a single admin alone, that's the whole point of them. However, you can appeal an indefinite block if you receive one and it will generally be reviewed by another admin. In that appeal you could try arguing the indefinite block was not justified for policy reasons i.e. the admin who decided the block made a mistake, although such appeals nearly always fail. A site ban cannot be decided by a single admin alone but no one has suggested one. Nil Einne (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to the NLT aspect, NLT applies to the chilling effect of making legal threats. So if you keep saying something is illegal that is a problem even if you are not yourself threatening to report editors or Wikipedia to any legal authorities. You need to either provide evidence it's illegal or stop claiming it's illegal. I do not believe the ban on broadcasting Al-Manar in the US and successful prosecution of people involved with providing material support for terrorism tells us anything about the alleged illegality of providing the frequency of a radio station that died 6 years ago on an encyclopaedia, so you are going to need far better evidence. Even more so since those seem to have been mostly via plea bargains, so we have very little clarity from courts on the limits of such laws. Possibly other cases prosecuted under the same law would have more clarity but you don't seem to have mentioned them so we still have no idea what evidence you have for your claims. I'd also note since you only seem interested in removing the Libyan frequencies and not those from Syria or Iraq so you'd need to explain why the former are illegal but the latter are not. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: my arguments are about analogy for Al Manar. Also radio died in Syria but I don' know if it is the same for Libya. Panam2014 (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said your analogy is highly flawed so you will need much better evidence. The article clearly says it died and the article I linked to on the organisation says is disbanded. The latter is whatever but did you not read the article you were editing before editing? Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I should clarify I'm not saying that the if the station was still alive, this would make the situations similar enough for it to make the inclusion of the frequency a problem. It's just that the station being dead makes it an even sillier suggestion. I would note that Al-Manar provides info on where the station is broadcast. The info is probably out of date since it's as of 2006, but if updated info is available in reliable sources, there's a good chance we'd include the info. We also have a link their general website https://www.almanar.com.lb/ in the infobox with mention an English version is available and it's not that had to see the En at the top of that website. And in the body we mention that their English language website has a live stream and include a link to http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/main.php . Although a redirect elsewhere now (https://english.almanar.com.lb/) that basically still works and I'd note in addition to the live stream, the current version seems to have a bunch of their content including speeches and Hezbollah statements and a list of frequencies the station can be received. Considering your claims, you might want to start with discussing the removal of that website first. As CoffeeCrumbs says, I think you'll have major trouble if you try to argue it from a legal standpoint considering at least for me, even Google News still includes almanar.com.lb [23] Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental issue here is that the situations are not, in fact, remotely analogous. There's no ban on information or even a ban on discussing or seeing these broadcasts. The placement on the Terrorism Exclusion List is a ban on providing material support for the organization, which has a four-pronged legal test associated with it. Banned speech in the United States is extremely limited and narrowly tailored.

You are certainly free to make an argument, though I imagine a frivolous arbitration request is likely to backfire.

You're the one who brought up the legality and more than skirted the edge of WP:NLT. It's vexatious to make a claim and only then ask people for time for you to back up your claim. Nobody should be making a claim that something is illegal if they don't actually have the backing for the argument in-hand.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panam, these editors above are leaving very helpful comments. I hope you are reading them. Wikipedia content is protected by the extremely broad free speech protections of US law. It is almost never credible to claim that Wikipedia content is “illegal”, and the implication that there may be real world consequences over this dispute is absolutely a blockable legal threat, even if you are not explicitly threatening anything. See also WP:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality of content (Wikipedia content is protected under US law; this includes content that may be illegal in other jurisdictions). ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: " even if you are not explicitly threatening anything." any rule says it clearly. Panam2014 (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the person you replied to there (I don't need to write on fr: about this topic because I can write on this user talk page). Btw did you actually make a "legal threat" ? Apokrif (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Apokrif: I have responded here 14:33, 13 November 2022 and in administrator noticeboard. Panam2014 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's not what I asked :-)

Can you please add links from the section you opened in Legifer on fr: to the discussions on fr: and en: ? Apokrif (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out on the talk page, this whole thing seems daft to me since we are arguing over something which stopped broadcasting 6 years ago in 2016, and indeed even the organisation which run it Ansar al-Sharia (Libya) disbanded 5 years ago in 2017. Nil Einne (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might be of interest. Apokrif (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2022 (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. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Al-Bayan (radio station)".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HappyWith (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This only warning is given in response to WP:ANI#Disruptive editing, edit warring, and personal attacks. You are strongly advised to read my comments there before you edit again. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panam2014, can you please stop adding archive.org prefixes to citations? This is not how it should be done. The URL should never point to archival URL. Instead, the Template:cite has a separate parameter archive-url, which should be used for archived versions (archive-date is then compulsory). Please revert all your modification or, better, change these citations to comply with the correct format. Thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: thank you. I will do it. Panam2014 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry if I sound curt, I'm just in a hurry today. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Salvadoran presidential elections has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caretaker government of Pakistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provincial assembly.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i saw you were active on french WP and that the French wiki has no Flag/coa for the regency of Algiers article.

Would you mind giving a look at both these sourced materials ? [24] and [25] Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main Files for upload page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 21:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Snowmanonahoe:

Please reconsider your decision. The current file has a very bad quality. For file 2, could you do an HD version and without microphone? Panam2014 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]