Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums: Difference between revisions

Line 21: Line 21:

:I wish i knew who it was. They have provided no updates. since creating a user account is a sub page you can’t create a new account. I want to be able to access it too but they seem content with the current state of the site. [[User:Bentley4|Bentley4]] ([[User talk:Bentley4|talk]]) 13:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

::I finally though to search for info about who owns the domain but I doubt [https://www.godaddy.com/whois/results.aspx?itc=dlp_domain_whois&domain=ourcampaigns.com these email addresses] would be monitored by anyone who actually knows or cares about the operation of the site, if they’re monitored at all. [[User:Denniscabrams|Dennis C. Abrams]] ([[User talk:Denniscabrams|talk]]) 14:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

:::emailing them is worth a try. [[User:Bentley4|Bentley4]] ([[User talk:Bentley4|talk]]) 14:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

== [[2011 Irish general election]] ==

I know OurCampaigns.com is considered a generally unreliable source per WP:RSPSS but I was hoping contributors to this WikiProject might have some insight about what’s going on there. For a while, it’s had this message on the homepage: “Due to the ongoing and constant DDoS attack on the site, sub-pages may only be viewed by people with valid login accounts.” First of all, who is DDoSing them and why? Secondly, how does one create a valid login account if one needs to access a subpage to create a user account? I can’t see that there’s any way to contact anyone associated with the site; they don’t have an email address or anything listed on the homepage or any social media presence. I just want to be able to access this truly singular resource. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish i knew who it was. They have provided no updates. since creating a user account is a sub page you can’t create a new account. I want to be able to access it too but they seem content with the current state of the site. Bentley4 (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I finally though to search for info about who owns the domain but I doubt these email addresses would be monitored by anyone who actually knows or cares about the operation of the site, if they’re monitored at all. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

emailing them is worth a try. Bentley4 (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that this article is currently up for peer review here if anyone is interested. Thank you! Will there ever be a rainbow? (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user going through a lot of articles putting presidential election results in reverse chronological order, seemingly against our guidelines MOS:CHRONO and WP:SALORDER, with edit summary rationales like “The presidential tables were like this and need to be like this”. This user also has not shown any interest in communicating on their talk page about it. Am I missing something? I need to know whether there is another guideline I’m unaware of that applies before seeking a dispute resolution method. Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without a consensus for such changes. The editor needs to stop & all his edits need to be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I thought but they seem to just want to revert back and not discuss it. I figured if I reverted all of the edits, they seem to have the stance to continue reverting me. I don’t want an edit war. Is addressing this at WP:ANI going too far or does trying WP:DRN make sense? Or maybe if at least a couple others commented on their talk page to reinforce that the user needs to follow the guideline? Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI would seem to be the place. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I’ll give them until tomorrow in hopes they see the light. Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you’re missing anything per se, though to be honest I didn’t realize that they had been switched away from reverse chronological order, they had been that way for a while. seems like this editor is doing some form of status quo stonewalling. Nevermore27 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1921 Russian Supreme Soviet election#Requested move 11 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 United Kingdom local elections#Requested move 29 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at the 2025 statewide results by congressional district and all the numbers seem off. These numbers are being gathered through Votehub but they don’t seem correct. For example, Votehub reports that NJ-7 went to Jack Ciaterelli by 5 points, when Trump only won it by 3. Abigail Spanberger did about 8 points better than Trump and every single country shifted more towards her, including some big shifts in the area of that congressional district., so this doesn’t make sense There are plenty of other examples all across Votehub’s data like Abigail Spanberger’s perfomance in VA-7, and Sherill’s in some other congressional districts that just feel off. If there are any other websites backing up Votehub’s data I think that would be valuable, but a lot of the information just seems off, and not accurate given the scale of Spanberger’s and Sherill’s wins. MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1130 papal election has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interested members of this WikiProject are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Propose infobox political movement regarding a potential political movement infobox. — EarthDude (Talk) 20:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]