Thank you for your message. I understand your view, but we have to be exact here. If the list candidates under the name of Freedom and Justice Party, but contains candidates from other parties of the Democratic Alliance, we have to explain it as it is, and not just call it the list of the Democratic Alliance. Please also note that the Al-Ghad Party has fielded its own lists, even though it is part of the Democratic Alliance. So the FJP+allies lists are not lists of the whole Democratic Alliance. I have proposed a solution with footnotes now, and I hope that you can agree with it. Kind regards -- RJFF ( talk) 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the explanations. See you -- RJFF ( talk) 21:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, working also on the same table. I'd like to ask - if the Threshold is 0.5% than why the table show "0" seats for some above it:

???

ThanX -- 46.116.109.143 ( talk) 00:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC) reply

hello there

0.5% guarantees a list for being considered for seat repartition. It does not guarantee you a seat. check [1] for a nice explanation of the way the seat repartition works.

Since the biggest district has 10 seats, each seat thus represents 10% of the votes with the largest remainder method, used in this election, you can get a seat with much less than 10%. But it is almost impossible to get a seat with 0.5%

Now, the seats were allocated by district. Egyptian Citizen got 0.7% of the votes nationally. But in the district it got its seat (the red sea governorate), it got 14.23%.

-- Hous21 ( talk) 03:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm still confused. First, 10 seats (as you say) is not 10% out of 498 seats up for grabs? Second, 73 seats, shown in the table for FJP (toal for PR + FPTP) - times three (73X3) is not 49% out of 498 (it is 43%) - how come? Third, 36.6% for FJP shown as 40 seats PR, is not possible since, again, the percentage is not over a 100 seats parliament but rather over a 498 seats parliament ? and lastly, I still did not get the issue with the 0.5% threshhold, in which a 0.7% party did get a seat but a 0.8% party did not get a seat?

ThanX

-- 46.116.109.143 ( talk) 09:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Ok. The parliament is composed of 508 seats (10 appointed, 498 elected). 332 of which are PR. Now, the gov of egypt can not do all the election on one day. So they extended it on 3 phases. In each phase, 1/3 of the seats are filled up. So far, only phase one happened. Thus lists competed for only 112 PR seats, and individuals competed for 56 FPTP seats. The supreme court invalidated some races (10 PR and 8 FPTP), which will have to be re-voted. Which leaves us with 102 PR and 48 FPTP seats that has been filled so far.

Let us focus on PR for now. There are 46 electoral districts. see the table in [2]. the lists compete in each district. Let us take the Red Sea district. Refer to [3] (the red sea section). This district has 4 seat. 114,022 eligible votes were cast in this race. This is our 100% voter base. Since we have 4 seats, each seat, in theory, should represent 100/4=25% of voters.

Seat assignment proceeds in two rounds. In the first round, we look for parties that gathered > 25%, thus earning a "full" seat. In this race, the only party that received > 25% is the FJP, with 35.69%. So FJP gets 1 seat. All other parties get 0 seats. We still have 3 seats to provide for.

Since the PR method used is the largest remainder method, we start looking at largest remainder. After filling a seat, the FJP still have 35.69-25=10.69% of the votes. We now assign the seats for the parties with the largest remainder. The party with the largest remainder is the egyptian bloc, with 17.01%. So it gets a seat. We still have two seats. The next largest remainder is the Egyptian Citizen, with 14.23%. So it gets a seat.

So now FJP has a seat, Egyptian block a seat, egyptian citizen a seat. We still have 1 seat to provide. Al-Wafd has 9.69% of the votes, but FJP still has 35.69-25=10.69%. Since 10.69>9.69, the FJP gets the last seat, ending up with two seats.

Now, to be able to keep his Red Sea seat, the Egyptian Citizen party should get 0.5% of the national vote. The Egyptian Citizen party had other lists in other electoral districts, that did very poorly. If you take all the PR districts that were done in the first phase, the Egyptian Citizen ended up with 0.7% of the national vote. There are still two phases. If after these phases, the Egyptian Citizen drops below 0.5% of the national vote, it will loose its Red Sea seat, which will go to the Wafd party.

Why this 0.5% rule? because the election law wants to encourage parties with national platforms, as opposed to local parties. Thus a small regional party, that may be able to take a good percentage in just one region, but can not field candidates elsewhere and thus may not receive 0.5% of the national vote, will be discouraged from running on its own. It can either run on the FPTP seats, or be part of a coalition.

the conserative party did better than the egyptian citizen on the national level, with 0.8% of the votes. but remember, seats are not assigned on the national level, but on the PR district level. The conservative party did not get enough votes in any district to be able to grab a seat.

Hope this helps

Now, to tackle your direct questions:

> 10 seats (as you say) is not 10% out of 498 seats up for grabs

not it is not. I was saying that the biggest PR district has 10 seats. Thus each seat would represent 100/10=10% of the votes in that district. Like a seat in the Red Sea, which has 4 seats, represents 100/4=25% of the votes in that district.

> not 49% out of 498 (it is 43%)

FJP has 73 seats out of 150 provided so far. Which is 40%. Only 1/3 of the races happened. The other 498-150=348 seats have not been provided for yet. Check the voting system section for their dates.

> 36.6% for FJP shown as 40 seats PR,

again, it is just over the 102 seats that had been validated in phase one

> 0.5% threshhold, in which a 0.7% party did get a seat but a 0.8% party did not get a seat?

hopefully my above explanation addressed this issue. Seats are not assigned on natioanl level, but on district level.

-- Hous21 ( talk) 16:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC) reply

ok, thak you

-- 85.250.87.18 ( talk) 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC) reply

according to lmasryalyoum.com Total seats [4]: FJP 73 - same table show 73. However, they report toal seats for Salafi Nour 31 (tabble show 30), Egyptian Bloc 14 (table show 15), Wafd 11 (same in table), Revolution Continues 4 (Table shows 6), Adl Party 2 (Table shows 1).

-- Midrashah ( talk) 22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello Midrasah

Good point. Apparently there is still some confusion about seat assignment. this is probably due to the fact that FPTP seats were technically competed upon by "independents". Individuals, not parties, compete on the FPTP seats, although these individuals can be members and/or backed up by parties. Thus some discrepancies may arise in totaling these seats, multiple parties can claim the same independent winner.

The wiki table is based on [5], which is quite detailed. The official results are not yet released [6]. For instance, two FPTP seat winners are counted by Jadaliyya as Revolution continues, which boasts their seats from 4 to 6. Possibly another FPTP independent was counted as Adl and Nour by Almasrylyoum. Al Badri Farghali got an FPTP seat, that he was contesting as a tagammou member. Since al-tagammou is part of the Egyptian bloc, jadaliyya added him to the egyptian bloc, hence 15.

This said, it may be a good idea to keep an eye for a list of elected MPs that each party claims. we can thus securely amend the wiki tables and even alert jadaliyya. -- Hous21 ( talk) 23:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, since the official results has not been rleased yet, and so the table mentions this, I guess it will be pointless to try to figure which newspaper was more correcet. Once we get our hands on the offical data then it will a good time to do correcting. You got a point there.

Thank you. -- 46.116.187.95 ( talk) 23:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC) -- Midrashah ( talk) 23:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

one source (washington post) [7] says election commition reported 65% turnout for 14-15 dec. and another source (ahram) [8] says election commision reported 43% - down from 52 of the first phase? which one is correct !?

In addition, washington post showed different number of votes than what table showed (a bit more) - and I corrected table, was I right?

thank you, -- 93.172.40.30 ( talk) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The election comity has been reporting contradictory results. For the first round, it reported 62, then 52, and al-jazeera blog reported them changing it a third time to 59. I am not sure which number to trust, be it first or second phases. The official website [9] does not report any voter turnout numbers, nor does it publish the official press releases. Thus we have to rely on second sources (like newspaper), which have been giving different numbers. this said, I am not sure what the turnout is.

as for the total number, we can get the exact one by totaling the numbers on the official website (they did not total them). [10] have been doing a great work in following up on each candidate, and they copied the official results. we can total them up to get the final voter turnout. Not sure how this will relate to the washington post numbers. Hous21 ( talk) 17:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you. -- 93.172.40.30 ( talk) 20:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I found a copy of the official results [11] it states participation is 65% for the first round of phase 2, and 43% for the second round of phase 2. Hous21 ( talk) 21:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

I have copied the table on Shura Elelction from the 3 phase table on parliamentary election article (lower house). is the table correct ? (PR+FPTP), and are the result number somebody filled in also correct? can you review it ?

thanks -- Midrashah ( talk) 14:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello Hous21,

there is a discussion going on at Talk:Egyptian parliamentary election, 2011–2012 on how the election results template look like. There is also some confusion about which are the correct results. As you have been a major contributor to this article, I could imagine that you might want to join the discussion. See you. -- RJFF ( talk) 02:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey Hous21,

thank you very much for the barnstar. It's really good to know that you appreciate my contributions and I can assure you that it has been fun and very constructive working together with you. I look forward to future collaboration with you. See you -- RJFF ( talk) 22:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

can you check my last edit there and help out (also in citation)?

ThanX, -- Midrashah ( talk) 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply

My last edit was recorded as edit of 93.173.154.188

-- Midrashah ( talk) 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I've seen you took a look at it. what concerns me is - are all under "registered candidates" were approved registration (citation needed, as I understand there are 23 qualified registered candidates), and also I changed the subtitle of "other candidatets"-->"Unregistered or disqualified" - are all name list there indeed such?

thank u, -- Midrashah ( talk) 07:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello Hous21,

when adding more candidates to the table, would you mind maintaining the alphabetical order that I tried to establish? And please remove candidates that are included in the table from the list in the "Other less known candidates" section, in order to avoid redundancy. Moreover, we should decide whether we either wikilink all names of candidates without an article, or only the ones with an article. Right now, there are some names redlinked and some are not. It's up to you to decide. Thank you. Kind regards. -- RJFF ( talk) 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

ok, thanks for notifying -- Hous21 ( talk) 23:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

P.S. I'm not sure if Abul Fotuh should be sorted under 'A' or under 'F'. Same with Abu Ismail: 'A' or 'I'? Can you help, please? -- RJFF ( talk) 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Usually, in arabic, Abul and Abu, and variations, are under A. Thus both are under A. It is more tricky with Al-, El- and similar, in which case it is probably safer to stick to the first letter. Hous21 ( talk) 23:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Mussa is not disqualified for 2 reasons (which we need to mention both):

1. 10 years prior to 11.Feb.11 (the day Mubarak resigned) did not serve as President, VP, PM and other NDP senior posts.
2. does not apply to ex-ministers

my question is concerns the first reason that I mentioned in the article. Since Mussa served in Arab League form may 2001 to June 2011 - how can the sources (there are many of them) - mention the "10 years" calculation? did he resigned from Mubarak's regime months before being appointed to the Arab League?

And here is what I wrote there:

Qualified candidates

On 24 April, SCAF approved a Parliamentary law banning former PMs, VPs and other Mubarak era NDPs officials from running for public office for 10 years, hence, in effect, disqualifying Ahmed Shafik (The 11th disqualified candidate). The new law and disqualification was approved by the election committee as well [12] [13]. The law as approved would not exclude Amr Mussa as it extends back only 10 years (Mussa served in the Arab League, 2001-2011) and does not apply to ex-ministers [14].

Thanks -- Midrashah ( talk) 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The Arab League is a supra-national league, and is not under Mubarak rule. It is a sort of United Nations for the arab world. Amr Musa was its secretary general. He was NOT representing Egypt nor mubarak, which had an ambassador.

It is like Ban Ki-moon. He is UN secretary general, and is not representing the South Korean regime. South korea has its ambassador in the UN, who is representing the South Korean gov. -- Hous21 ( talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes I know the Arab League was not under Mubarak. My question concerns something else. If he was in the Arab League From May 2001-->June 2011, then in 11 Feb 2011 (The Legal date, when Mubarak resigned) he did not celebrate 10 years in the Arab League, its few Months shorter. In May-June 2011 he could have celebrated 10 years in the Arab league, but this is way passed the legal date of 11 Feb 2011. ??

So where are the few months missing in the 10 years canculations?

Thanks -- Midrashah ( talk) 04:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Good point Midrashah. I had to dig in the actual law in arabic and read it. It only applies to Presidential VP, Prime ministers, and top NDP officials. It does not apply to ministers. Since Amr Moussa was only a minister, and never a top ranking NDP official, he is not disqualified. Great scrutiny!

I will amend your text accordingly. Note that you may want to use citations in accordance with the article. Instead of doing [ citation ], click on the "cite" bottom, choose a template and fill it.

Keep the good work! -- Hous21 ( talk) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you. check also the new polls of Al Ahrahm + Al Mary Al Youm - both are missing important data -- Midrashah ( talk) 16:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Al-Masri Al-Yom opinion poll - more sources needed for data on candidates

Hi, i've added the poll of Al-Masri Al-Yom from english sources [15] [16], which refer only to results of 5 candidates, and make up total of only around 53% of the total of the opinion sample, and therefore I can not add "other" (non-main candidates) colum. do you have additional souces for this poll wich will show more (main) candidates (I marked them in question mark, see my edit) ? so we can complete the data for this poll?

-- Midrashah ( talk) 15:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

found original poll in arabic. added details. -- Hous21 ( talk) 16:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

another poll to add source (this time al ahram)

Hi,

again I found a new poll of (Al aharam) - with an english source, and only 3 candidate apear + no total is mentioned. check my edit (I edited under 85.250.204.85), and if you can add sources, candidates data, and total.

ThanX -- 85.250.204.85 ( talk) 20:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

New opinion poll by Al-Ahram + Al AMsry Al-Youm, check missing data

Egyptian presidential election, 2012#Opinion Polls

-- Midrashah ( talk) 14:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I checked throgh "automatic translator" (of google) the source in Arabic you added and I saw you had a mistake. Shafiq gets 6% out of those who voted for FJP but this is 'not 6% of the TOAL - am I correct?. Also, dont forget to add more data for the AL Ahrahm poll as well, there is no data the on "other" and "undecided" (for the the total count). -- Midrashah ( talk) 18:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I just double checked, Shafik got 6% total. The Ahram poll seems convoluted. It appears to me that what they did is divide the votes of the withdrawn candidates and added them to the other candidates (see the new link I added [ [17]]). I couldn't find any arabic source for it, including in Al-Ahram. I think it is safer to remove that Ahram poll. -- Hous21 ( talk) 18:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Whatever Ahram did they didn't publish the "other" and "undecided" (for total 100%), but whatever, better some data then nothing, gives you some idea on whats going on. Lets leave it this way and wait and see if the rest of the data gets published, and even if it doesn't, it's prety good even this way, I think.

Thank you again -- Midrashah ( talk) 20:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey, accornding to this source [18], it turns out you were right, Al Ahram did add up the numbers of "second choice", when they heard 3 candidates were out (the poll was conducted prior to the decision), but I still think its ok to leave it this way, and that their canculation makes sense. -- Midrashah ( talk) 11:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Also, I added "Party Affiliation" to candidate's table, i'll be glad if you check me out - if i was was correct on all candidtae's affiliations. Thank you -- Midrashah ( talk) 13:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Sounds good for the poll, we can keep it. Checked candidates, replaced Egyptian bloc by Tagammu. I haven't seen any report of the bloc endorsing bastawisi, but Tagammu did. The other bloc parties may not follow. -- Hous21 ( talk) 13:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC) reply

New Al Aharam Opinion poll, check it out

Egyptian presidential election, 2012#Opinion Polls -- Midrashah ( talk) 15:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Done -- Hous21 ( talk) 16:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you. You just forgot to add source to your new data in the poll -- Midrashah ( talk) 16:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Ooops! Done. -- Hous21 ( talk) 16:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

New Al Masry Al Youm poll missing "other" data

chek it out - Egyptian presidential election, 2012#Opinion Polls -- Midrashah ( talk) 19:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

done -- Hous21 ( talk) 20:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you. -- 93.172.58.86 ( talk) 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Chek this new poll (GIC)

[19] I havent added it yet, I wanyed you to check the exact nubers first. -- Midrashah ( talk) 16:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply

That is a tough one [ [20]]. It says: 42% undecided, 11% Amr moussa, 11% aboul foutouh, 6% shafik, 2% mohammad morsi, 3% refused to say their nominee, 2% other nominees, 7% decided not to vote, 16% haven't decided yet if they are participating in the elections. I couldn't find their sample size. Not sure how to convert these numbers to fit the wiki table. -- Hous21 ( talk) 22:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply

First we havw 100%, thats good for a start. Second, Refused to say + won't vote + Undecided - can be put together under "undecided" + a remark on it (in ^[1]). The only problem left is the sample size, I will mark it with a question mark. -- Midrashah ( talk) 11:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply

By the way - do you know if it was conducted in April or May? -- Midrashah ( talk) 11:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nice proposition. It doesn't say when it was conducted, but it was surely released in May. Thus putting May is probably best. -- Hous21 ( talk) 14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply

New Al Ahram May Poll, check it out

missing 100% and "other" and "undecide". Egyptian presidential election, 2012#Opinion Polls -- Midrashah ( talk) 15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I removed al-hariri since he and khalid ali are both polling at 0.9 (three others are polling even less). And since they r polling low, we can just put their combined numbers in "other". Aboulfoutouh is at 24.0, not 24.5. I couldn't find the undecided percentage, the article refers to a graph that is not shown online (maybe just in print, or they forgot to include). -- Hous21 ( talk) 19:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you -- Midrashah ( talk) 21:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

By the way, there are no "Undecided" since the sum up of all percetages makes 100%. I think I have an explantion why. Sometimes pollsters know how to "crack" the undecided, if someone tells them they are undecided, they would ask them "Ok, but who do you lean towards?" - and then they would add him to the candidate they lean towards voting, despite being unsure of it. This is a possible explanation since there is also a notable differnce between the Al Aharam polls where there is always little percentage of undecideds and other polls (like Al Masry) were you usually find high percetage of undecideds. -- Midrashah ( talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

That is definitely a possibility. Also note that in some polls, they report the percentages out of people who decided to vote. Thus if 50% are undecided, and 10% said they want to vote for Amr Mussa, then the poll reports 20% for Amr Mussa. -- Hous21 ( talk) 02:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply

New IDSC poll has 102% voter

this includes those who refused to disclose nomenne, haven't decide if to vote yet etc. - check it out -- Midrashah ( talk) 20:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I didn't find any finer grain numbers. All arabic newspapers report the same numbers as u did. They sum to 102 because of rounding errors. -- Hous21 ( talk) 22:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thak you. -- 46.116.175.229 ( talk) 22:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply

New Al Aharam poll has 110%, plus check also the new Shorouk and Al Masry Al Youm polls

Egyptian presidential election, 2012#Opinion Polls -- Midrashah ( talk) 12:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Done. For Ahram, the percentages for nominees are relative to those who nominated a nominee. Thus the undecided 15.3% are extra. (note that nominees add up to 100.1, this is rounding error). For Shorouk and Al Masry Al Youm, all numbers in the actual articles are correctly reported. -- Hous21 ( talk) 14:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you. WHat do you mean by "are relative to those who nominated a nominee"? -- Midrashah ( talk) 16:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I meant that Amr Moussa (for example) got 40.8% of those who decided to whom they are going to vote, and not 40.8% of the total survey sample. -- Hous21 ( talk) 17:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC) reply

New IDSC poll has a total of 70%

New IDSC poll has a total of 70%. There is a need for additional arabic sources on additiinal candidates' data and "other". Check it out -- Midrashah ( talk) 20:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Done -- Hous21 ( talk) 21:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC) reply

smaple size missing in new Al Masry Al Youm poll

Check it out -- Midrashah ( talk) 15:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply

No information about size provided in article. -- Hous21 ( talk) 16:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply

New IDSC poll has total of 79%

Plus no data on "Other". check it out. -- Midrashah ( talk) 12:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply

In Addition, check also the new Al Ahram + Al Masry polls. both sorce taken from same article in AL Ahram English article, but both around 99% total (not 100%), for both the article dont mention "other" (thogh in wikipedia table its the sum of Ali and Hariri, yet no 100%), and there is no mention of "undecided" for Al Ahram poll. -- Midrashah ( talk) 15:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply

oops, another one. take a look also at the new Shorouk poll. (1) Sources are sketchy, (2) 95% total (but not 100%), (3) no "other", (4) Missing sample size -- Midrashah ( talk) 17:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Strangely enough, the Al-ahram poll, as published in the english paper, is much more complete than what is published in the arabic one. The arabic version keeps referring to charts that are not published online. Arabic version doesn't mention the undecided % (it may have been in a chart).

IDSC: the original poll is not published on their website (they publish their polls several days late on the website). I couldn't find more info. actually I couldn't confirm the 35% undecided rate. I can recheck their website in a few days looking for the original poll.

found and completed the shorouk poll. as for al-masry al youm, the arabic version also sums to 99.8. we can either keep it as such and consider the missing 0.2% rounding errors, or add it to "others". I did add it to others and removed the note about khalid ali. feel free to revert my change. -- Hous21 ( talk) 04:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply

You're mistaken. Al Masry now sums up to 100%. That's good. However, did you include Ali in the "Other"? -- Midrashah ( talk) 08:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply

By the way, what you think of the image I uploaded yesterday (my own work). "Poll of all polls", in which I made the averge of all polls conducted in May 2012? -- Midrashah ( talk) 08:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply

al masry now sums to 100 because I added 0.2 to khalid ali's 1% in "others". I saw the poll average chart and thought it was cool! good job. -- Hous21 ( talk) 15:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thnk you. -- 109.186.86.92 ( talk) 15:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)-- Midrashah ( talk) 15:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Maryland University poll

I found the sources in English, and I suppose since its Maryland its supposed to be this way. However, data on "other" and "undecided" is missing as well as it all sums up to 90%. Can you check for additional sources - in Arabic/English? -- 109.186.86.92 ( talk) 09:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Found the actual poll [ [21]] (first link). It doesn't specify, and sums to 90%. I removed one of two identical references. -- Hous21 ( talk) 13:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Ok. Thank you. good luck on voting tommorw! -- 93.172.10.54 ( talk) 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC) -- Midrashah ( talk) 18:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

[22] this latest report suggest Shafiq is out of the race (again), because of a new court ruling, however, as I understand it, after the election committee has published its final list it can not be changed or chalenged - so is he in or out?

also, under the section of "disqualified candidates" someone marked Abu Ismail as one who was an "Independent", but he is a salafist. Was he officially a candidtae of the Al Nour party or an Independent Salafist? -- Midrashah ( talk) 08:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Abu Ismail is an independent salafist. Al Nour didn't officially back him up, although he got a sizable portion of al nour deputies to back up his nomination. No idea about Shafiq! I had to read the arabic news, and it is not clear if the revocation can take effect. His lawyer argues that the court that made the decision doesn't have any power to make it, and is thus void. I suggest we wait a bit to know more. Good job being up to date! -- Hous21 ( talk) 14:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I was the first to fill the five top candidates, but then someone added the rest of the candidates + %, but did not add sources. Your help is needed. -- Midrashah ( talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I didn't find the whole results in print yet, but found the video of the official results release. The results in the table are correct. -- Hous21 ( talk) 01:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm curious on where things stand on the runoff (as well as would like to publish it here), but couldn't find any polls. Maby they are afraid to publish runoff polls, sine the polls on the first round were all wrong...? -- Midrashah ( talk) 18:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I haven't seen any either! your suggestion is a good possibility, since I saw several articles criticizing the first round opinion polls. -- Hous21 ( talk) 20:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Where there any new polls since we last talked? -- Midrashah ( talk) 09:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Nothing. -- Hous21 ( talk) 17:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you very much for your hard and kind teamwork. Your tireless investment in improving the election articles so everyone can enjoy and read, and especially your patience for my never ending messages! You certainly deserve this branstar! Midrashah ( talk) 21:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

thank you Midrashah! -- Hous21 ( talk) 23:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Would it be possible for you to help me on this subject as well ? -- Midrashah ( talk) 18:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I won't be able to since I am travelling for multiple weeks (maybe even multiple months). Check Syrian opposition, it may help. -- Hous21 ( talk) 19:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Do you know any other user who is an expert on the issue? -- Midrashah ( talk) 19:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

no I don't -- Hous21 ( talk) 19:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Hous21, how are you?

can you help on expanding this bio Ahmed Mohammed Ali?

-- Midrashah ( talk) 19:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Nice blurb! will try to look into it. -- Hous21 ( talk) 19:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you :-) -- Midrashah ( talk) 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply

?? -- Midrashah ( talk) 17:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Midrashah: Good to hear from you. The date hasn't been announced yet. See [23]. Hous21 ( talk) 20:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm translating the article in English into Hebrew wikipedia, and would like to ask you how does these folowing dishes are spelled in Arabic:

Palestinian cuisine#Gaza:

1. Zibdieh - زبدة
2. Fukharit adas - فخارة عدس
3. fatteh ghazzawiyyeh/Fetté Gazzewié - فتة غزاوية

I wanna put the arabic spelling into google-translate and listen to the pronunciation in Arabic there, and in this way I would be able to know how to spell it in Hebrew.

Thanks in advance! -- Midrashah ( talk) 11:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Midrashah: See above. anytime! Hous21 ( talk) 17:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you! -- Midrashah ( talk) 21:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply

In Addition:

1. ruz ma lahma أرُز مع لحمة
2. tabeekh طبيخ
3. sidr صدر

-- Midrashah ( talk) 17:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Midrashah: Hous21 ( talk) 01:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Also:

1. ikras أقراص

-- Midrashah ( talk) 10:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Midrashah: Hous21 ( talk) 16:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

And:

1. jibneh baida جبنة بيضاء

-- Midrashah ( talk) 20:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Midrashah: Hous21 ( talk) 23:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply

And also:

1. bizir al-bateekh - بذر البطيخ
2. bizir abyad - بذر أبيض

-- Midrashah ( talk) 19:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Midrashah: Hous21 ( talk) 16:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Also:

Note I am from Lebanon and there may be some colloquial differences in spellings with (and amongst) the various palestinian dialects, but I would transliterate the words slightly differently

1. Iftur (lit. 'breakfast') - فطور (i would write it futour)
2. Asrooneh (Derives from the word 'Aasr lit. 'afternoon') - عصرونية (i would write it asrooniyeh)
3. Hilew - حِلو

-- Midrashah ( talk) 21:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Midrashah: Hous21 ( talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply

And:

1. qahwah sadah - قهوة سادة

-- Midrashah ( talk) 16:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Midrashah: Hous21 ( talk) 19:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Also:

1. Musaher (Ramadan) - مسحر
2. saniyyehs - صينيه
3. maqali (Ramadan) - Not sure what you mean. Is it the dessert Meghli, or fried veggis "makali"

-- Midrashah ( talk) 17:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Midrashah: Hous21 ( talk) 20:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The article says: "maqali, an array of fried tomatoes" ( Palestinian cuisine#Holiday cuisine#Ramadan -- Midrashah ( talk) 21:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

it is then fried veggies: مقالي

@ Midrashah: Hous21 ( talk) 00:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I noticed that there is not much opinion polls there, can you get us some?

and also thanks for all the help on palestinian cuisine!

-- Midrashah ( talk) 18:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Will keep an eye. Check this. Any time Midrashah! @ Midrashah: Hous21 ( talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

ok, thnk you! -- Midrashah ( talk) 17:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, how are you?

I have added a few sentences on Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's childhood at Abdel Fattah el-Sisi#Early life and military education - and I need someone to review it, add, edit etc. - can you? -- Midrashah ( talk) 12:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The section sounds good to me. I do not have time to do research on my own to expand the section. The arabic wikipedia doesn't expand on his childhood. @ Midrashah: Hous21 ( talk) 15:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Ok thaks! -- Midrashah ( talk) 18:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Medical articles on Wikipedia must be cited by the best available evidence and written in a consistent format. We typically use review articles. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN, additionally, the Citation Template Generator will aid in the formatting of references; all one needs to do is cut and paste the results. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, Hous21. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Hous21. 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) reply

Hello, Hous21. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Template:Egyptian Shura Council election, Phase 1, 2012 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 16:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Template:Egyptian Shura Council election, Phase 2, 2012 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 16:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply