Open main menu

Idah's stay was lifted a few hours ago. Idaho.

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Prcc27!

-- 02:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Contents

MapEdit

Hi,

Thanks for your changes to the map in regard to India and the Philippines. However, the change in regard to Utah is incorrect. Utah's statute was unique in that it banned even cohabitation. Only that was struck down by the judge. The practice itself remains illegal as a matter of law: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/14/us-usa-polygamy-sisterwives-idUSBRE9BD02720131214, http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-strikes-down-ban-on-religious-cohabitation-in (not even the plaintiffs sought to have what they consider to be their religious practice, what they called religious cohabitation, legally recognized either). Basically, it seems that it no longer (if the ruling stays) criminal to partake in what was described as "religious cohabitation", but attempts to have more than one marriage as a matter of law is banned and criminal (which is how how the law is in the rest of the U.S. and the rest of the Western world. Utah had taken it a step further when they banned the practice, even banning cohabitation and not just formal engagement itself, so they could enter the Union) http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/14/21903224-federal-judge-strikes-down-key-parts-of-utahs-polygamy-law-in-sister-wives-ruling --TheJetter (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay... Thanks for the clarification! By the way, I forgot to add Sri Lanka as light blue. Prcc27 (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Just be sure to research well before making changes (or requesting that I edit it if you'd like)! You are always welcome to leave me a note if you want to be sure! As for Sri Lanka, a quick check shows that it is correct as ordinary blue (it is abolished and criminal under the secular nationwide Civil Code and Penal Code, but a very specific exception is provided for Muslims in this case as well as there being no minimal age for Muslims through what is a somewhat watered down version of sharia called the 'Muslim Personal law'. http://genderindex.org/country/sri-lanka - under the first expandable sub header, paragraphs 1 and 4).
Thus, this is best handled with a note taking note (pun intended) of the specific exception, in the local key. I believe this is already the case. Regards, --TheJetter (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

My undoEdit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Info_por_favor#File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg Thanks. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is NOT legal in Utah. If you want to do that edit you're going to have to do it with out adding Utah. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm reverting the old file much like Lguipontes. It is your duty to not use an older incorrect version in your newer updates. Sounds kind of disrespectful. Also, I don't know how to edit these Wikimedia maps because they need special software and practice. If you can't do it yourself either, request help from someone else. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Utah was already removed and then Lguipontes added it again without any explanation. It's THEIR duty to not use an incorrect version. If they want to change Mozambique then they shouldn't have added Utah without an explanation/consensus. Please don't start an edit war.. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind. I get what you're saying now.. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request for File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (North America).svgEdit

Hey, that is an Inkscape-type map. I don't know how to edit those, and I am not fully cognizant how OoS SSM works in Mexico. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

MSM Blood Donation MapEdit

Hi,

I made a .svg version of the map which shows some countries' policies regarding blood donations for female partners of MSM:

 
Female Partners Of MSM Blood Donation Map

File:State recognition of same-sex relationships in North America.pngEdit

 
File:State recognition of same-sex relationships in North America.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fry1989 eh? 18:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

tbEdit

falsifying dataEdit

Pick a different color if you like, but don't falsify data. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You said "the color we agreed on". Which color did we agree on? Kwamikagami (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Cf. File:Budget Control Act of 2011 Senate vote.svg by the same author. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: If you go to the talk you'll see we agreed on color #BDB76B. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll make the change. Kwamikagami (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Same-sex marriage in the United States.pngEdit

 
File:Same-sex marriage in the United States.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Legality of child marriageEdit

File:Legality of child marriage.pngEdit

 
File:Legality of child marriage.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring at File:Samesex marriage in USA.svgEdit

Hello, in case you didn't see the message at the talk page, I have reported you for edit-warring. Regardless who is right/wrong on policy, four reverts in one hour is not tolerable my Wikimedia or Wikipedia. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


You have been blocked for a duration of 1 weekEdit

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: Edit warring after warnings: this change does not follow COM:AN/U suggestions.

If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.


Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

Ankry (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "this block really is unfair! if you go to the talk [1] other users and I thought Idaho should go to dark blue because of a court order by SCOTUS. But then Tinmanic pointed out that it might need a district court order first. Once I realized this I said I would revert my edit (but he beat me to it). This was not a damn edit war, it was editing the map as new information came in because Idaho's ruling against same-sex marriage was no longer stayed. I did not make a controversial edit. It was a good faith edit that had the support of other users. Then another user informed us that the mandate had to be issued first. I planned on reverting myself but he beat me to it. Does Good Faith apply here at Commons? And when someone tried to make the same edit I did, I reverted them: [2] (22:43, 10 October 2014). By the way, when a state legalizes same-sex marriage, it is important to change the map immediately so then it is updated. If there weren't other users who backed the edit, I wouldn't have made it. Regardless, it was not done without malice. How is 1 edit an edit war..? The thing with same-sex marriage is when a ban is struck down, it is hard to determine whether or not same-sex marriage is legal or if it was legalized. Tinmanic provided a source and said they would update Idaho to transition (without explaining why) but the people on the talk said Idaho should be dark blue for same-sex marriage legal. Once Tinmanic explained his edit, I understood why Idaho was supposed to be "legalized" instead of "legal". So basically I'm being banned because I though same-sex marriage was legal in Idaho even though it was only legalized..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "Request moot; block expired -FASTILY 03:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)"
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | 中文(臺灣) | +/−

@Ankry: Hey, this block really is unfair! if you go to the talk [3] other users and I thought Idaho should go to dark blue because of a court order by SCOTUS. But then Tinmanic pointed out that it might need a district court order first. Once I realized this I said I would revert my edit (but he beat me to it). This was not a damn edit war, it was editing the map as new information came in because Idaho's ruling against same-sex marriage was no longer stayed. Prcc27 (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ankry: When someone tried to make the same edit I did, I reverted them: [4] (22:43, 10 October 2014). I realized that same-sex marriage isn't legal in Idaho until the district court steps in. Do you even realize the complexity of same-sex marriage in the United States? Do you know how hard it is to make sure each state is colored the right color? Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
If you think, the subject is too complex to you at the moment why do you want to make changes immediately? Just reconsider a change again, ask for more opinions, wait for opinions of currently absent wikipedians or even ask sb else to make the change on your behalf (note, you were warned). If the file was not for Wikipedia, but for Wikinews, I would consider your explanation. However, the file is not your (neither anybody else) sandbox to make precipitate changes there. And note, one week is neither a century nor a year. You can still prepare right change to upload it in a week or somebody else can make a change instead. It is good time to think over your contribution to this project. And if you wish to leave, as you noted below, let it be a thoughtful decision.
If you disagree with my block, you can always ask another admin to reconsider it. I will honour their decision. Ankry (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ankry: In same-sex marriage years, a week might as well be a century. A lot can happen in a week (as evident this week). A week punishment isn't appropriate for someone who realized their mistake instantly; nor is 1 edit an edit war. Anyways, my reputation is ruined so I'm done. Also, I don't know any admins. Prcc27 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Found an admin, I have to tag them though since you blocked me and I can't post on their talk..
@Cirt: Could you please unblock me...? Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

FarewellEdit

I am officially ending my career as a WikipediaWikimedia editor.

Regards, Prcc27 (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for page protection for File:Samesex marriage in USA.svgEdit

@Ankry:; @Cirt: File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg is being reverted back and fourth because Alaska legalized same-sex marriage and it's being disputed whether the state qualifies as light blue (pending, not yet in effect) or dark blue (legal). The map has been edited 6 times in regard to Alaska. I suggest this page be protected until we work out what qualifies as light blue and what qualifies as dark blue. Also, since I'm obviously not the only one who is confused by when a state should be dark blue vs. light blue, could you please unblock me..? This block is cutting in to me editing pages that aren't as controversial and if File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg is protected, there's no way for me to "edit war" there. And once we figure out what qualifies as dark blue vs. light blue, there won't be a reason for me to revert anyone because everything will have been worked out and consensus for how to color a state will be clear.

Regards, Prcc27 (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I had to request for page protection here on my talk page because I was blocked.. Prcc27 (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: The map has been edited 7 times in regard to Alaska!!! Prcc27 (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thanks for the protection (even though the map has never been edited by an IP by my count)! Also, I tried to get the attention of an admin like you told me to but they still haven't responded... Meanwhile, the North American map has gone 6 hours without being updated even though I mentioned that Alaska needs to be updated on the talk (and since there is no transition color on this map, there shouldn't be a problem with the edit). Would you care to do the honors..? xD Prcc27 (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: BlockingEdit

No idea. I think you should ask on Wikipedia. I am neither a wikipedia admin nor intend to. Ankry (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ankry: Does it significantly hurt my chances for becoming an admin on Wikimedia Commons (if for some reason I decided I want to try to become one some day)? Prcc27 (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
In short period time it will. In longer period of time single short-time block in the past should not matter, the positive contribution of a user should be more important. But it is my opinion, not the community. Note, I know at least one user on other projects that had multiple blocks and might still high chances to become an admin, if he returns. Before requesting the adminship, however, you should ask yourself, how often did you need an admin assinstance to perform/finish your action?
Personally, I found you a more responsible user after the block than before. But, please note, I received few objections about your earlier activity on commons. Ankry (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

North American recognition mapEdit

I will be back to a desktop computer in nine hours so I will adjust the North American same-sex marriage map then. (As well as fixing Arizona on the county map to remove the civil union outlines.) Dralwik (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion mapEdit

Re. File:Public opinion of same-sex marriage in USA by state.svg, I found a poll from this month that included all 50 states. I could have sworn I posted links on the talk page, but it's not in my user history, so I must've forgotten to hit 'save'. If you can find the poll, it would be quite nice to have the same methodology applied to all 50 states.

BTW, it was a poll of a bunch of political issues for the upcoming election, who people would vote for, etc. At least two dozen questions, just one of which was SSM (and not worded that way, making a text search difficult). Kwamikagami (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @Kwamikagami: Hi, you posted the link on a Wikipedia talk page! Btw, when I was looking for same-sex marriages polls (when I was searching for the poll you were talking about) I accidentally stumbled upon a poll from North Dakota! :) Prcc27 (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Will you be able to update the map for all states? I don't have anything to edit it with. The way we've been doing it, any polls older than 6 mos. are discarded if we have something more recent (otherwise we go back up to 2 yrs), which means we can now discard *all* polls older than 6 mos.

BTW, since all 50 states now have the same methodology, it would be reasonable IMO to base the entire map on this one poll, as long as it doesn't seem to be an outlier. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @Kwamikagami: What is the poll's margin of error..? Also, I'd prefer we use more than just this one poll. Prcc27 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, other recent polls should be included too, but things are changing so fast, that s.t. 18 mos old probably isn't worth all that much. As for the margin, that varies from state to state, and probably from question to question. You'd half to check the poll; I think they give at least the state margins.
BTW, I rv'd you on the world map. AFAICT, Estonia is only instituting civil unions, not marriage. Please rv me if I got that wrong. (Unfortunately, that also undid your fix of Native American nations.) Also, there's an ochre dot on Norfolk Isl. A bill has been introduced, but that's all I can find. If this is moving forward, it should be in our articles. Kwamikagami (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Why is D.C. showing up as majority support and not majority support-no recent poll..? Prcc27 (talk)

Chile approves same-sex civil unions.Edit

Can you change the color of Chile in this file File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg, please?. I think Light blue is the right color. Chile approves same-sex civil unions. Thank you!

http://news.yahoo.com/chilean-lawmakers-approve-same-sex-civil-unions-011329435.html

ANEdit

You have been reported for edit warring. Fry1989 eh? 21:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your account has been blockedEdit

Yann (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, You were alreayd blocked once for edit warring on the same document(s). Regards, Yann (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Yann: I reverted those edits because there were no explanations, no discussion, no consensus, and they kept re-adding their unexplained edits so I assumed it was vandalism. Furthermore, I was blocked due to a different map in the past, not these maps. Prcc27 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
That is not actually true. There were initial edit summaries which you ignored, and an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia in which you refuse to accept that others disagree. Fry1989 eh? 22:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • None of the edit summaries explain why they are changing the map and I haven't seen any discussion on the matter. Here are the edit summaries on File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg "Chile. Reverted to version as of 23:10, 29 January 2015. Reverted to version as of 06:26, 30 January 2015. Reverted to version as of 03:16, 31 January 2015. I believe 4 users have reverted to this change, you are the one vandalising the file." No discussion at the map's talk page. And on File:World marriage-equality laws.svg there were no explanations for edits either, and there wasn't consensus for Chile being blue. Furthermore, Estonia: a country that legalized civil unions is in about the same position as Chile but isn't colored blue like Chile is so now the map is inconsistent. Prcc27 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Editing these files is obviously controversial, just seeing their history. So instead of reverting 3 times several editors, you need to discuss it, preferably on their talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @Yann: But I still didn't get a warning and you claim that I was warned before I was blocked. Prcc27 (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I did bring it to the talk on the File:World marriage-equality laws.svg talk page and yet you revert my edit which consequently made the map inconsistent because Estonia and Chile are colored two significantly different colors even though they're in almost the same situation. You should revert your edit back to the status quo while it's being discussed at the talk (I opened up an RfC). Prcc27 (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Unblock me!Edit

Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "I was blocked for "edit warring" on File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg and File:World marriage-equality laws.svg. However, there were no explanations for the users' edits in the edit summaries, no discussion whatsoever on the File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg talk page, and no consensus on either talk pages. Editing a map without explaining why you're changing it is disruptive and can be perceived as vandalism. Furthermore the admin said "This user was already blocked once for edit warring on the same document(s)." which isn't true at all! Also, they said I received a warning, but I didn't..."
Decline reason: "Oh, you were not blocked? Your block look valid and not too long to shorten it. — Revi 11:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)"
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | 中文(臺灣) | +/−

  Oppose For obvious reasons. Fry1989 eh? 22:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  Support And @Fry1989: should be blocked for vandalizing File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg because they keep changing that map without explanations in the edit summary as to why they were changing it, and they failed to go to the talk to get consensus for their edit. The version I kept reverting it to was the status quo. Prcc27 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe you can support your own unblock request. This really is turning into parody. The original change to Chile was referenced on all three files, one of which included a direct link to a news article about the passing of the bill and the others referring to the fact that the bill will shortly be signed. You can't just beg ignorance, you responded to those edit summaries in your reverts when you said to wait until the President of Chile officially strikes her nib across the paper. You also have been taking part in a Wikipedia discussion about this so you can't say no discussion has taken place either. Fry1989 eh? 22:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Pleading ignorance when that clearly is not the case, and then switching to a different argument about consistency when that was not your original defence, I don't believe will assist you in your unblock request. I stand by my opposition, but will not voice any further comment. Fry1989 eh? 23:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Fry1989: I wasn't pleading ignorance, but each map is different so you have to explain why Chile should be colored how you want it to be colored on each map since on one map it might be more acceptable to be colored one way than another map. Consistency was something I noted in the edit summary on File:World marriage-equality laws.svg: "Edit goes against conventions of this map and is inconsistent with Estonia and Finland." You weren't invited to my talk page in the first place so I don't object to you not voicing anymore comments. Prcc27 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Revi: A block isn't a warning, it's a punishment. And a warning for this different incident would have been nice. The first time I was blocked it was because I reverted someone before it was fully discussed (even though it was discussed) which was totally stupid. But this time, I reverted multiple undiscussed edits and got banned for "edit warring". For all I know, they could have been vandalizing the map. And guess what, you're allowed to revert vandalism consistently without it counting as edit warring! Prcc27 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you take everyone else for idiots? It was discussed, and you knew exactly what those revisions were for and you made it clear why you disagreed. It didn't have to be discussed in every single edit summary and on every single talk page, one is enough, you knew. Fry1989 eh? 02:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Fry1989: Actually, it does need to be discussed on every talk page- especially on the world marriage equality map. You were reverted on that map a few days ago. And guess what they said when they explained why they reverted you- "no discussion, contradicts country articles." Furthermore, it is also inconsistent to have Chile colored blue on the other map when we waited for Scotland to get its royal assent before turning it blue and that's even more of a formality. This kind of shit needs to be discussed and it isn't okay to avoid forming an actual consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it does not need to be discussed on every page. It only needs to be established that it was discussed in once place and that you were aware of it and you knew why these three maps were being changed, and you did know. Of course you disagree with the change and you have made your reasons why very clear, but saying "for all I know it could have been vandalism" simply falls on deaf ears when you knew exactly the reason behind the changes and that it was a disagreement over when the appropriate time to change the maps is rather than wanton vandalism. Fry1989 eh? 00:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Fry1989: Nonetheless, those edits were inconsistent with the conventions of the respective maps. So restoring them without discussion is a no-no regardless of whether you see that as vandalism or not. When you make a bold edit and it is reverted you're supposed to discuss it per WP:BRD. Prcc27 (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Except when multiple users revert and you become the minority. That is why you are blocked. Fry1989 eh? 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Fry1989: Except that this is not a democracy. This isn't about majority vote, it's about you and several other users reverting the consensus map several times. Furthermore, another user called you out for not discussing your edit and for making the map contradict itself. Creating an inconsistent map without discussion and then re-adding it after I revert it is vandalism IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
That is a Wikipedia policy, not a Commons policy. You can either accept why you were blocked or fool yourself, but nobody else is fooled. Fry1989 eh? 02:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The map is used on Wikipedia though. Are you telling me that consensus doesn't have to occur because this is Commons even though the information is used on Wikipedia? Prcc27 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Fry1989 eh? 04:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a bunch of bull. If consensus is never reached then edit wars are bound to happen. If I changed China to dark blue and someone reverted me but many users reverted it back to my version would it still be acceptable since Commons doesn't give a damn about consensus? If so, these maps have no business on Wikipedia! Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
What is bull is that you can make up any possible excuse and quote any possible policy you can think of to get out of being responsible for your block yet you remain blocked. Wonder why that might be? These files are hosted on Commons and used on dozens of projects, if any consensus is to be made it should be made in a uniform place here on Commons where users from all projects can join in. It's bad enough that File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg had its discussion page moved to Wikipedia, several users and admins have expressed frustration with this arrangement. You had no consensus, even if you were trying for one it certainly was going in the opposite direction, and you edit warred against multiple users. It really is that simple. Fry1989 eh? 15:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, my blocked expired. You had no consensus either which means the map should have reflected the status quo until a consensus was formed. You were obviously trying to avoid discussing the edits to form a consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to so hard to hold back from saying anything that might get me blocked, but suffice to say I have given you every explanation for why you were blocked and you continue to reject them for your own theories which absolve you of responsibility for your actions. I can't help you, and honestly I don't want to. Fry1989 eh? 03:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (South America).svgEdit

@Sfs90: Please undo you're edit. The president hasn't signed the bill yet! Thanks, Prcc27 (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

AN 2Edit

You have bee reported for continuing to revert images after the expiration of your block for the same actions and for battleground tactics. Fry1989 eh? 16:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your account has been blockedEdit

Yann (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Yann: I took it to the talk but the user was purposely avoiding discussion! Prcc27 (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

UnblockEdit

Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "I started a discussion on the talk page for File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg and things were still being discussed for how Chile should be colored on the talk page for File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (South America).svg. I waited at least 24 hours after starting the discussion before coloring Chile gray on the World map. On the South American map I waited at least 24 hours after I refuted the other user's argument on the talk before coloring Chile gray. There was never consensus for Chile being blue on either talk page and Chile was gray before users colored Chile blue without thorough discussion. How about instead of blocking me for 3 months, inform me about how consensus works on Commons! Are we allowed to make any edit we want (even if it is contested) without discussion or consensus so long as a bunch of users agree with it? Yes, I was blocked un "edit warring" before, but @Yann: told me to take it to the talk (and I did) and yet I still get blocked for taking it to the talk, waiting a little bit, and then implementing the edit. They even admitted that I don't seem to understand, so how is a 3 month block going to magically help me understand about how consensus works on Commons without someone explaining policy to me? Does Commons not care about consensus/discussion? If so, it would have been nice to be informed about that when I was blocked just recently for two weeks instead of giving me block after block without explaining how Commons differs from Wikipedia. And it makes it more confusing when an admin (Yann) tells you to take it to the talk next time but then blocks you for "edit warring" even though you take it to the talk but get reverted by a user that is trying to avoid discussion. If you won't unblock me, please consider shortening my block period. Thanks! Prcc27 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "The block is valid. You were edit warring, but Wikipedia is not battleground. Your next block should be indefinite. Taivo (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)"
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | 中文(臺灣) | +/−

@Taivo: But this isn't Wikipedia. If this were, users would have to actually get consensus before destroying the map and I might not have been blocked since I was reverting these unconstructive, undiscussed edits. I wasn't trying to start a battle, I started a discussion but apparently seeking consensus = battle. Prcc27 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Polling map for the 2016 Democratic primaries.svgEdit

You changed New Hampshire from "statistical tie" to Sanders lead, but the new poll still shows it is a statistical tie, due to the high margin of error. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally think the "statistical tie" option should be removed, as the margins of error are just so high this early on, but there needs to be consistency. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Ramaksoud2000: The margin of error is ±4.7% and Sanders has a Sanders has a 7% lead. As a result, it is not a statistical tie! At least that's the way we have been coloring the map... Prcc27 (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not how it works. The margin of error means Bernie can be down 4.7% and Hillary up 4.7%, changing the winner. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/12/bernie-sanders-in-statistical-tie-with-hillary-clinton-in-new-hampshire-poll/ Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ramaksoud2000: You're absolutely right! And for the record I agreed with you but I got reverted when I updated the map that way. I will change the map and if I get reverted please voice your opinion at the talk page on Wikipedia! Prcc27 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will watch it. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ramaksoud2000: Sorry, I tried; I was reverted again! :/ Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This is not how statistical ties work at all, you can't apply the MoE twice. Please look at the republican article to see how statistical ties work. Nitroxium (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Nitroxium: It isn't being applied twice. Do you know what "±" means? It means plus or minus. It's quite possible that Clinton and Sanders are tied or even that Clinton is ahead when you take the MoE into account. Prcc27 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
        • As per the original source of the poll, it is not a statistical tie. http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/08/bernie_sanders_surges_ahead_of_hillary_clinton_in_nh_44_37 Nitroxium (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
          @Nitroxium: Look, you just don't get polls work. Yes, the poll has Bernie Sanders ahead. I know, but the margin of error means that Bernie Sanders could be at 48.7%, with Hillary at 32.3%, or Hillary can be at 41.7% while Bernie could be at 39.3%. This is known as a statistical tie. When pollster announce their findings, they announce the raw numbers they got, but also their margin of error so you know what percentage they could be off by. This is **plus or minus**. When the margin of error is so high that either candidate can be winning the poll when the margin of error is applied to the extreme, then it is known as a statistical tie. If you want to learn more about the science of polling, then I suggest reading up, but please don't just waltz in, reverting other editor's contributions just so you can have Bernie Sanders look as good as possible in the map, while not understanding how polling works. I will be reverting. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
If you really believe the New York Times is lying to you, here is some further reading on how margins of errors work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/whats-a-statistical-tie-anyway-234/ Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ramaksoud2000: Very good point and I'm glad you will be reverting. However, I don't think Nitroxium is trying to "have Bernie Sanders look as good as possible in the map". Even though I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter myself- I still think there is a statistical tie. I think we should assume good faith just like Wikipedia policy tells us to do! Prcc27 (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I forgot about that. I jumped to conclusions too quickly. My apologies. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Before you do this, I propose you take this discussion to the Republican article, since they seem to be using margins of error wrong too then, I would love to know what their opinion is. 186.176.169.49 14:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, I take insult to you claiming I am "waltzing in" to "make Bernie Sanders look good" when I have been the only editor keeping this article updated for the past three months. Please refrain from these types of comments. Nitroxium (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nitroxium: "I propose you take this discussion to the Republican article, since they seem to be using margins of error wrong too then" so you'd rather have two articles use margins of error wrong then one article? Can you please stop reverting? The difference between the GOP map and the Democratic map is that the Democratic map has consensus to do things the right way! Prcc27 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nitroxium: Goddamn it. Why are you being so difficult? You keep reverting and saying "see talk page" when you don't make any arguments on the talk page. I'm sorry for making you feel insulted, but everyone else is trying to operate on facts here. If you don't like that, then Wikimedia is not the place for you. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I've absolutely been working based on facts, though you decide to ignore them due to the fact that you have come late to the conversation. Upon further research and looking at Margin of error, we should not be using the terms "statistical ties" at all, since it is a term that isn't used by statisticians and is based on many assumptions. According to the following article (http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/whats-a-statistical-tie-anyway-234/) statistical tie is used to describe when two numbers are within that number of margin of error or it isn't used at all. This is clear in any poll as every single poll posted in the wikipedia article does not claim to be existence of a statistical tie except for the past New Hampshire poll which was truly a statistical tie. The new one does not claim to be existence of a statistical tie. This article (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/one-last-encore-great-statistical-tie-fallacy) also claims that the statistical tie is a myth, as does this article (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_10/no_such_thing_as_a_statistical040271.php). I propose we get rid of statistical ties altogether. Nitroxium (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
In case there is further doubt, Nate Silver (Founder of FiveThirtyEight) also has written against the use of the term "statistical tie". https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/628950531172638721 Nitroxium (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I support removing the statistical tie indicator. I even started this discussion on this talk page indicating that I would prefer to remove them, so I support your move. I just wanted consistency. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ramaksoud2000: Well I support consistency too, but the GOP article uses striping for margin of error. I think striping for margin of errors are necessary whether we call it a "statistical tie" or not. Either way, we need to be consistent throughout the articles. Prcc27 (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't have too strong a position on it, so I wouldn't object either way. I just came here to right a wrong. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I am very disappointed that the statistical ties were removed. I think many don't understand how they work so I'll illustrate my explanation with examples. First of all, what is a statistical tie? A statistical tie occurs when two candidates poll within the margin of error. I will assume a margin of error of 5% in my example below. So if candidate A polls at 35% and candidate B at 30%, this would be considered a statistical tie. But if candidate A polls at 37%, this would NOT be considered a statistical tie. Some people argued in this discussion that it would also be a tie, and that's wrong. Their argument was candidate A score can be as low as 32%, and candidate B as high as 35%. In essence arguing that the spread is 10% if the margin of error is 5%. But this is an incorrect understanding of how statistical ties work!! So if candidate A went down by 2%, and candidate B went up by 2%, that's a total change of 4%. So in the case of 37% and 30%, the error suggests that the closes they can be is 2%. Or any of these scenarios: 37% - 35%, 36% - 34%, 35% - 33%, 34% - 32%, 33% - 31%, 32% - 30%. All4peace (talk)
My recommendation is that to keep the leading candidate on the poll but have him or her with a lighter color if they are within the margin of error. All4peace (talk)
That might be the case. Regardless we should do it that way for the sake of consistency with the GOP map! Prcc27 (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I want to apologize. I disagree with my own analysis. I did a lot of research and I concluded that we should use "twice the margin of error" to determine a statistical tie. I did a calculation using the following academic method to calculate the statistical tie, and in Iowa's poll between Clinton and Sanders (37% to 30%), using this method shown that it's a statistical tie (I can provide the calculation if you want).
Also, almost all sources agree including this article. It states: "The sampling margin of error applies to each measurement of the poll. That means that a difference between two candidates that is less than twice the margin of error is considered statistically insignificant. In other words, if Candidate A leads Candidate B by seven points, in a poll with a sampling margin of error of +/-4%, the difference is “non-significant,” Prof. Mathiowetz, chair of the sociology department at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said." (All4peace (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC))
Having said that, we should still indicate who's leading, even though it's within the margin of error. In the Iowa example again, Clinton is leading Sanders 92% of the times (I can show the calculation). The only reason that it's considered "statistically tied" because 8% is more than the 5% threshold (19 times out of 20) used by these pollsters. But I think it would be more informative if we let people know who's leading instead of consider them tied or shared. May be we can use a lighter shade, or have it striped, but with smaller stripes. The goal is to inform the reader. Saying tied when there's a 92% that one is leading doesn't sound informative in my opinion. (All4peace (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC))

File:Recognition of same-sex unions in the United States.pngEdit

 
File:Recognition of same-sex unions in the United States.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Turnless (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

How margin of error works — Statewide opinion polling, Democratic Party primaries, 2016Edit

User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wikipedia about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for map on LGBT Rights in the US (Illinois/Hate Crime Laws)Edit

Dear Prcc27,

I first want to thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia, especially your contributions to LGBT Rights in the US. I appreciate it.

I am writing to send an edit request for one of the maps on LGBT Rights in the US. In the past year, Illinois has updated its hate crime law text to become inclusive of gender identity through statute.

The law goes into effect on January 1st, 2016. According to the map color code the state of Illinois should then be turned purple. However, I do not have the software to change this on my own.

I have sent an edit request to Xnux regarding this because they were the most recent editor of this map. But I wanted to give you a heads up in case they are unable to do so or do not get the message in time.

If Xnux is unable to do this project, would you mind working on this or delegating someone who would?

Thanks so much and Happy Holidays!

-TenorTwelve (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC) TenorTwelve (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@TenorTwelve: Happy holidays! I think we should wait until the law actually goes into effect before changing the map, but a footnote would suffice. Do you have a reliable source pertaining to the law..? Thanks! Prcc27 (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I do! I wanted to give the heads up early to make it happen on time. For some strange reason, the links wouldn't load onto it, so I'm doing this from a different computer. Here they are! [1][2][3] TenorTwelve (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and Happy New Year!!! :) TenorTwelve (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Statewide Opinion pollingEdit

In the map for [[[Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Democratic_presidential_primaries|this article]]], you said Sorry, there is no consensus on using twice the margin of error. But it definitely needs to be discussed at the talk on Wikipedia. There is a page talking about margin of error at [Talk:Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Discuss_Margins_of_Errors_in_the_map_.28Again.29]

^ I don't know who posted the above but I also have an issue with Iowa not being striped now:

If you look at the discussion page for "Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016", stripes are to be used in the image if the state is a "virtual tie." Based on the five polls that have been taken in 2016 for Iowa, one shows Hillary Clinton ahead beyond the margin of error, one shows Bernie Sanders ahead beyond the margin of error, and three show Sanders and Clinton differing by less than the margin of error. This analysis, as well as a casual assessment of the polling, show that Clinton and Sanders are indeed neck and neck; this would be as good a time as any to use stripes for Iowa. Just as there's no consensus (on that page) about using stripes for twice the margin of error, there's also no consensus about using the most recent poll only. Stripes are to be used when the state is a virtual tie, taking into account more than just the most recent poll. That's what we have here.

-- Luigidorf (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 Democratic primary map stripesEdit

DNC MapEdit

The Democratic officials in Iowa have officially concluded the race, giving a plurality to Hillary Clinton. This is fact. It may be slim, but that plurality constitutes all that is needed to mark her carrying this state. Spartan7W (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @Spartan7W: It says on the wikipedia page that the map is for popular vote winners, not delegate vote winners. The popular vote was not tallied in Iowa. Also, some sources i.e. NBC have called Clinton the "apparent winner", not the "projected winner". Please go to the Wikipedia talk as it's already being discusses there. Prcc27 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Software QuestionEdit

Hi, what software/template do you use for your Democratic Primary 2016 map? I'm just curious because I'd like to start using it for my personal purposes, not to overtake your work :p Pierogi314 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @Pierogi314: I use wordpad or notepad since it is a text editable map. :) Prcc27 (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Prcc27: Cool, do you know where I can find a template? Pierogi314 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
      • @Pierogi314: You can click on the map (make sure it's enlarged) then save it as a svg file. Then you can open it on notepad and tinker with it there. Once you're done with that you can upload it to File:Test.svg. Prcc27 (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Democratic Party presidential primaries results by county, 2016.svgEdit

Thanks for your addition to the map. Would you mind updating w:Storey County, Nevada now that 100% of the results are in? I don't mess with svgs, and I didn't want this little detail to be overlooked. Thanks! Rockhead126 (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Democrats AbroadEdit

Sanders has won the Democrats Abroad primary. Can you update the primary map. Thanks! Here's the source [5] --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Constitutional bans on same-sex unions types US.svgEdit

 
File:Constitutional bans on same-sex unions types US.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Reventtalk 07:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Tonights electionsEdit

so we update the map with with Notepad.AlAboud83 (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Legality of polygamy.pngEdit

 
File:Legality of polygamy.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Раммон (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Legality of Polygamy.pngEdit

 
File:Legality of Polygamy.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

109.238.80.60 20:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/07/illinois-gov-bruce-rauner-signs-enhanced-hate-crimes-law/
  2. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=3930&GAID=13&DocTypeID=HB&SessionID=88&GA=99
  3. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=88&GA=99&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=3930&GAID=13&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session=
Return to the user page of "Prcc27".