User talk:Redhill54

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Redhill54, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! GlassCobra 02:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Riograndense Republic

An article that you have been involved in editing, Riograndense Republic, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riograndense Republic. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-minor edits to Louisiana

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Louisiana, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. -- Ken g6 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag changes

I have mentioned your continued pattern of editing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics. Trackinfo (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mato Grosso, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mixed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Georg Ledebour has been accepted

Georg Ledebour, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

-- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+/– column

Hello Redhill54. You'll see that I've reverted your edit on German federal election, 1930. We do not require the sum of the +/– column to be equal to zero, so there is no need to insert parties that did not contest the elections, nor misleading figures (like the 4 you added for the Conservative Party). If a party didn't contest the previous election, it's marked "New" in that column. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Number57. I do not understand what you said about the sum of the +/- column being equal to zero, as the sum of the changes to the parties should surely be equal to the change in the total. This will not often be zero for the German federal election results, which have a variable number of seats in the chamber. It is also necessary to show parties that cease to put up candidates, as otherwise the change in the overall number of seats cannot be explained in the table for one election. I am not sure why the figure for the Conservative People's Party, (not the Conservative Party), was misleading. What wrong conclusion could someone draw from knowing that they had no deputies before an election, and 4 after it?

With a comment column, both parties putting up candidates for the first time, and ceasing to do so, can be shown, and the figures for seat number changes will be internally consistent. So why do we not do that, and ensure that all the information is provided? I hope this suggestion helps. Redhill54 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]