User talk:Yilku1

Archives

Archive 1

Please stop reverting without proper explanation. How are the results that you removed and I restored wrong? They aren't. Display name 99 (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: In those states voters didn't vote for a candidate for president, they voted for presidential electors individually, so not all presidential electors got the same amount of votes. Nixon and McGovern weren't candidates, the presidential electors were. Yilku1 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the people voting for the electors was to vote for certain candidates for president. From your version, it is almost impossible to tell how much success a presidential candidate had a given contest, and that is what readers will most want to see. If you want to add information about the success of electors, go ahead. I'd have no issue with you adding an extra table. But don't override the information already there. Display name 99 (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: There is the infobox already showing the most voted presidential elector results. Yilku1 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It fails to give a complete tally. If I want to see the percentage of votes that a third party candidate won, I cannot see it from the infobox. Display name 99 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: You can add the percentages in the tables then, dont' delete everything. Yilku1 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed that you recently added an "Electoral College selection" to a number of US presidential election articles. The information in the added section isn't sourced, and I couldn't find any evidence for it. If you can't add a citation I'm going to revert these. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Danbloch: The source is in the election article for the presidential election in Georgia. Yilku1 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading the sources. The electors are described as at large or representing individual districts, but the voting for each of them is statewide. Note how the number of votes for all the Democratic electors is about 455,000 and for all the Republican electors is about 273,000. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's from 1960 United States presidential election in Georgia. I'm not sure what article you had in mind. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Danbloch: It's hard to tell because there is literally no info about individual elector votes on the internet. The only place where they are shown is if the state Official Register is digitalized. Yilku1 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at [1], one of the sources from 1960 United States presidential election in Georgia, you can see that the votes for individual representatives range from 24,000 to 80,000, while the combined number of votes in each of the races for electors is about 728,000. This is pretty clear evidence that the elector votes are statewide.

But even if that weren't the case, inferring that the state is using the congressional district method from vote totals would be

WP:OR. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Danbloch: I hadn't noticed that. The only way to be sure is to read the election law from that time, a thing that is almost impossible. Yilku1 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that takes us back to where we started. Without a reliable source, Wikipedia shouldn't say that Georgia elections used the congressional district method. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am just wondering why you changed the units in the table. Was there a problem with the previous format? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Yes. It didn't have metric units. Yilku1 (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough, I understand — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you're removing a lot of maps from by-elections. This got challenged at 2019_Brecon_and_Radnorshire_by-election but you simply reverted the challenge without talking about it. Once you've been bold, and been reverted, it's time to discuss before reverting-the-reversion (that's the start of an edit war). Since opinions clearly differ on this, and a lot of by-election articles do contain maps, may I suggest seeking discussion somewhere appropriate, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom, before unilaterally deleting any further maps? Elemimele (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: The discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Non-map images in infobox's map section. Yilku1 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! That's fair enough, I apologise for reverting you at Brecon and Radnorshire. I was ambivalent about the maps; in the cases I checked, hovering on the name of the region brought up the same map anyway. It's helpful for readers to be able to find a map somewhere, but I agree it doesn't have to be in the info-box. Many best wishes! Elemimele (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

... are helpful in situations like this.

Thanks for your contributions to 1912 Monegasque general election. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade: Do people here even read the articles before saying there are no sources? What is that in the bottom that says "Source: Journal de Monaco". Yilku1 (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

general notability guidelines, articles should be include more than one reliable, secondary source. If you believe the article is ready for the main space, you can submit it through Articles for Creation to have someone else review it. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:People's Democratic Party of Tajikistan.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) 18:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.  // Timothy :: talk  08:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: is this bot? the article LITERALLY has a source, what are you talking about? Yilku1 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1998 Vanuatuan general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Wells.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just wanted to say great work on the election result details for Monaco, the Cook Islands and Vanuatu! Number 57 20:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Yilku1 (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think there is a transposition error in the Chamber results on 2009 Argentine legislative election. I was converting them to {{Election results}} and noticed the total number of votes for parties is 990 higher than the stated total valid votes. If you can find it, I will add the converted table. Cheers, Number 57 01:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: the total number of votes for parties is 19,616,701 the same as valid votes. Yilku1 (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've no idea how it happened, but I had the Broad Front listed twice with 5,900 votes instead of once with 5,900 and once with 4,910. Should those two rows be combined though? Number 57 10:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: It is because there are 2 parties that have the same translation. One is the party Frente Grande and the other was Frente Amplio, the name used by the Front for Victory in La Pampa. Yilku1 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]