User talk:Mélencron/archive 1

Faithless elector

See Talk:Faithless elector please. – Smyth\^talk 21:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dutch general election, 2017 potential coalitions

Template:Dutch general election, 2017 potential coalitions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. gidonb (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

En Marche! template colour

I've left a message at Template talk:En Marche!/meta/color that you might be interested in. Katya2017 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Head Rag Tax

I used the same capitalisation as the original source and it's a quote, so I'm not sure why you changed it. I don't think it matters why its article uses, we shouldn't change quoted text. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about creating polling graphs

I'll check it, though this will take a lot of time given the enormous amount of polls there are. However, it looks like someone actually removed some polls when changing the the dates to the publication date. No, Italy is ok. April 2014 is missing because no polls were conducted for the general election back then (pollsters were then focused on the European election in May 2014). I use Excel to make my charts, btw. Impru20 (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: FYI, I checked through every poll on Wahlrecht.de during the update – I've got 755 in all on the spreadsheet I'm maintaining right now. Mélencron (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just taken a first look at the table and I'm already spotting some errors in 2013. There's an Infratest dimap poll in 12 December 2013 which should be actually in 18 December, and an Allensbach poll for 12 December is missing. I'm sure as hell that the last time I made a major revamp to the table (somewhere by mid-2016) those polls were in their place. And I'm spotting other errors throughout other years too that shouldn't be there. My chart is correct since I checked it several times throughout the years, but the tables are wrong now. I'm going to fix it and, in the meantime, also change the date formatting to use the full fieldwork date. It'll obviously take time, though. Impru20 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Good eye. Taking a quick check at my tables, I'm one short on Allensbach polls (the one you mentioned), have the same number of Infratest dimap polls (but a wrong date, apparently), missing one Emnid poll, have an extra Forsa poll, and same number of GMS, INSA, Ipsos, and FGW polls. Mélencron (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject!

Hello, Mélencron! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Italian election graph

Hi Mélencron, I'm writing you because I saw your great jobs in creating graphs about the opinion polls, for example this one of the 2017 German election. I would like to ask you if you want to create a similar graph like the German one about the 2013 Italian general election (regarding parties not coalitions). Here you can find all the opinion polls' results. Thank you -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You might be better off asking @Impru20: that one. Unfortunately, I don't have Excel like them and the only way I can add points for polls, like here, is through a really hacky workaround. (I could make a graph with just trendlines, though, like the one you linked. As I understand it, the parties are PdL, PD, LN, UdC, IdV→RC, SEL, M5S, FLI, VTR→SC, FdI, and CD, correct?) Mélencron (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I asked Impru20 to create a graph about 2013 Italian election many months ago, but he was very busy with other articles. However if you want to create a graph with only trendlines will be great and absolutely better than now, where we don't have any graph at all. Anyway, yes it's correct, I known that it's a bit difficult, but here we have too many parties which "live" only for few years :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this particularly urgent? If not, I'll probably defer it until later or when I have nothing all that major on my plate. Mélencron (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've found a workaround; looks like this for the German graph. Looks a bit messy, though; still have to optimize point/line/graph sizes. Mélencron (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry it isn't absolutely urgent, we waited four years for a graph, we can wait a bit more :) This graph looks good, if you can create a similar one, it will be great! -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Stub edit reverts

Hi Mélencron. I noticed you just reverted some of my edits regarding the Next Greek legislative election, Dutch general election, 2017 and German federal election, 2017 pages being stubs. I would argue these pages are stubs as they provide very little detail about the election, especially in comparison to pages such as French presidential election, 2017. There is no explanation of the build up, what the party's are standing for, controversies etc, just poling and the election process. I'd say these pages are severely lacking in detail. Helper201 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As per the talk page, the articles are classified as start-class, slightly beyond the stub status (i.e., beyond just a few sentences in length). It's entirely an arbitrary classification, but I'd probably generally refer to articles as stubs if they're <250 words in length (which doesn't apply to the German and Dutch articles, but does to the Greek article). There's a bit of usable prose content on each of the prior two, meriting start-class, in my view (summary of the electoral system, note on paper ballots/electronic voting which is already somehow outdated, previous election note; summary of the electoral system, previous election, set date). Mélencron (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thank you. I wasn't aware they were classified as start-class. Sorry for that mistake and thanks again for clearing that up. Is there any other way the pages can be highlighted that they require more information? Helper201 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd probably use {{Expand German}} (with a similar template for articles in other languages as well, e.g. {{Expand Greek}} and {{Expand Dutch}}) or something of the sort. Mélencron (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Turkish referendum

April... March... I truly believed it was tomorrow. Thanks for spotting my mistake! Gyrostat (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

ShadowBC user pages

I have some concerns about the CSD nominations for the large number of user pages associated with User:ShadowBC.

If this were a prolific editor, who contributed to many election articles, this would not be a close call. I would conclude that most are legitimate collections of information that potentially could be standalone articles or meaningful contributions to existing articles.

However, as you know, that is not the case. If I check correctly the editor has about ten edits to mainspace. It is, therefore, puzzling to me, that someone would spend so much time and energy putting material together and not using it in articles. It isn't just a collection of material, it is formatted using media wiki formatting so it isn't a clear-cut case of someone who decided to use user space as a free web host.

If it were just a handful of items, I wouldn't be starting this conversation. However, given the over 300 items, some of which are substantial work, I think it is worth at least a conversation with the editor to ask about their motivation. If, for example, they are pulling together a massive amount of material with plans to incorporate in articles, we might consider imposing's some time frame to at least start that process. If, on the other hand, they think that as long as they make a couple edits to some articles they have carte blanche to host whatever material they choose in user pages, we should let them know this is not the case but give them some time to else where make copies.

Or maybe they will respond differently, and we can decide how best to proceed but I'm uncomfortable blowing away this much material without discussing it with the editor. Do you disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

These are all fake elections... a quick check of the corresponding articles for the "real" ones should show that even the ones that "sound" real are fantasy. That's the reason I nominated them for mass deletion – they have zero encyclopedic value. Mélencron (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This User:ShadowBC/1 is not a fake election - I spotchecked one entry - Democratic delegates for Alabama, and the numbers match the source. Perhpas some are fake, but not all are fake (whyich would be a legitimate reason for removal.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Now moot, @Primefac: has removed them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Almost all of them I saw were fake – I checked a few unfamiliar ones (e.g. a few of the Polish ones, which were all fake, so far as I could tell), but in mass-tagging them I probably made a mistake here or there. In any case, I don't see any intent by the editor to contribute to actual articles with these, so... Mélencron (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Every one I checked was either fake or contained completely different information to what was in the actual article. I'm not averse to REFUNDing a few of the pages if requested, but I agree with the intent of the original nomination that hosting random content with no intention to do anything with it isn't exactly in line with our goals. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If they were primarily fake, I am fully onboard with the deletion. I still think best practices are to open a conversation with the editor, but I understand the path taken.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Razzy Hammadi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montreuil. 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) 09:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken

I noticed your dispute with this user on the Alternative for Germany talk page.

I'm contemplating making a general complaint against this user, and thought I might contact you given your experience with them. It's clear there are some general attitude problems, that is, a tendency to take disputes over content personally, a generally aggressive tone, a repeated (and in your case fairly explicit) failure to assume good faith, and some evidence of unconstructive editing and abuse of privileges.

There appears to be a pattern whereby the user adds content to infoboxes, piles up references to support the claim, and then refuses to debate the validity of the sources, or whether the content should feature in the infobox in the first instance. In this case, because this happens to be a cause they disagree with (as I'm sure we all do), you (and I), were told that we could expect to be accused of being AfD supporters if we seek to portray them "in a positive light", that is, remove excessive description from the infobox. This is just poor editing.

I was temporarily blocked over the last dispute on the AfD page, and for that reason I won't intervene again there, but I'm fairly certain that my case was handled improperly (i.e. I don't believe I was the one with the attitude problems). I had intended to take it further, but before I noticed the most recent dispute, I thought I might let it go. How would you suggest I go about doing this?

I'm not sure if I am required to let the user know that they are being discussed; if I am, and you see this, please ping them. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: formerly Hayek79 L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've decided I'm not pursuing this, and since you are obviously not interested, you may remove/archive this now. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Republican Party

According to Far-right politics, "Right-wing populism, a political ideology often combines laissez-faire, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism is often described as far-right. Right-wing populism often involves appeals to "common man" and opposition to immigration." Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, among many other prominent Republicans, are near-universally described as right-wing populists. Therefore the Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, is validly described as a far-right party. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 02:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Republican Party is not led by Donald Trump. Unlike in most parliamentary systems, the leaders of political parties in the United States – typically, the chairs of the national committees of each party – do not serve as head of state or government. The political views of the current President of the United States and his Chief Strategist aside, they are not representatives of the party, and nor are their views necessarily representative of the Republican Party – which means that your point alone isn't a sufficient justification to describe the party as far-right. That semantic point aside, the Republican Party (United States) article does not refer to the party as a far-right party at any point. In any case, the List of far-right political parties article doesn't seem to list a single party classified as "right-wing populist" but not solely "far-right": for instance, Jobbik is included while Fidesz is excluded; the Party for Freedom, Alternative for Germany, UK Independence Party, Freedom Party of Austria, Lega Nord, National Front (France), Sweden Democrats, Finns Party, or Danish People's Party are listed there. All of these are right-wing populist parties, but not all of them are necessarily far-right parties (anymore). The two terms shouldn't be considered interchangeable; one refers to an ideology (right-wing populism) which, while generally well to the right, aren't necessarily far-right (i.e., often characterized by explicitly nationalist, racist, or xenophobic views). At this point, neither of these terms apply to the Republican Party in the U.S. as a whole, and therefore do not merit its inclusion in the list. (A quick glance at the article reveals that it almost entirely refers to ultranationalist/xenophobic/neo-Nazi/fascist parties, as opposed to merely "right-wing populist" ones.) This RfC may be of interest to you. (The "political position" parameter is simply left blank because the classification of the party's views on Wikipedia are contentious.) Mélencron (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe change Macrons color to pink?

In polls like IFOP, it has him as a lighter pink, not yellow :) Grahamdiedrich (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I've got in terms of color usage:

•   Ifop-Fiducial
•   Kantar Sofres
•     Elabe
•   Paris Match (Ifop-Fiducial)
•   OpinionWay
•   BVA
•   Visactu (Ipsos)
•     Odoxa
•   Ipsos
•   franceinfo (Ipsos)
•   Harris

See also Template talk:En Marche!/meta/color Mélencron (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Great job with the French Presidential Polls. I have a question: I understand it is a rolling average over the last 14 days, but are you also weighting the results based on the number of people sampled in the polls (i.e. does a poll with 6000 respondents have 3 x the weight of one with 2000 respondents)? B A Thuriaux (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No; every poll is weighted equally regardless of sample size at the moment. Mélencron (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC).

Hmmm. that doesn't matter if the polls are all roughly the same size but it may be an issue for the large Le Monde-Cevipof poll, will have the same impact as the others despite having 6-8 times the weight. B A Thuriaux (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

National electoral calendar

Salut

I see you reverted my edit for the electoral calendar page, with the comment 'keep commented out' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_electoral_calendar_2017&oldid=prev&diff=773165691

Was just curious as to why? Thanks. Kenneth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Heal (talk • contribs) 19:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It's simply because the possibility of a second round has not yet been confirmed, even if it's highly likely. Mélencron (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I would say it is near certain, but true not 100% certain, though nothing in the future is :-) User:Kenneth_Heal —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Les Centristes logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Les Centristes 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Length of French presidential election page

I would commend you on your dedication in recent weeks on the French presidential election, it has certainly kept me and I'm sure many others informed. However, I wonder whether the main page is perhaps too long, especially given the primaries each have their own page, as does the Penelopgate sage have its own section (the EELV paragraphs could probably also be cut down, as ultimately Jadot didn't stand). For example, details of Pinel and internal machinations of the PRG on the PS primary make sense on the page for the primary, but not on the main page. At the moment, it seems unwieldy, almost unnavigable. Not that each election page needs to follow the form of its predecessors, but French presidential election, 2012 is much more compact and easier to read. I mention it to you, rather than simply editing sections or sentences out because of your own dedicated work on it, I'd trust you to know best. On a side note, I don't think it should the format and layout should necessarily follow that of the French Wikipedia; each Wikipedia is its own project. —William Quill (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Forking the Penelopegate section alone to a separate article would dramatically reduce the article's size; I'll see if I could also expand the article on the right-wing primary with existing content/fill in the gaps on the Socialist primary article and cut that section down as well. Mélencron (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Mélenchon second-place color

It could use this #FBD7D2 for second-place Mélenchon. Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Fillon affair

Yes. If it's covered by RS and it has an impact on the campaign, we should include it. I don't think it's trivial. Can you please restore it?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What impact would it have on the campaign? I doubt there's any; it's a single trivial incident. If one wants to mention every single incident that's occurred at candidates' various visits and meetings, then you'll definitely take a while. What about, say, the FN supporters chanting "Macron traitor" at Toulouse? Or the egging of Macron or flour-bombing of Fillon in Strasbourg as well? Or the protests at every single FN rally or whatever Fillon's been dogged by? It's an article on the affair, not the campaign, and while the two have necessarily been closely tied, it's not exactly relevant in the sense that it'll have any substantive impact on the campaign, and neither does it pertain to the investigation into or allegations regarding him. Mélencron (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What money do you think the Deezer employees want Fillon to give back?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That's beside the point. They're obviously referring to the Fillon case. It's irrelevant to the progression of the investigation. Mélencron (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Add

Hi Could you add that opinion poll ? [1] --Panam2014 (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User page

Just wanted to say, I love your user page, haha. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

French polynesia

French Polynesia went to Fillon, just FYI. Thanks for all your work! Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Funny, I was just checking for results from there. Interior Ministry seems to indicate that the results from there so far are only partial, so I haven't added it yet. Mélencron (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I was under the impression that full results had been released. My bad. Thanks again! Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Once again, thank you for all your work, over the past months and especially today. I made this using your map: https://i.redd.it/flf1irwjoety.png Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

FN color

The dark gray version of the map has been uploaded to the French wiki, so there's no need for you to keep reverting it to the dark gray version. en.wiki uses navy blue for FN, so keep it navy blue. Impru20 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The English WIkipedia doesn't use strict conformity with parties' colors. The color for the FN on all existing maps used on en.wikipedia is gray. Not using it would be nonconformity; furthermore, this issue has been extensively litigated already – dark gray was chosen as a consensus color representing it as the color of the extreme-right and precluding the usage of any particular color for the FN (it's merely the colors of the French flag, hence there are in fact multiple official colors). Even in the 2012 legislative elections, the FN was historically represented by gray as "Rassemblement bleu Marine"... the marine blue gathering. Mélencron (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, but we're using navy blue in the French election article, navy blue in the Opinion polling article and navy blue in other articles. So we should be consistent now and keep using that color, because it feels rather weird to have everything about FN represented in navy blue in both the opinion polling and main election articles and then have the map to use gray. If there was conformity, how is it that navy blue is actually the party's template color and has been for ages? Further, there's no conformity on which shade of gray is the one used for FN, as I've seen both light gray and dark gray used (most extensively in the fr.wiki, but also, as you say, in some images in this one. But without any consistency, either). So far, unless we now choose to change FN's colour, we should use the template color in the map too. Impru20 (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Le Pen

Would you please explain further regarding this? I posted on the talk page regarding this and have not received a response. Do you have any sources to back this up? --1990'sguy (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

See [2] re the legal status of his position & re. 2015 Mélencron (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Election edits

		The Minor Barnstar
		For maintaining articles related to the French presidential election, 2017- it's appreciated. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

French Socialist Party

I quite disagree because of the fact that the French Socialist Party is unpopular (That is a fact as seen in the polls), and that they have been in power for a long period of time making them an establishment. Also Holland has transformed the Socialist Party into a Centrist party not Centre-Left just Centre Mrnickles01 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Establishment" isn't an ideology, the PS is objectively unpopular based on polling, and, well, you still need a citation for that beyond your own opinion. Mélencron (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:La France insoumise logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:La France insoumise 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Color of UDF

Hi Please change the color. The color was the blue until 2006. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Mélencron (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Error

Very strange. I was just trying to normalize the format of the NYTimes reference. The edit summary looks very bizarre indeed.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you think my IP address is compromised? I am a little concerned.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It might be a failure to resolve an edit conflict? I think I removed the subheader in that edit which was a minute apart. Mélencron (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, that might be the case. I am not sure why a whole bunch of content was removed in my edit, when the only thing I tried to do was normalize the reference format. That's a very minor edit. I suppose I might have accidentally removed some content, but that seems strange to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you think we should add "allegedly" to the paragraph by the way?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly? Mélencron (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

In the sentence where it talks about the alleged content.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French presidential election, 2017, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President of China. 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) 10:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

1st Podemos Citizen Assembly

Hi, I wanted to apologize for any disruption caused by my edits to 1st Podemos Citizen Assembly and other articles; as we gradually update infobox image syntax (since the update to Module:InfoboxImage) we come across templates that don't respond well and need to be updated themselves, like {{Infobox election}}. And then after that fix, I completely screwed up the sizing LOL, so my apologies again. See you around! — TAnthony^Talk 14:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. Do you know if it would be possible to replace all existing instances of this deprecated syntax with the correct parameter (i.e., translating the ...x...px to the image width)? Mélencron 22:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of variables, which makes it a little complicated to completely automate. So going through with AWB is still basically a manual fix, and there are 12K transclusions to this template.— TAnthony^Talk 14:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Fondation Jean-Jaurès

Hello. Are you interested in expanding Fondation Jean-Jaurès please? I started it because it seems to play a major role in left-wing politics in France, but you may be more competent to expand it. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering if you've seen this?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, not currently on my radar. I might take a go at expanding it eventually, though. Mélencron 22:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Tweak on Ouellet

Thanks for fixing the Ouellet add!!

I was struggling to make it look proper, much appreciated! Mikemikem (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

np, I've been watching the article for a while. Mélencron (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Numbering

"(heads of state and government outside the U.S. are not numbered, can we stop with this nonsense please)"

You are wrong or at least not exactly right. B. Debre the head of the Conseil Constitutionnel talked to Sarkozy and mentionned he was the 23th president during his speech at Elysee palace when Sarkozy took office. Sarkozy mentions this on his official twitter feed. There may be other instances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.196.64.150 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The tradition of numbering heads of state on Wikipedia mainly derives from the practice of referring to U.S. presidents by their number alone. I don't believe this practice is used elsewhere outside the U.S. in the same sense – yes, heads of state are sequential, but does anyone really refer to Sarko as "23"? Not as far as I know. Mélencron 21:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Inauguration of Emmanuel Macron?

Should we create Inauguration of Emmanuel Macron? We have Inauguration of Donald Trump.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think I'd prefer such to be merely a section within a broader article (e.g. Presidency of Emmanuel Macron), in the same vein as the other "Presidency of..." articles on Wikipedia. Mélencron 23:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Valls III and Ayrault I and II

[3] Could you create the articles ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I have stuff on my plate and I've been busy today. (You might have noticed I also missed the announcement of the government...) so soon, at least. Mélencron 19:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not urgent, so I'll table it as something to finish by the end of next week, time permitting. Remind me then if I still haven't created it. Mélencron 22:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Any idea where to add this to 2017 shooting of Paris police officers please? Maybe another subsection after the election subsection. I'll let you do it if that's OK.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's logical to include it under the "government" section. Mélencron 21:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe but then it's not chronological.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why it has to be strictly chronological... he's the Interior Minister now, so he's part of the government. To keep it semi-chronological, I'd include it at the end of the section. Mélencron 21:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding En Marche

I accept your viewpoint that he wasn't a member of Parti Socialiste when he established En Marche. But I think we need to convey that he came from the socialist side of politics and moved to the center, in order to provide readers a clearer picture of what's going on in French politics.

And while he may have been an independent, he was still serving in the same political position that he was given whilst he was a member of PS, and he was still serving under a socialist collation.

I'll accept you edit. I just wanted that but of information in order to help readers understand why the new party was created.

Homoeuropeeans (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Résistons !

Hi Could you create an article about the party who have 1 deputy (Jean Lassalle) ? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you might be able to? I really only tend to edit topics I'm personally interested in. I think I looked into it a while ago but there just wasn't enough to talk about (though I could probably write a section on Lassalle's candidature in his article). Mélencron 21:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The party is running candidates for the June elections. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't find that a compelling justification of its notability. Mélencron 20:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Valls III and Ayrault I and II

[4] Could you create the articles ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I have stuff on my plate and I've been busy today. (You might have noticed I also missed the announcement of the government...) so soon, at least. Mélencron 19:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not urgent, so I'll table it as something to finish by the end of next week, time permitting. Remind me then if I still haven't created it. Mélencron 22:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you create that articles ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Seen, will do. Mélencron 21:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

When ? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't know. Going to be away for the next week. Might you not be able to do it yourself? It should just be a matter of copying and pasting the same table formatting and finding the correct links... Mélencron 21:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

French Legislative Election Maps

Hello. I was wondering if you could help with the maps on the legislative election, since the colours used are not quite the same as the ones used in the presidential. I don't mean to ask you to do this if you're busy, but your maps always look so good that I thought I'd ask. Thank you very much! Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Opinion polling graphs

Hi Melencron, do you know who makes the graphs for the election opinion poll articles? The graph at Opinion polling for the Czech legislative election, 2017 is quite out of date (during a turbulent time) and I was hoping we could get a new one, but I can't work out who made it to ask them.. Jdcooper (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks - didn't realize that the user at Commons had uploaded a non-free image. Best, Neutrality^talk 03:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Six Ministers

Rip, turns out I accidentally clicked the same link (that didn't mention Castaner or Girardin) twice re: the six ministers who would've been forced to resign had they not won, lol sorry Brucejoel99 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Election links in navbox

Just to clarify right off the bat, I'm not shouting in my edit summaries, that is only due to there being no way of using italics. Anyway, even when operating under the presumption (or hope) that there will eventually be articles at those titles, it does not seem helpful to provide links before such articles exist. It doesn't even seem right to assume those articles will necessarily be created at all save the Virginia and New Jersey ones (since those are the only states holding significant elections in 2017), and there is a high chance they (the non-NJ/VA ones) won't due to this being an off-year rather than a midterm or presidential year, meaning those links may never become useful and only lead readers to believe there is an article when there is not. Also, this is not an instance of WP:NOTBROKEN because the issue is not changing pipes to directly link articles but removing them altogether because they are unhelpful due to only linking the same place as the navbox title. Master of Time (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that this situation is simply analogous to including a number of redlinks in national election navboxes, which is a rather frequent occurrence. No, they're not helpful in terms of getting information about those elections or referendums, but they at least acknowledge their existence within the navbox, should someone ever decide to create an article on them. Mélencron 22:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

En Marche! youth wing

Please, keep as it is. More info will be added as it becomes available... - Grahamdiedrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamdiedrich (talk • contribs) 03:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Fine, then expand it so it's clear that it's notable independent of the main party. There isn't exactly a shortage of sources merely mentioning it. Mélencron 03:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Résistons !

Hi The party have won 1 siege (Jean Lassalle), so we should create an article. For example, UPR, SP, NPA, LO have articles but they have not deputies.

We could create a section into Lassalle's article. And for 1 July Movement ? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

No demonstrated notability yet for the 1 July Movement, but that doesn't preclude the possibility in the future. Résistons merits a mention in Lassalle's article but again, it's not high up on my bucket list. Mélencron 14:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

And while waiting for the M1717, could we develop a section of Benoit Hamon's page ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably would work as a three-sentence subsection... Mélencron 16:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Lætitia Avia

Hi. Please take a look at WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. That kind of tabloid-esque addition is not needed here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It's "tabloid-esque"? Reported in the Canard, documented by police, driver filed a claim of battery (cf. Gianforte), and given its prominence in the French-language article and coverage of her I don't believe it's undue weight. Mélencron 13:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Ecologist group (Senate)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ecologist group (Senate), Mélencron!

Wikipedia editor Bfpage just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please edit your article so that is neutral in its tone. This will make it more encyclopedic.

To reply, leave a comment on Bfpage's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  21:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The best way I can show you a more encyclopedic tone is to edit by example. So I will work on your article for a few minutes and you can see what I mean.

Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  21:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I just did my first edit to your article and discovered that you may not be an advanced writer of English, is this true? It doesn't matter one way or another, I just will take that into account as I edit. Thanks for all the work that you've done.

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  21:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker. Mélencron (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:La France insoumise logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:La France insoumise logo.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

ITN

Hello. If you help me add more in-line references to Pierre de Villiers and François Lecointre, I'll nominate both for an ITN blurb on the main page. Are you able to help please?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually busy today (for the next few hours, at least) so I won't be able to commit to it. I'll take a look in a few hours. Mélencron (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

FT

I think you tried to explain but I did not fully understand. How would I bypass their paywall for this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be an older version of the FT site – what you linked doesn't seem to be Googlable or paywall-bypassable (is it just the list of articles mentioning him? In which case [5] should work). Mélencron (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

CDA

I don't know how to communicate on Wikipedia, so I hope this will do. I can assure you that the CDA has now for years abandoned their position as the centrist party they proclaimed to be in 2012. They have taken a distinctively conservative turn and are very much comparable to the VVD in terms of immigration, Europe, inequality, climate change and patriotism. I would find it appropriate, therefore, that the sole label of their political position will be centre-right, and not centrist, which I believe any political scientist in 2017 would affirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fws9 (talk • contribs)

Erasing

Please don't erase correct information because some websites came from online Branflakes452701 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You know that's not what I said. Mélencron (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No you deleted everything Branflakes452701 (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like it if you would please not erase correct information Branflakes452701 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

MacTheSlayer

I've noticed you too have been reverting this persons edits. They are persistently making inaccurate claims and changing cited content. I really think someone needs to bring forward to an admin that they should be blocked. I am not familiar with this process as I've never done it before. I was wondering if you would be willing to do so, or know someone that is? Helper201 (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I filed an SPI as I believe they're related to at least three other accounts already, of which three have been blocked at some point for persistent disruptive editing. They haven't seemed to taken heed to warnings, so perhaps this might be something to take to WP:ANI if they persist. Mélencron (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Populality indices of Emmanuel Macron

See page 9 of your source. It says 36% Total satisfied, 64% Total dissatisfied for August.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777: It's not from the same series of polls; Ifop has so far conducted popularity polls with different wordings for three clients – JDD, Paris Match, and Le Figaro. JDD and Paris Match are each in series while Le Figaro was a one-off poll on the first 100 days. The question wordings differ for all three of these polls, and the 100-day poll was a one-off with a wording that differed from both. Note again the impact of question wording on responses. I'd prefer to keep any such chart only in the same series of polls; e.g. Odoxa with Odoxa, Elabe with Elabe, Ifop-JDD with Ifop-JDD, etc. (There's also other pollsters which have conducted polls at arbitrary points outside their usual series of political barometers, which I also haven't included on that page – they are not many, though; the only ones I can remember off the top of my head are the Harris/Elabe 100-day polls and Ipsos Trump/Macron France/U.S. surveys.) Mélencron (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are explaining here. The Independent says Just 36 per cent of the French public said they were satisfied with the President’s performance, with 64 per cent saying they were not, according to the latest Ifop poll. ... According to the same series of polls Mr Macron’s rating was as high as 64 per cent in late June and 54 per cent in late July – meaning the biggest falls in his popularity have come most recently. (emphsis mine) But I removed the August data from the chart. Please refresh your cache by pressing Ctrl+F5 to make sure you are reading the latest version of the chart.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying it's not the same series of polls. There's the Ifop-JDD polls, Ifop-Paris Match polls, and the one-off poll conducted by Le Figaro. The chart isn't consistent in its selection of polls – in France poll aggregation doesn't really exist as a technique and most polls are compared only within the same type. Even if you want to compare Ifop polls, there are three separate ones at this point (two in series), as I've mentioned. See the original files linked on the user subpage and note the different questions presented by them (and that in the 100-day poll). (The Independent is wrong here in saying that it's the same series of polls... just of the reasons why I've refused to acknowledge its existence and use as a reliable source.) Mélencron (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777: The August wave of the Ifop–JDD poll is out; conducted 25–26 August and finds satisfaction at 40/57. Source Mélencron (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: Thanks a lot. I updated the chart. You may need to refresh the cache.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

File:INRA Versailles visite de Mrs Bailly et Barbier sénateurs du Jura Cl Jean Weber (43) (30411143136) (cropped 2).jpg

Hello, this file you have uploaded et put in the article fr:Gilbert Barbier seems to be fr:Charles Revet (see here) and not Barbier (who look like this). Please correct the file and inclusions. Thank you. --Skouratov (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Unsure which one is him given other photos of him – but why would Revet be there? Could you possibly identify which of the individuals in this picture is Barbier? Mélencron (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the title of the Flickr album is false. I see fr:Gérard Bailly (the second on the left), but I don't know who is the first on the left, and the Jura have only 2 senators. Maybe a commission or sothing like that. In fact I only reacted because of that comment...--Skouratov (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Protected status for Russian Presidential Election, 2018

Hi, in the article for the 2018 election a certain IP address - 67.165.17.94 - has repeatedly added unsourced information (numbers of signatures gathered, adding candidates to the infobox who haven't even been registered as participants, etc.) and continuously reversed attempts to clean up these edits. Could you apply for protected status for the article? I attempted to do this yesterday, for the first time, but I don't think I did it properly. The IP address has been doing this on several other articles. YantarCoast (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Arpiao

Guess I was wrong. According to this, whether a felon can hold office is decided at the state level, but the states don't have the authority to limit who can run for federal office. Arpaio probably can't run for state office, but he apparently can run for the Senate. So there's that question answered. --ShorinBJ (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

France labor reform

I am a bit confused about by France's labor reforms. Politico has a good article about the labor reforms, but I don't know if everything is covered. I assumed you might be more aware as you regularly edit the article. I hope you can help. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The FT covers a few other points; since it's paywalled, I've copied a few relevant sections of the text here that weren't originally mentioned by Politico Europe:

They also reduce the statute of limitations for workers to bring cases from two years to one year and make it easier for companies to close lossmaking French plants. [6]

The reforms also cut from four to one the number of statutory bodies representing workers within companies.

Those are the main two things that the FT mentioned that Politico didn't. I actually haven't taken the time to read up on the ordinances since they were published, but there's this article in Le Monde which broadly covers the main points as well – exactly the same points made in the Politico Europe article but in slightly more detail (especially the section on negotiations with PMEs). Sorry if this isn't as much as you hoped for – it's rather sad and telling that the main contributors to articles on French politics on Wikipedia are native English speakers of which none are consistently active in writing about it. (WolvesS is messy but generally fairly comprehensive, Zigzig20s writes about a lot of other things, I'm mostly just interested in elections in general, Lugnuts and the rest are just trying to stamp out red links... I wish more of those who edited French Wikipedia would actually lend a hand and a mind to share their knowledge, because it would evidently be useful.) Mélencron (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your point about the problem of French-speakers not editing here much. Some France-related articles are a mess. For example, French labour law, the thing that this are related with, is incomplete. Emmanuel Macron's article seems not to be regularly edited for notable decisions of hos government which are regularly in the news. That's why I sometimes edit it. There are other articles with problems as well. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Iceland edits

Sorry for being impulsive, thanks for correcting me. According to the linked article in the Guardian though, PM Bjarni has called an election. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/15/iceland-row-sex-abuse-letter-brings-down-government Nevermore27 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I read up a bit on it. Seems that the president only accepted the PM's request for a snap election a few hours ago, and the date hasn't yet been set. (See the Reuters wire for this.) Mélencron (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018 article

An IP address reinserted the Google Surveys poll in the United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018 article despite our questions as to its validity. What do you think? Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

In my view, GCS polls are usually fine to include, and this one doesn't seem to have any egregious problems. Mélencron (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The Left (Germany)

Hey, you keep reverting the total number of seats in the coming Federal Parliament (Bundestag) on The Left (Germany). Since the official provisional result (including the number of seats) has been announced yesterday and other related pages like German federal election, 2017 have already integrated it, I was wondering why you keep doing that. You seem to be more active on political pages than me, so maybe there is something I'm not getting, but I think the number of 709 seats is right to be there. Thanks Felida97 (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry and ashamed. I didn't look closely enough. I thought you reverted the total number of seats in the election table and not in the infobox. I absolutely agree with you there since the new Bundestag has not met, yet. Again, my apologies, I will revert the edit I falsely accepted. Felida97 (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2018 elections in Germany

Template:2018 elections in Germany has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File

Hi Could you create a version with black ? We have 2 versions with turquoise : File:Nationalrat Österreich 2017.svg and File:Austrian legislative election, 2017 result.svg. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Use a text editor and replace #66CCCC/#63C3D0 with #000000. Mélencron (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on "German federal election, 2017"

Can we get the vandal blocked, or get the page protected? I think both need to happen, since the IP address is only interested in vandalism (and has already broken WP:3RR), but also the same act of vandalism has now been perpetrated by three different IP addresses in the last day or so. I've never tried to get someone blocked or a page protected, so I don't know how to go about those things. Do you? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:RPP Mélencron (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you got two of the pages recommended for protection, and I added four others. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring on "Bundestag"

An IP is repeatedly editing the article (almost certainly in good faith) to state things that are inaccurate regarding the composition of the parliamentary groups and the assignment of Vice-Presidential roles. Would you agree that semi-protecting the article for a temporary period would be worthwhile to stop these edits? Maswimelleu (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive967#Persistent disruptive behavior by IP 67.165.17.94 – this isn't the only disruptive behavior they've engaged in, and they seem unable to communicate with other editors or don't read their talk page. Mélencron (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - I've added my own thoughts to that talk page now. Do you however agree that it might be worth semi-protecting the article for a week or two as an interim measure? I've never put forward a successful semi-protect request and am wondering what your thoughts were. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an archived AN/I thread, by the way, so it won't get any attention. Not sure about RPPing at this point, but I think your footnote there should suffice (and any additional attempts by the IP to restore older content from the 18th Bundestag/insert the Blue Party might best be brought to AN/I again as they're simply uncommunicative and I'm unsure about the value of discussing it on their talk page/in edit summaries if they clearly don't take heed to either and probably see both in the course of their editing). Mélencron (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oriol Junqeuras

Please can you discuss the Nationality of Oriol Junqueras on the talk page before dismissing my edits as nonsense? The source you provided does not confirm that Oriol Junqueras is of Spanish Nationality: it confirms that he has Spanish Citizenship (please be aware of differences lost in translation. Citizenship and Nationality are two separate concepts; Nations and Nation States are also two separate concepts. DewyBukiaPeters (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert

I added that based on the ruling of the High Court of Australia. Timeoin (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox images

Heya - thanks for the correction on placeholder images, I saw the image used elsewhere and thought it might be useful, I didn't know about the guidelines. I won't use them in future! Thanks again :) FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please help, user is vandalizing Cliff Hyra articles

User:2602:302:D1A2:C740:9990:FB7F:B300:5ED6 placed a speedy deletion tag on the article Cliff Hyra, and I have already disputed this claim on the article's talk page, which he refuses to respond to. An image of Hyra was removed for copyright claims, and I just uploaded a new one, which he has also slapped with a speedy deletion tag. I don't know what to do. He even attempted to remove Hyra entirely from the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2017 article: [7] Please please help! Ghoul flesh • talk 22:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Detroit mayoral election, 2017

Hi Mike Duggan and Coleman Young II are part of the Democratic Party (United States) they are not Nonpartisan I lived in MI and I know my Major City. the Whoule city of Detroit is Democrat

Elections for mayor in Detroit, as in many other U.S. cities, are officially nonpartisan; Wikipedia acknowledges like that. Mélencron (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Illinois gubernatorial race edit

The Capitol Fax poll is taken from a blog online with no credibility whatsoever. Allinallisallweallare (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Doug Jones for US Senate

Mélencron, would you crop this photo link and insert it into the special election page? I got the campaign itself to upload photos and release the copyright. Inunotaisho26 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, gimme a sec. Mélencron (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, saw you did it already. Mélencron (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Mélencron. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. User:Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart as a source

Since Breitbart is not a reliable source, and you restored it in this edit, please remove that part or find another source for the poll. Volunteer Marek  03:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see my edit summary here. Often polls from legitimate firms are not well-sourced (obscure tipsheets, MailChimp, files on Scribd or Google Drive, polls commissioned from known pollsters and published by hobbyist political websites based in south Florida), but that doesn't make the firms or the polls themselves illegitimate. (In any case, both polls have also been mentioned in the Birmingham News – so it might just be better to replace the sources for those with that.) Mélencron (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Aaaaand I've removed/replaced the Breitbart sources. Mélencron (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but they're still polls conducted by Breitbart, which still makes then unreliable to include in the list, even if they're mentioned in secondary sources. Volunteer Marek  04:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

They're not – they're only shared with Breitbart. (And we do include polls conducted by Breitbart – namely, the Gravis Marketing polls they commissioned in 2016, because they're. Not. Fake. No matter how terrible a source Breitbart actually is, there isn't an obvious reason to cast aspersions on the polls that they've published so long as they've been by legitimate firms.) Mélencron (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Can you perhaps actually look at the links in the original article rather than making assumptions every time? It's (1) a Republican consulting firm (2) which worked for the Moore campaign in the primary (3) but is no longer doing so and (4) did not conduct these general election polls for a client and (5) shared the results with Breitbart. Nothing to do with a "Moore super PAC". I realize that U.S. election articles are politically sensitive and the editors involved typically have blatantly obvious political leanings, but would it not be useful to actually, you know, check things rather than make assumptions based on your pre-existing judgments? Mélencron (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Which original article are you talking about? The Birmingham News one? Volunteer Marek  01:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Breitbart one for the first two WT&S Consulting polls that was originally cited on the page. Mélencron (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Opinion Polling

Hey dude, how do you these Opinion Pollings? I wanna try to do something like that for the Austrian Opinion Polling. Thanks for the Answer! Greetings from Burgenland, Austria! :D --DerÖsterreicher1 (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Just Google Sheets and GIMP. For Austria/Netherlands I just use a simple 30-day moving average. For a while Google Sheets didn't allow line charts on which points were plotted (without a hacky way of doing it), but now you can set line and point thickness individually. I can explain it more if you want – I basically figured it out through exploring. (The German polling chart is more complicated; it's a time-weighed 14-day moving average using only the most recent value from any individual pollster, like what I did for the French presidential election.) Mélencron (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I do have as a matter of fact have an Austrian polling graphic in my "holding pen". (Mainly because the chances since the last election haven't been significant enough, and there haven't been enough polls since then, for me to consider it justified to have one yet.) Mélencron (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Les Patriotes

Hi I think we should create an article. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There isn't one on fr.wp, but of course the standards for the notability of political parties is higher there than it is on en.wp. Any particular reason you bring it up now? (And you don't have to come to my talk page every time you suggest an article be created... I've got my own editing interests and edit on my own terms, and I think you're capable of creating articles...) Mélencron (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Alabama U.S. Senate race

If the third party and write-in candidates are included in future polls, should I revert to that once another poll like that is released? 47.151.1.140 (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Maillart-Méhaignerie

Hi Have you got the article about her joining to LaREM ? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The bar just counts the number of direct members of the group, as far as I know, so see here. Mélencron (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mélencron. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick note

The Bushranger closed the ANI before I could post my reply, so I just wanted to say thanks for making that apology; it's really appreciated and it shows a good deal of decency on your part. Having re-read my reply to you on that thread, I realised I was being overly harsh to you and I apologise. By the time an issue comes to ANI it tends to have worn people down emotionally, so I often expect a certain level of belligerence, but that clearly wasn't the case here and I shouldn't have let my past experience dictate the tone of my response to you. Thanks again and happy future editing! Marianna251TALK 23:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, it's appreciated – and personally, I don't think you need to apologize for anything. Mélencron (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Laura Huhtasaari

Currently its not right. But however you want. Merimiesei (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

How is it not correct? The meaning of the two formulations is identical; the original formulation was just simpler. Mélencron (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opinion polling for the next German federal election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union (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) 20:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

2018 by-election

Hi If the by-election occur on the same day in 2018, we should, like Siirt Province by-election, 2003, create an article for the three. What do you think ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not unless they're all in the same department, which they aren't. Perhaps as opposed to separate articles I'd suggest a single article for the entire duration of the 15th National Assembly, something along the lines of By-elections to the 42nd Canadian Parliament. Mélencron (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)