User talk:FellowMellow

July 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your 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. Thank you. Azrakjo (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I will revert back to the original because it clearly says on the CIK results page says that ITN is ahead of GERB. We want to prevent misleading information. Thank you - FellowMellow (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, this was a false flag. Thanks for your contributions :) Azrakjo (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop changing the ongoing parameter to 'yes'. The reporting bar incicates that the results in the infobox are based on whatever % the count is at. Including the reporting bar with the seats from the last election is misleading for readers as they may think those are the seat totals based on the count so far. Also, as a new editor I presume you are not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, but just to let you know, you have reached three reverts on the article within the last 24 hours, so any further reverts will probably result in you being blocked from editing per WP:3RR. Thanks. Number 57 13:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

As you've disregarded the request above and made yet another revert (inserting inconsistent percentages to the infobox), I've reported you for edit warring here. Number 57 14:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do elaborate how I did. So I was warned about something else about changing the election ongoing from no to yes. I did not continue doing that after I was left a message on my talk page. My edit is completely different from before. I fixed the results because they were inaccurate. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's different. If you read the link above (WP:3RR), it states that "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material". Number 57 15:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I didn’t know. I’m sorry. I’m new to Wikipedia. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

FellowMellow, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi FellowMellow! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Norway Election

Good job on keeping us all up to date with the seat count in the Norwegian election, you were dedicated to updating the totals as they came in. I don't have a concern, this is just a message of thanks. Cheers! Aryan Persaud (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the message! I also wanted to say good job for your extremely helpful edits in the Norwegian election. I hope to cooperate more, in the future! Have a good one! FellowMellow (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for being a kind fellow.

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your edits on the Norwegian election, and being so kind. Aryan Persaud (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I must admit, I feel guilty because I didn't give you one earlier or even thought of it, but you were so kind and words can't express how jovial I was to receive one from you. The least I can do is give you one! Thanks so much!! :D Aryan Persaud (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Awww, thank you so much for those thoughtful words and for giving me my first barnstar too!!! You are one of the kindest users, I've met on Wikipedia and you deserve that Barnstar! I am super happy that I got the honor to get one from you too. :D FellowMellow (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Team up on the Iceland election?Aryan Persaud (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I enjoyed working with you to fill in results on the Norwegian election, and since Iceland's is today.. wanna team up again? Idk where we'd get the results from though, if there is even any results coming in live :P

@Aryan Persaud: Yeah sure! I enjoyed working with you too. Let’s team up again. I’m always looking for an editing partner. The results should be displayed here. [1]. - FellowMellow (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@FellowMellow: Great! Only around 4 Hours & 30 minutes until polls close... Aryan Persaud (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@FellowMellow: Hey, where do I have to go to on the page to see the results? I can't seem to find it anywhere Aryan Persaud (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aryan Persaud: Hey, results are live here! [2] - User:FellowMellow (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@FellowMellow: Oh, thanks!

A barnstar for you! (And some biscuits)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Amazing work out there, and thank you for being one of the kinder people on this website Aryan Persaud (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Enjoy :p

@Aryan Persaud: This is now my second barnstar, and I couldn't be more grateful too! I really appreciate it! One Oreo for me and one for you. FellowMellow (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Icelandic Althing

Hello FellowMellow. Despite the diagram I have proposed clearly not being an exact duplicate of the one you have proposed, you have nominated it for speedy deletion on that basis. I don't believe "first diagram is naturally correct" to be a correct assertion, and would rather sort this through discussion.

In my proposed diagram have placed the parties according to their placement in Icelandic media (Pirates being between Social Democrats and Left-Green due to their placement on the staunchly progressive left, and People's being placed according to their economic position, with the centre-left). What was the rationale for your placement? JackWilfred (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@JackWilfred: Hello JackWilfred, by duplicate I mean an additional, unnecessary copy of the new parliamentary composition. I don't believe the "second diagram is naturally correct" to be a correct assertion and agree with a discussion. In my proposed diagram, I have placed the parties according to their placement on political position left-right, as does many other parliamentary articles. The Left-Greens and the Social Democrats are the progressive left, so they have been put on the very left side. The Pirates are on the center due to its rejection of being left or right. People's Party positions are mostly right-wing, just welfare issues are center-left. I believe the People's Party would be after the Social Democrats, if the majority of their positions on issues were center-left. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the placement of the Pirates is up to interpretation and your placement on the other side of the Social Democrats is just as valid, thank you for explaining it. I would still place the People's Party economically, as social placement is usually quite difficult to determine, and examples of 'social right, economic left' parties in other countries are usually placed economically. The Centre Party additionally take more right-wing social positions, but are economically not that different from the Progressives, and they have been placed together. But regardless, I think we're largely on the same page now. Thank you. JackWilfred (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the thing is I put them based of the political positions in their articles. It's not really only about social and economic policy. The People's Party has been placed as "far-right" on immigration issues, for example. Like the LDPR is right to far-right, they are still placed on the very right of the diagram, after United Russia, despite being economically lefist. I am pretty sure that we are largely on the same page. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right that neither economic or social policy is more important, but some metric must be used, even if we're placing a clearly three-dimensional ideological position on a two-dimensional diagram. There's probably an extent to which we're measuring a party which is, considering the size of Iceland's electorate, almost unique, and either interpretation is valid. Watching what they do with increased influence might help, and so I'm happy to leave it for now. JackWilfred (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The metric being used is a left-right diagram. Watching what they do with increased influence might help, I agree, and I would like to have a discussion on this if, there is a request to change. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Bundestag

Dear FellowMellow, first of all: It's nice that you contribute to the WIKI articles on German politics. That's great! Regarding the problem with the infobox 'Bundestag': please have a look at the article's talk-page e.g. under '17th vs. 18th Bundestag in infobox' - there you will find the current state of affairs regarding the handling of the infobox 'Bundestag' during the transition from an old to a new Bundestag and afterwards during the government formation phase. This is the current consensus. Please don't get me wrong: a consensus can be changed with good arguments and based on relevant sources (not [only]: links to Reuters articles). But for that, a discussion on the 'talk-page' would have to be initiated first. I will gladly participate - and yes: I am always ready to be convinced. Have a nice day, YoursAlektor89 (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Bulgarian general election

On 17 November 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Bulgarian general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Cabinet announcements in Germany

Dear FellowMellow, maybe we should discuss this here. With respect to your edit-comment "It’s not only me that disagrees with you, clearly from the edits" (12:52, 25 November 2021): It's not about the number of users, who agree or disagree with you or me. This is not about democracy, but about the basic principles of WIKI. We do not base articles on (doubtful) leaked lists or other speculative content (this is the job of 'breaking news journalism'), this is an encyclopedia, in which articles are based on verifiable (and in this case: verified) sources. Apart from that, I am open to any discussion on the matter. Alektor89 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually quite wrong there, Alektor89, a consensus is very important on Wikipedia, as a lot of decisions on Wikipedia are decided by multiple users on a talk page. It’s really not doubtful if multiple sources is providing it. I understand that you want to be the main and superior editor of all German-linked wikipedia articles. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

But the consensus must always be within the range of what can be verified on the basis of sources (and there was no consensus, I just see it differently from you). I'll make my problem clear in this concrete case: What would be a reliable source for the fact that a party wants to propose person XY as minister for XY? In my opinion: An official press statement or any other official communication of the party in this regard. Lists that are passed around among journalists and sometimes differ, but are also denied by the parties and seem to me personally also very speculative (example: Sabine Dittmar as Minister of Health? Not impossible, but another candidate would be Karl Lauterbach, who is no less plausible for the office), on the other hand, have much less weight. We should simply wait until the parties officially announce their ministers. What's so bad about that? [Please excuse my English, I am not a native speaker.]Alektor89 (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

and I have provided those sources for you about speculated names and told you that if a name were to change from that list we were change, you didn’t want to listen. We see it completely in two different ways. I didn’t say it was a bad thing, but I don’t know why you’re making it look like a 'monstrosity', that I put speculative names in the minister positions and left an invisible note, that if a name were to change and confirmed we woukd change it. You of course, not surprisingly, did not like the idea and decided to be more superior and simply revert it, whatever you didn’t like. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not the way, an encylopedia works. Speculative content simply and per definition does not belong in an encylopedia, before it is verified (in this case per official communication by the relevant parties), because it's aim is, to present 'facts'. What you did would be totally ok in a journalistic article, but this is not, what WIKI is about. This has nothing to do with feeling superior or whatever (anyway: We don't need to become personal here, in my opinion).Alektor89 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, if I have a proven source, it should be taking into account, you did not want to take it into it consideration. Simply because you like the idea. This is facts, i’m gonna say this again if he minister name were to change, we would change it. You DIDN’T like that either. I’m not getting personal at all, that’s completely inaccurate. It’s just on German-articles, whatever "you feel" is right, is the way it should be. It’s not the first time you’ve done this. You’ve done it on the Bundestag article as well. Merkel’s government is in caretaker form. This was used back in 2017 when she was still in coalition negotiations. I also provided many factual sources backing it, you did not provide one. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Once again: Not every source has an equal weight. We simply do not know, on what factual basis these lists (there seems to be more than one, and they differ!) are. The party-spokespersons deny their factuality. This is to shaky ground, to lay the foundation of an WIKI-article on, in my humble opinion. We should stick to the verfied facts instead. Alektor89 (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no interest in continuing this conversation because you’re simply not listening. You are only listening to yourself and simply putting words in my mouth. I provided numerous sources for a list that had been released. If a name changes, we would change it because no other names are being said, besides those ones. It’s not opinionated. If it was an opinion, it would be like ministers who I would like to see appointed. That’s an opinion. Factual sources are the key principle of what makes Wikipedia articles truthful. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

By whom has this particular list been released? And why is it the most truthful? Please, just look, how they differ: [One example] The list, you have used has Sabine Dittmar as Minister for Health. Another list (https://www.kreiszeitung.de/politik/ministerliste-ampel-koalition-minister-kabinettsliste-scholz-olaf-spd-fdp-gruene-baerbock-lindner-habeck-wissing-ministerium-wieviele-bundesregierung-91136745.html) names Karl Lauterbach. Another one simply puts an "?" (https://www.merkur.de/politik/ampel-minister-kabinett-lindner-habeck-baerbock-spd-gruene-fdp-koalition-aktuell-liste-91135059.html? I could cite more examples. Please, tell my, why one of this lists is superior (i.e. more factual) than the other ones? Alektor89 (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh please go right ahead, cite as much as you want. You know better, you know what sources are good and which sources are bad and which are more factual, so not sure why anybody else bothers to edit German Wikipedia articles since you’re so knowledgeable. As you can see, I’m not reverting anything so I don’t know why you keep continuing to spam my talk page. Have a good day. - FellowMellow (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You accuse me of "not listening to you" - even though I have very precisely addressed your point of view and tried to make my problems with it clear; but when I come with arguments, you don't feel like it. Interesting discourse strategy. Too bad, but have a nice day, too. Alektor89 (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s really not an accusation if it’s being done. You have come with no arguments, just mere opinions. I gave you multiple arguments you didn’t listen to it anyone of them. Thank you I appreciate for commenting on my discourse strategy, might want to take a look at yours as well. Sucks for you. Good day. - FellowMellow (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

National Assembly (Bulgaria)

Hello. I am interested why do you think that DaB! has 10 MPs and DSB has 4 MPs when they actually are 8 vs 6? What is your source of information? As it is stated in your profile, you are not Bulgarian and probably can't research the matter as good as me - a person who lives in Bulgaria. I can even tell you the names of the six MPs from DSB if you are interested. I have nothing against you but I think you should be corrected in this situation. - comment added by Lil23994 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Touché, I really don’t give a damn about whether you live or not in Bulgaria. You bragging about living in Bulgaria isn’t really a good impression. I can actually tell you the names of who is in the caucus. DSB has 5 MPs, which are the following, Ivan Dimitrov, Stoyan Mihalev, Zarko Marinov, Atanas Atanasov, and Martin Dimitrov. The Greens have 2 MPs, Vladislav Panev and Zornitsa Stratieva. The rest belong to DAB! The source is you can look each name and it will tell you. - FellowMellow (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There is one more DSB MP - Peter Marinov. - comment added by Lil23994 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That’s Zarko Marinov, no such MP by the name of Peter Marinov exists. Since you are so sure, prove it to me please. - FellowMellow (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Two sources even - https://demokrati.bg/person/petar-marinov/ ; https://www.parliament.bg/bg/MP/3658. In the first it is said in the third paragraph that he is a District Chairman of the DSB in 23 MIR - Sofia - - comment added by Lil23994 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t even care if it’s more than two. There needs to be an explanation to why all the other MPs are part of DAB!. The first source you provided is not reliable because it doesn’t prove that he was elected to office. It only says he’s a candidate. This is my source with all MPs. [3] - FellowMellow (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Here you can see all MPs. This is the official website of the Parliament. - https://www.parliament.bg/en/MP - comment added by Lil23994 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears one MP was listed twice that’s why there was confusion. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Scholz cabinet

Hi FellowMellow, the edit summary of Special:Diff/1060432809 seems to be unnecessarily direct. The entire discussion at Talk:Scholz cabinet seems to be unnecessarily focused on behavior rather than article content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not really happy with this edit [4], because you accuse me of making a personal attack which was not done. I explained the users actions not personal attacking him. If I personally attacked him I would’ve name called him which did not happen and won’t happen. FellowMellow (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I was mainly looking for a template base for my message and have built upon that in a much less accusative way. Still, "stop being immature and hypocritical" is a personal attack, so the initial message was justified. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Well that’s just misleading. You’re accusing me of personally attacking someone, when it’s no where close to being a personal attack. "Stop being immature and hypocritical" is to describe the activity done by the user and he also made similar accusations about them against me, it’s not an attack on character. So your initial message was not justified, is was done based on a provocative and inaccurate description. FellowMellow (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You might then have meant "Stop acting immaturely and hypocritically" instead. What you wrote is a personal attack. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

A personal attack involves someone making damaging remarks relating to somebody's lifestyle or character. These types of attacks can include comments that question a person's intelligence, values, and integrity. Therefore, if I need to be clear it up for you, then I will clear it up. It was not meant to be a personal attack nor was it a personal attack. Accusing me of something like that is very hurtful. FellowMellow (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Can we agree that you've been incivil and that my message, after all the edits, addresses this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ll be happy to tell you how it’s not the same. If I questioned his intelligence or integrity, I would have said "he’s dumb and stupid" or "he has no business on Wikipedia." That’s not what I said though and I don’t think that way. Those are examples of questioning someone’s intelligence or integrity. I know better not to say those things. What really concerns me though, is that you are becoming increasingly biased against me, while to him you have said absolutely nothing about being incivil. I’m surprised that when I made a little error on the incident reporting page, he used a curse word abbreviation "wtf", instead of being civil and respectful and you have yet to tell him about it, which I’m starting to doubt you will and most likely you’ll say, "oh there’s nothing wrong with that." So no I don’t agree with you that I have been uncivil. If he were to have acted nicer towards me then we wouldn’t be in the situation in the first place and you have yet to tell him the same thing. FellowMellow (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I have sent exactly the same message, just with a different diff number, to you both. You've been incivil; "unnecessarily direct" was my attempt to phrase this in a more diplomatic way. My message to you is about your behavior, not others'; Whataboutism is a logical fallacy. Although there is no block in place, please have a look at WP:NOTTHEM. Hopefully not in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The message can be same or different but it’s not the same with the discussion we are having right now versus with him. Saying things like "The IP user and I have proved you wrong" is an example of being incivil, which he directed at me. You chose to ignore that and not tell him the same thing, but instead criticize me only. Now that is being biased not fair. So if you can’t treat this situation fairly, then I’m not going to admit to being incivil, since pretty much you’re letting him, slowly off the hook for what he said and putting all the blame onto me. FellowMellow (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

National Assembly (Hungary)

Who are the two Independents if i may ask? Braganza (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on my research, Szabolcs Szabó and Ákos Hadházy. You may correct me, if I’m wrong. - FellowMellow (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

then there are actually 3 (MZP will sit in the P group though) Braganza (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. - FellowMellow (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy Passover!

Happy Passover!

Hello FellowMellow, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this passover. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a happy passover or easter, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy editing, 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Happy Passover}} to other user talk pages.

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much and to you too as well! - FellowMellow (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

US Elections - Candidate Listing Order

The listing order of candidates for United States general elections favors the incumbent candidate (or even party, in some instances, such as the 2022 Pennsylvania Senate election). This practice is not a hard-and-fast rule. Rather, it is customary in its pre-general election acknowledgement of incumbency. If there is an example of an United States election page that lists the incumbent candidate/party secondary to the challenger, I would appreciate if you could link it for this dispute resolution.

That’s not a very good comparison and I’ll explain why. PA and CA use two different kind of voting systems. PA is closed primaries and CA are open. PA would make sense with your preferred way, but for CA it doesn’t make sense, since they are already battling it out and then again (of the top two. - FellowMellow (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Tory leadership election

Hi

Regarding your recent revert of my edit, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states the less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Having every single result of every single ballot will likely result in the end 28 numbers with percentages, which no reader will absorb, hence my citing of that guideline to remove less key facts i.e. results for candidates that got eliminated early one. For the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election (UK) a consensus, based on that guideline, in fact led to only two candidates and two ballots in the infobox. For a similar reason, I think the infobox for the 2022 election should not have all the candidates.

Regarding the photos, 2017 photos are OK, as none of the candidates appearances have changed significantly in 5 years. It also makes it easier to have the images the same size, which is tidier in the infobox. As far as I can tell, they only reason you think newer photos should be used is because other articles use newer photos. I don't think this is a good argument, as other stuff exists, so saying other articles do something else is only a good argument when you can also say WHY that article doing something else, why that is a good idea on that article, and why it would be a good idea on this article. --TedEdwards 15:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I won 100% disagree and the reason is because I don’t think it’s right to leave candidates off. I don’t know where you got the idea of end 28 numbers with percentages, but that’s far from accurate. Also all Wikipedia articles use more current photos, which is preferable because they are recent. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

28 is the number you get assuming no candidates drop out, so 8 numbers (1 for each candidate in that ballot) from the first ballot, 6 from the second, 5 from the third, 4 from the fourth, 3 from the fifth and 2 from the members ballot. So 28 in total. Also all Wikipedia articles use more current photos, which is preferable because they are recent is a repeat of the substance-less argument you've already made, and also not true that ALL articles use more the most recent photo possible. Saying I don’t think it’s right to leave candidates off is equally substance-less, being about as deep an argument as I don't like it is.

Well that’s not an accurate calculation. Also I don’t know why you’re tying me to a deep an argument as I don't like it, when it’s you, who is making that remark by reverting my edits because you don’t like that all candidates are placed there. Also my argument for the use of more current images is not substance less, your advocacy for older pictures doesn’t make sense, so let’s say a Wikipedia picture from the 2000’s should be used rather than a more current one, only for the reason that internet articles use the same pictures. That’s makers the argument, not as strong, as you make it out to be. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

8 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 = 28. Do I need to teach you basic math so you will understand? And I have given arguments based on Wikipedia guidelines (namely WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE) in why some candidates should not be in the infobox, which you have not. And I don't know why you're taking about images from the 2000s, since the images are not from the 2000s. Suggesting that I am advocating that sort of image is a straw man argument, since you are attacking an argument I did not make, especially considering my reason for wanting to use 2017 images has got nothing to do with what pictures are used elsewhere on the internet. So you didn't actually refute anything I said. --TedEdwards 15:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I am saying the format of how it will look like is your description is inaccurate. These numbers have no point and speaking other users have also favored my argument, as they edited it back, so clearly I’m not the only one. Speaking that you’re now being rude and telling me that I don’t know basic math, shows that you’re going into the direction of being uncivil and I will no longer respond to your messages, since clearly you’re not able to appropriately respond. If the next message you write, will say something close like "you’re choosing to run away from the argument because you know you're wrong", trust me it’s far from that. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

So you've gone from saying my calculation is inaccurate (without evidence, considering it was correct) to saying my description of the format is inaccurate (without actually saying how my description is inaccurate, or how they have "no point"). The fact is, based on one assumption, namely no candidates volunatarily withdraw (which I believe, while uncertain, is likely), means that readers will be greeted by 28 numbers and 28 percentages in the infobox (refering to the individual results for each candidate in each ballot), which they will not absorb, so the infobox might as well not be there. An edit I copied over from the 2019 page was a link in the infobox to the results section of that article saying to the effect of "full results below", which a) links the reader to the full results and b) makes clear not all the results are in the infobox.

I apologise unreservedly if I came across as uncivil, but I extremely annoyed to say the least by the suggestion my math was incorrect, when it was not. --TedEdwards 16:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding reverted edit

I figured we should probably just discuss it. The current infobox is stretched out because B&W-TNH's full name is very long, we should probably compact it. I don't know if there's any precedent around this but this should be discussed either here or in the talk page Totalstgamer (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Well the version you had placed, made it even longer. The br symbol has an extra spacing, that doesn’t work well. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

On my device it made it thinner but slightly longer, which was preferrable. We could try and shorten it to an acronym again but that would probably require a talk page discussion since there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this. Totalstgamer (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, talk page is fine. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Avidar is an MK

When Avidar resigned from government he returned to being an MK, and he still is, as you can see in the official MK list website, I won't change it back because the article is up for deletion anyway, but please stop editing misinformation Danido9 (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually on these two pages, [5] [6], they say not or former MK. It’s a good thing that you didn’t change in back because I would’ve reverted it again and then asked you to take it to the talk page. So if there’s anyone that’s editing misinformation that’s you and I urge you to please stop. Thanks! FellowMellow (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Module:Political party/O

If you want to update a party's colour in the module, just click edit it, find the party's row and then amend the colour. I have done it for Otzma Yehudit. Cheers, Number 57 09:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it! - FellowMellow (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Zionist Spirit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zionist Spirit, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionist Spirit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 United States House of Representatives elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm I2n2z. I noticed that you recently removed content from Freedom Movement (Slovenia) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. i2n2z 04:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Explanation provided. Thanks for your message. - FellowMellow (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2027 Finnish parliamentary election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TBD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello I appreciate your correction. But there is a rule that in order for a candidate to be ranked 3rd that candidate must receive at least 5% of the vote or more. Many people still don't understand this. Please look at this example #list. Note that there are 3 candidates, but because candidate 2nd has less than 5% of the vote, candidate 3rd Therefore I did not add more because I received only 1.50% of the votes. My English may not be as good as it should be. I apologize. อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)