File talk:Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current seat position (classification by major parties seats).svg

 

Diagram

@Aréat: @Dereck Camacho: attempt to use a right-left spectrum and he reverse the edits. But in Turkey there are no right left spectrum and all of the previous diagrams have no spectrum. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed I think the correct format should be right-left spectrum which is the norm and which was the original design from the file creator. Panam2014 says there's no such thing as right-left spectrum on Turkey something that I'm pretty sure is false but I would like to see some evidence of it, maybe some reliable sources about it. My real problem is Panam's not only rude and unpolite way of acting, his breaking of the 3 reverts rule and the fact that he proclaims himself to be the sole owner of the file because according to him he "updated it". --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: false. I have not broken 3RR. Also, to the extent that you have sent me a two-hour ultimatum while calling me to discuss, you are a judge and a party. So it can be likened to blackmail. On the other hand, when you talk to me aggressively and you ask me to calm down, it's not rudeness. The best is to discuss and not to threaten to modify the file. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said, your personal interpretations are not of importance to me. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: SSR is a socketpuppet and have been blocked. I am the first author of the version with the most recent repartition of seats so you should reach a consensus before editing the file. If you want to use the right-left spectrum you should be the first to update it. Try again in the next months. There are no consensus to change. See CONSENSUS. But my change was needed to upload the file. If the seats repartition change again and you have the chance to upload the file before me, you could upload it with the spectrum. Mee too. As I said, your personal interpretations are not of importance to me. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: the both have made 2 reverts, so if you edit the file you will broke the 3RR. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This was discussesd before, but here we go again, no problem:

• SSR is a socketpuppet and have been blocked. Even if that's the case doesn't change the fact that the correct leaning is the standard.
• I am the first author of the version with the most recent repartition of seats so you should reach a consensus before editing the file. There's any policy of Commons that give you any kind of power over the file jsut for being "the first author of the version with the most recent repartition of seats"
• If you want to use the right-left spectrum you should be the first to update it. Try again in the next months. There's no policy in Commons that says I have to wait until an update to make that change.
• There are no consensus to change. See CONSENSUS. But my change was needed to upload the file. You're admiting that you change it without consensus but request other to reach consensus? That makes no sense.
• If the seats repartition change again and you have the chance to upload the file before me, you could upload it with the spectrum. There is absolutely no policy in Commons that says such a thing.
• the both have made 2 reverts, so if you edit the file you will broke the 3RR. No, the 3RR rule is broken whith the first person that starts the cycle, in this case, you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: false. The 3RR is broken when an user made 3 reverts. I have made 2 reverts like you. If you revert again, you will broke it and if I would revert you 3RR brokering I will broke it too. There are no correct standard, especially in Turkey. In the current version is represented the correct seating in the parliament. A consensus is not needed to upload the file but when we upload the file we are free to upload with or without spectrum. It is the definition of consensus. And restoring an outdated version is a vandalism. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

Feel free to report me for 3RR if you wish then. And as say before, I'm not going to update an old version, I will update the new version just with the correct spectrum position so you don't have to worry about that. And like that was your only objection I guess we reach a consensus.

PD: Can you please stop editing the page once you published the changes? It causes edit conflicts. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: No, thank you for not changing anything today and continuing the discussion. For the rest, to the extent that your version deals with the contentious aspect, you are about to break the rule. On WP, if a contributor reverts a text twice and then cancels a third time but takes the opportunity to add a new paragraph on the same edit, it is counted as a violation. And again, your version is not correct than the mine. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, if you feel that feel free to report me. And as I'm only going to change to the correct spectrum position you have nothing to worry whatsoever. Everybody wins. Althpug I'll probably wait to see Aleat's opinion on this. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Again, your behavior is inadmissible. You take the risk of being punished and you push me to fight back by doing the same. Your modification is the heart of the problem. So you will restaure for the 3rd time the spectrum and this is a violation. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to report me if you consider such. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Stop challenging me, it's painful. For the rest, the rule is clear. Even if you make a 4th revert in the middle and at the same time other modifications, it counts as a violation. Thank you for changing behavior.--Panam2014 (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not challeging you I'm just confident enough that my edits do not represent a violation of any policy, but if they will I prefer an admin to tell me too. And I insist, the change have to be done. I hope you don't revert it once is finished the new version. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho:

No, change must not be done without consensus. Thank you for putting an end to this stubbornness. For the rest, thank you for not denying the obvious, you know that the point of contention is the spectrum and that even if the change is restored with something else, it counts as a violation. The rules say it.--Panam2014 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not putting an end to anything, I havn't finished with the new version. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Now that you have asked the administrators, you can not edit the file. Please wait. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

But it is important to have the version with the correct seating updated but the spectrum position corrected for the record. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: for urkish politics, the spectrum is true. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I need to see source son that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

[1] --Panam2014 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I see two problemas with tht source: One, it refers to young voters only. Two it does says that the findings are consistent with traditional ideological positions. Have some more? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

[2] --Panam2014 (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

That is a very interesting article, however I think miss interpreting it. It doesn't say that the right-left spectrum doesn't exist, just that is unusually divided among the classes regarding other countries, were poor people tend to vote left and rich people right and is the other way around in Turkey due to a more religious-secular division (something that might be unusual for Europe but is very common in other parts, for example Latin America were the exact thing happens). --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I will ask others @Μαρκος Δ, Demoxica, and Nub Cake: what do you think? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Panam2014 what you're doing is canvassing and is not allowed, you can be sancioned for it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: it is not canvassing. My message to the users was neutral. And they have uploaded the file. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Well you forgot Berkaysnklf --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: So your accusations are abusive to the extent that there is canvassing if we notify people and we send them a non-neutral message as in an election campaign. Otherwise, I proposed the creation of two new files.--Panam2014 (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You were canvassing, and if you feel my accusations are abusive feel free to report me. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

In any case, this file is mostly use in election articles, as such it shouldn't be update at all, it should only show the original seating immediatly after the election and not the further changes that happened afterwards. So I suggest returning it to the first version made by Social Studies. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: In short, you continue your abusive and unfounded accusations. Enough of your challenges. The page "canvassing" clearly says that for this to be the case, the message addressed must be non-neutral. So thank you for using terms wisely. We have already a file with the original seating. The sole solution is to show the seating after the formation of the cabinet. Strongly oppose to return to a version outdated and made by a socketpuppet. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Is not a challenge, you accuse me of being abusive if you are so sure, well then you can report me otherwise save the accusations. You were canvassing. The version you oppose for the "sockpuppet" is the original seating so your opposition makes no sense, it seems that you just oppose it because you have a problem with the author, in any case call it as you want but the seating should not be anything else than the original post-election seating on this file which is used for elections articles. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: In short, you continue to flout my good faith and reiterate false accusations. It's time to calm down. For the rest, the fact that the author was blocked is an objective fact and I changed the diagram because it does not respect the structure of the majority of diagrams. And again the left right split is not suitable in Turkey. This file is for the current repartition and we have already a file for the post election repartition. The best is to upload a version with the repartition during the first parliamentary seance. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• "In short, you continue to flout my good faith and reiterate false accusations." Is not a false accusation, you were canvassing.
• "the fact that the author was blocked is an objective fact" a fact that has no relationship with the content of the file nor affects whether the fact is correct or not except in your mind.
• "I changed the diagram because it does not respect the structure of the majority of diagrams." False, the file is exactly like the vast majority of diagrams.
• "And again the left right split is not suitable in Turkey." That is your opinion, it hasn't been proven.

"The best is to upload a version with the repartition during the first parliamentary seance." If you're thinking in uploading a ner (defectuous) file I don't know why you care so much whether this has or not the original version. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: It's time to challenge yourself. In principle I am opposed to any modification on your part to update it with the spectrum. But again, there is already a file with the distribution of seats at the time of the announcement of the results. This file should be used for something else.

And it's a fact that you pursued your personal attacks as if you were looking for confrontation. Nothing I say is wrong. You have formulated and reiterated false accusations. Your behavior is provocative. You should be ashamed. Indeed, you accused me of wanting to modify the file because I do not like the SSR ban while I never said it. And you continued to talk about canvassing even though the page on WP says that my behavior is not one.

Finally, Turkish diagrams do not follow the spectrum so there is no reason to put it here. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

"Finally, Turkish diagrams do not follow the spectrum so there is no reason to put it here." that's your opinion, hasn't been proven right and I see no one supporting it apart from you, are we supposed to base what we do or not on Commons based only on your unilateral and individual opinion? sorry, but no.

"And it's a fact that you pursued your personal attacks as if you were looking for confrontation." The one doing personal attacks has always being you, expressing that you were canvassing because you were is not an attack, is a reality.

In any case, unless you are able to prove that the traditional right-left spectrum do not work or at least a large and notable group of editors get to the same conclusion, do not expect Commons to work according to you. If you don't want to use this file is your choice. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: No, things do not work that way. It is a lie to assert that I attacked you personally even though you clearly provoked and attacked me personally. But charges are based on the fact that my actions do not correspond to the criteria characterizing a "canvassing" so here are my arguments. On the other hand, you make accusations in the void and without arguments. And reiterating the same accusations again and again is a blatant provocation. Finally, since you have created a new file, I do not understand why you are still fighting for it. And again, we already have a diagram with the distribution of members on election night. And you refused all the compromise proposals without arguing and without answering the question, preferring a status quo with the retention of a title that does not correspond to the content of the diagram and moreover, it is not even day. Finally, go see the other diagrams, the overwhelming majority of which do not respect the left right spectrum.--Panam2014 (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you insist in deny your canvassing but I will sustain my affirmation, you were canvassing. You suggested yourself to make new files I don't see why it's strange for you that I did. I can count 24 files on this category with right-left spectrum out of 34, so obviously the majority of files "respect" the spectrum order you should not lie like that. And finally I do not think this file should stay on the current status quo but in the original version you are the one who is oppose to that because of some silly animosity toward the author. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: No, I did not do "canvassing", whether you like it or not. Mass has been said. And you continue to tell false and false things like that I would have an animosity towards the banished. While again I only respect the standards of the Turkish poltiique. The other diagrams have been changed in mass during the summer, look at the history and you will see. It will be time to calm down and stop saying things wrong. My patience has limits. No, the current version will not stay in place in the medium term. The file name is "current" not "July 2018" and we already have a file that represents the parliament before the changes. Finally, thank you for stopping lying to me. Objectively, you are not looking for any compromise, you are trying to impose the status quo on usury. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You havn't prove that the Turkish politics is non-lineal is just your opinion. Changes of the files is logic, is the standard and probably would happen again and again. I don't care how patient you are stick to the rules. If you don't like the current title well you can request the renaming.

And PD: You were canvassing. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: 1/ The concept of canvassing is not recognized in COMMONS and is only an essay. and my actions are not canvassing. Canvassing is Biased, Non neutral message. Repeting that indefinetly will not change anything. Also, because we have already a file who you have created, there are no reason to keep the current version. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Current situation

Hi

We could not continue with the current situation because the current diagram does not reflect the current seats repartition. Also, if we move the file to Parliament of Turkey 2018, it is not a solution because it does not reflect the first seat repartitions before the changes. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Update

@Drgfrt and Dereck Camacho: the current version is not updated. The users are not allowed to replace an updated version by an outdated. You could upload a version with right-left spectrum only if the version is updated.

Also, we could discuss about you preferred version. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Panam2014 the issue hasn't been solved and nor you nor the other user had my consensus to make the change, which is the reason why an admin reverted. If you wish we can re-start the discussion I don't mind, but you do need my consensus before changing it back to a post-discussion version. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: 1/ the consensus have changed. 2/ An updated equivalent version who does not like is better than an outdated (not updated) version that you like. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

How can the consensus change if I hasn't give my consensus? Consensus requires me to agree to the change. It doesn't seem that you know what consensus is. And yes, I prefer an old version that the version I disagree upon, is not the ideal but is the lesser evil, but in any case the decision wasn't mine, it was an admin who reverted as is common when this disagreements happen. What you should be trying is to attain consensus with me and your not doing a very good job on that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: I hasn't give my consensus a consensus is not a veto right. It is the opinion of the majority of users. Drgfrt and me are for the updated file, you are the sole against. It is not a consensus. Any user have a veto right. Also, replacing an updated version by an outdated is a disruptive editing and a vandalism. If you wish to have a version with the right left spectrum, you must update the file. About, the admin I think he was wrong when he have chosen your version rather than my version but it is not a problem because you have finally updated the file. But the admin haven't given an editorial opinion. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, the updated version was in place during more than 2 months and a half. So it is the stable and ante bellum version. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

As always your tendency to edit randomely and clumsily causes edit conflicts. Try to write everything you want to say in one single edit.

And I assume that if I request a puppetry investigation on you two nothing would happen right?

Two out of three is hardly a consensus either. If you think I'm doing vandalism then feel free to report me, meanwhile and until agreement is reach the policies say that the version should be the one before the disagreement begain, deal with it. Whether you find a sizeable numbre of users that agree with you (and believe me, I will request each of them to be check for puppetry) or you reach a consensus which include me.

Besides I already gave you an option that was a middle ground for both and you ignored it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Your threat to do a puppet investigation is ridiculous and is an attempt at intimidation. It is unacceptable and it will not be without continuation. A consensus does not have to include you if you are in the minority but you refuse to comply with the majority, it is an obstruction on your part. Although you recognize that there is consensus for neither version but you find the way to move in force on the stable version (remained in place for almost three months). Your revert is clearly a vandalism because you have upload a wrong version. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Who told you that you have to accept whether I wanted to request a sockpuppet investigation or not? Is not your call. It is my right to requested if I want. If you want to take taht as a threat is your problem, not mine. You have no right to tell me what I can or not on that regard.

Fine, if you don't want to include me in the consensus, act as you wish, but I will revert again any changes I don't agree upon as is also my right to do. Accusing me of vandalism breaks a lot of policies by the way and you can be reported for that.

Third, interestingly you continue to ignore the fact that I made a proposal for an mutually beneficial agreement that will solve the issue. Keep ignoring that, it only shows that you don't want to do an agreement. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: again, a consensus not a veto right. If you are the sole to defend an opinion, you must accept it or your behaviour is disruptive and is an obstruction. Also, if you revert it, it is a disruptive editing.

I maintain that you have committed a vandalism by voluntarily replacing an updated version with an outdated version. Ask any admin he will give me reason. And I have arguments for. In addition, for the "check-user" which is for the moment unsupported and without tail or head, I am in my right to refuse because it is not supported. And I am free to ask for a sanction for abuse of procedure. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine, report me if you wish. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

meta:CheckUser policy. The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, spamming, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects.

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position).

Interesting this part: so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: To ask for an checkuser, you must prove that two people could be the same. Having the same opinion is not an enough proof. Checkusers requests are rejected if your sole proof that the two accounts have the same opinion. Also, in this case, it is a clear case of The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute.. the other user is here since 10 year, it is not a sock. Please respect others's opinions. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll take the chance. Requesting a check user is not "disrespecting" others opinions, is a right that we all have. You seem very interested in me not requesting it by the way. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: TFor your disruptive request, I will ask for a request. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Do as you wish, I'm not going to be crying about it :) --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: to be honest, I will not ask for a request about the vandalism because now the both versions are outdated. But I will ask for your abusive CheckUser despite my refusal here and the warnings. You are not even excused for having accused me wrongly. And why not have notified me or copied my opinion where I opposed it? Now feel free to upload an uploaded version with right left spectrum.--Panam2014 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I think you're wasting our time with all your puny complains while you should better be focus on reaching an agreement. I have no inconvenient if you want to report me (not request by the way) it is your right to do so, I don't get what you mean I'm "not even excused for having accused me wrongly" but I guess you mean I haven't excuse myself, which probably you meant I haven't apologize. You really should work on your English btw.

I have no reason to apologize, first I did not accuse you of anything, I announce that I wanted to request a checkuser, at no point I ever afirm that you were a puppetmaster. Second, it is my right like the one of any user to request one, and as you saw non of the things you predicted would happen, happenned (like that it was going to be rejected).

Now, instead of wasting everybodies time with this puny issues, how about you make an effort to comply with Commons' policies, reach consensus and find a common ground. I already gave you a perfectly workable option for both and you ignore it, and I'm not going to accept the change you want, especially because you have a perfectly good solution which would make us both happy. The only reason you can be ignoring that solution is stuborness. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: My sentences are understandable, that my style of writing does not please you do not concern me. For the rest, your request is abusive and you have failed to apologize. For the rest, you clearly do not know what is a WP consensus. A consensus does not give a right of veto.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, I know the rules better than you and your request is abusive. You have given no reason that I can be the other account, knowing that having the same opinion is not enough. For the rest, you have no power to block your disagreement the changes to the article if others agree. So we will defer to other opinions. Finally, if that amuses you, I would make the request for vandalism knowing that at the time you made the article, it was still vandalism.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No, your way of writing is not correct and is hard to understand, is not a matter whether of please me or not, English grammar is a thing and is established for a reason, is not something optional, but I have no way to endorse it, whether because the person is too lazy to write English correctly or because doesnt' had the enough level of English. For the rest, well at the moment I oppose any changes to the file, do as you wish with it and feel free to report whatever you want. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: And I am opposed to your July 17 change, which is clearly unacceptable. If last September, the stable version was yours, in July, the stable version is that of May. Whether you like it or not. And if we ask an admin to return to the stable version, it will return to that of May. For the rest, you do not know what a consensus is. You have gone into force by fait accompli. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the whole issue here is that we both disagree with the changes made, the big difference is that I'm willing to find a third option and you're not, I even suggested one already, and you ignore it. And until we reach some sort of agreement the issue is never goig to be resolve. And you can request whatever you want, will see what happens, if you're so sure that your request will be comply is kind of weird you havn't done it already and are wasting time arguing here. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Very weird and not constructive this attitude of challenge. Do you blame me for being patient with you? For the rest, you can invite other users and the case is settled. A gesture of good will would already admit that your request was abusive. And also to update the file you have degraded. You can not be judge and party. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No, my request was not abusive was totally justify and this discussion is gettings circular as always with you, no wonder you have been bloc from several projects already. I don't know if you are the kind of guy who always tries to have the last word but your just repeating on and on the same. Reach a consensus or find something else to do with your life. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Again, having been blocked for "edit warring" does not prove that the person has any puppets. I have not been blocked for puppet use here, on fr:wiki, on en:wiki, or anywhere else. So this justification is clearly beside the plate. For the rest, you do not know what is a consensus and your definition is contrary to Wikipedia rules. Whether you like it or not, a consensus is not a veto. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, your problems with English are showing, because I didn't said you were blocked in other projects for suckpuppetry, I meant that you were blocked by disruptive behavior and edit warring which it shows on your attitude. And again, you keep on and on with the same subject. When you're ready to compromise let me know. If you're not blocked before. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Please stop distorting my comments. I did not say that you said that I have been blocked for suckpuppetry. I said that being blocked for "edit warring" is not an enough argument to charge me and ask for a "CheckUser". For the rest, your threat of blocking against me is unacceptable and I do not have to compromise with someone who wish to block his opponent, to attack him personally, gives himself a veto right and ask against him an abusive checkuser. No one is essential. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to be repeating stuffs constantly, so this is the last time I'll say these:

1. I did not accuse you of suckpuppetry, I resquested a sockpuppets investigation. I couldn't even say if you were using sockpuppetry anyway as only such investigation would confirm it. Is basic law principle.
2. I do not need any reason to request an investigation against you for sockpuppetry, I can do it if I want, perior. I nor even knew you had been blocked in other projects when I ask for it. I obviously gave enough reasons for the investigation to happen as in did you were investigated. Whether having been block is reason enough, well it seems as an admin said so.
3. I can not block you even if I want, I'm not an admin, but considering your disruptive behavior I was just making an educated guess that you may end block (for many reasons, maybe unrelated to this discussion) in the near future.
4. You do have to compromise with me as with any other users, whether you like it or not, and no matter what I do that buthers you, is a policy.
5. I have never attacked you personally and I'm not using any kind of "veto", I'm using my right as user to oppose a change I disagree with.

Now, again, your just wasting time, I'm not going to refer to these matters anymore. If you want to find a solution for the file, perfect if not, well good by. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Stop playing on words. When you request an investigation, you suspect a contributor. The advice given afterwards by the administrator is questionable and it is not a word of the gospel. On all projects, being blocked for "edit warring" is not enough to accuse a contributor of "sockpuppetry". Finally, your attitude discourages me from finding a solution with you. If you change it I would agree. Finally, I have to find a compromise with everyone, only with you.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspecting someone and accusaing someone are two different things. In any case, well I do not agree with the change you want for the file, do with that as you wish. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: You do not have to suspect a contributor with reasons that have nothing to do. As well as wish to block it. The only solution is to interact with other contributors. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I can suspect whatever I want, and I can't block anyone even if I wanted. And I do not agree with the change you want to do. Greetings. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: You have no right to suspect in public without clear evidence, the items you have given are not conclusive. For the rest, we can not discuss, it is absolutely necessary to have other opinions or mediation.--Panam2014 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Ultimate solution

@Dereck Camacho: I have made a new proposal. I suggest to :

• rename File:Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current.svg to File talk:Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current (right-left spectrum).svg and update it
• upload a new file called File:Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current (without right-left spectrum).svg

--Panam2014 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright and let each language choose the one they prefer?

And also maybe instead of File:Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current something alluding to the seating position and that is not right-left spectrum (as that was the original problem, people can get confuse), for example "File:Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current seat position" or the like. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Yes. File:Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current seat position (classification with right-left spectrum) and File:Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current seat position (classification by major parties seats). --Panam2014 (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No objection on my behalf. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: thank you. The same. Do you think now we should ask others user who have upoaded same files about the proposal? --Panam2014 (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think unless the same disagreement begins in other files, the best is let them alone. If a similar dispute emerges then the same solution can be suggested. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Now, I think the solution from now is if I found a file with right left spectrum I should keep it and create a new file. Also, if you find a file without right left spectrum, you should upload a new. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll see case by case. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: That is to say ? I think having a frank discussion with the authors of the files would be rewarding to see if they have a preference or if they do not care. Now, I propose to split the file history.--Panam2014 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Your entitled to your opinion. And fine for me. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Thank you. So I think I will launch a discussion in the next days. I have asked the admins to split the files. Also, small things, you have said in last september, the original's author style should be respected, do you have changed your mind about it? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in having any kind of conversasion or further interaction with you, if possible I hope not to interact with you again in any form, so I won't be answering your question. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)