Jump to content

User talk:Electionworld

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rick Norwood (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 28 September 2005 (→let's see if we cannot work together to find a compromise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 13:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. I see you create Maps on Wikipedia and related pages. While it is a good thing to sort the stuff we already have on this site, I don't think this belongs in the main namespace. I presonally would suggest to put them at Wikipedia:Maps on Wikipedia, or maybe even better as a subpage of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, similar to the already existing Requested and orphan maps list. We should try to separate the actual encyclopedia from the meta-information. andy 12:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way would be to move those pages there using the "Move this page" link, and name them something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Map index (see also Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page). Then we can later delete the redirects in the main namespace created by the moving. And then it's of course a good idea to add a link to this subpage into the main page Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps.
Just a hint: you put your comment to me on my user page, however normally comments should go to the discussion page associated with every page - this User talk:Ahoerstemeier instead of User:Ahoerstemeier. Only for comment on the user talk the message "You have new messages" shows up automatically. But no problem, I saw it quickly and moved your comment accordingly already... andy 15:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Union

What is the reason for moving the article on Freedom Union to Freedom Union (Poland)? Halibutt 21:07, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

I renamed Freedom Union in Freedom Union (Poland) because there exist more parties with the name Freedom Union. E.g. in Czech Republic.Gangulf 21:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Does it mean that you are preparing an article about those parties? Great! Halibutt 21:32, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Page moving

Hi. I'm quite confused by your moving of pages like the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland to Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (UK). Disambiguation in brackets is not preferred. It is only used when there is a reasonably chance of confusion, so that for example Labour Party is a list of parties called the Labour Party.

I am not aware of any parties called the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland who operate outside, well, Northern Ireland. I suspect you aren't either. These pages should not have been moved and should be moved back, unless there is a legitimate potential confusion involved. Morwen - Talk 19:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I am trying to fix these up now. It would help if you stopped making the problem worse. Thanks. Morwen - Talk 20:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Have moved that. Sorry if I sounded hasty earlier. Thanks, Morwen - Talk 21:38, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Liberal parties

Thanks for pointing me to the liberal parties article - that has clarified what you mean by "liberal". (In New Zealand, the term "liberal" is claimed by just about anyone, it seems, including parties that are the complete opposite of each other). Under the definitions in that article, I agree that the New Zealand Democratic Party probably counts as liberal, at least in terms of its social policy. -- Vardion 10:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ACT New Zealand calls itself a liberal party (classical liberalism only, though), but other people disagree. Its economic policies are quite close to libertarianism, but it has internal divisions regarding social policy - some MPs seem to want a libertarian social policy, but others seem to be conservative. So maybe ACT is libertarian, or maybe it's New Right. (The smaller Libertarianz party claims that ACT is New Right). As for United New Zealand - it sometimes claimed to be liberal, but it often changed its description. In the 1996 election, it tried to be a moderate centrist party, and in the 1999 election it tried to be a multiculturalist party (most of its candidates were from ethnic minorities). The modern United Future New Zealand party isn't liberal, though. Personally, I would not describe either ACT or United as liberal, but I could be wrong. -- Vardion 10:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see my question to you at Talk:Political liberalism. -- Jmabel 04:14, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate for Political liberalism -- clearly the main narrative article on liberalism -- to link directly to all other substantive articles on liberalism. No problem if they also link in other directions, since these articles are largely about the history of liberalism and how the term is understood, they should not need a level of indirection through a page that is mostly a list of parties: someone would hit that page and not expect to find this sort of thing at one more remove. In fact, following the usual style, we should probably have a brief summary of the contents of these in Political liberalism, which should effectively become the top article of a "series". -- Jmabel 16:12, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sure, Liberalism should be the title of the merged top-level article, but I think that more of the substance comes from Political liberalism. Last I checked, Liberalism was closer to a long dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article. It's going to need a lot of rework. Good luck. BTW, have you thought of adding a series template rather than a bunch of "see also"s? -- Jmabel 17:40, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Create the template at Template:Liberalism. Then you can include it by using {{Liberalism}}. Look to pretty much any other series template for an example. -- Jmabel 20:27, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

List of countries / Sealand

Which part of the Montevideo Convention does not apply to Sealand? -- Schnee 21:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

usage of the word "liberalism" in various countries

I'm doing it in Liberalism in countries, which has been a stub and seems a fine place to take up the fact that this word means very different things in different countries. Yes, I agree is also belongs in the individual country articles, and yes I will edit it down, but I think it is important to have one place where people can see an indication of how differently this word is used around the world. If the information is scattered among a dozen or so articles, few readers (as against active participants in the project) will find it. -- Jmabel 18:23, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

merging

When you are in the process of merging pages, and have already moved the content of a page elsewhere, you'd do well to slap an {{inuse}} notice on it so no one adds new material to a page you are getting rid of. -- Jmabel 00:50, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion or text

Why do you prefer Discussion over text in the new texts on Classical liberalism and Political liberalism. Gangulf 06:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because "text" tends to be suggestive of "textbook", whereas "extensive discussion" or "thorough discussion" just means that the topic is covered. -- Jmabel 16:58, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Bastiat

Bastiat was a poorly known philosopher/economist who had little/no effect on the classical liberal tradition. The only people who actually care what Bastiat said are Libertarians who wish to promote the idea that Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism are one and the same thing for political purposes. Inclusion of his name is not necessary and suggests POV. Slizor 22:50, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

South African Liberal Party

According to [1], "The Liberal Party was founded in July 1953". Elf-friend 13:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your "related to liberalism" -tags

Gangulf, the problem with your tags is, that those define no series, they just bring up one link from the text and place it on more visible position, giving no new information. I've seen similar in google, where they are called "text ads". I hope you are not just using those to promote your own political ideas. I don't see, for example, anyone adding "this page is related to marxism" or "this page is related to ba'ath -ideology of Syria and Iraq", which is 100% relevant with, say secularism.

And since articles, least tolerance and secularism say no word of how they are related to liberalism, the relation remains unclear. There are many ideologies that relate to those things, please rather add paragraph explaining things that just give one obtrusive link to one specific political idea. --Mikko Paananen 12:38, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dispute on liberal democracy

With regards to NPOV dispute on the Liberal democracy page I think we should wait a day or two and see if 146.124.141.250 gets bored and then NPOV the page. One can only hope. Barnaby dawson 14:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template:Liberalism_history_France

Template:Liberalism_history_France is kind of a mess. (1) The layout is bad and (2) we don't usually replicate this quantity of information in multiple articles. Would you consider reorganizing it as a normal article, rather than a template, under the title Timeline of liberalism in France? Then the other articles could just reference this with a normal "See also". -- Jmabel 20:30, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

If it's weeks until you'll get to this, I may go at it in your absence. -- Jmabel 21:33, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Liberalism

Pls see Talk:Liberalism, thanks --Lussmu 19:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Angolan election results

Dear Wilfried, I notice at this article you have given all the names of parties in Portuguese. This is an English-language encyclopaedia and I have been trying to establish the principle at election pages that party names should be given in English, and that articles about parties should be titled in English (eg Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola not Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola). I hope you agree with me and will change this article and any other such articles you create. Cheers, Adam 09:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sooner or later I will change all of them, but I don't have time to do it any time soon. If Quebec nationalists etc don't like it they can confine themselves to the French Wikipedia. Adam 09:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with Adam - whilst this is the English Wikipedia, it does not follow that all content be in English without reference to a particular native nomenclature.
It is relevant detail within the English Wikipedia that the names of political parties (and other entities) of a country which does not have English as it's official language are shown in the native language, albeit accompanied obligatorily by the translations into English.
Further where a term derives from a non-English term then it is relevant to include the original term - in its original alphabet, with transcriptions, where appropriate.
This neither detracts from nor undermines the status of the English Wikipedia
Additionally it is of little use to an English-reader who wishes to know the native name of an organisation etc. to have to go to the equivalent page in that native language (if indeed it exists) where the entire text of the article is also in that language.
--JohnArmagh 11:29, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course the name of a party in its official form should be given. But in an English-language encyclopaedia the English form must be given first. To take the example given above, the forms should be 'Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola). The title of the article must be Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, with Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola redirecting to that article. Adam 03:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I am now in agreement with Adam on this point.
--JohnArmagh 05:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not Notable?

Suggest you recheck Google on Berumen...he's all over it as is Do No Evil. More importantly, suggest you read his work.

My primary concerns with the sidebars being added to all articles are:

  • Often, the articles in question are not directly linked from the sidebar itself (this is unavoidable, as there isn't enough room for everything to be added).
  • The sidebar is, as it says, "The Politics of New Zealand series". Many of the articles, however, are not really part of a "series", and have no direct links to each other. For example, the link between Outdoor Recreation New Zealand and 1975 is practically non-existant - they're both topics in New Zealand politics, yes, but aside from that, there's no link. There's no need for the ORNZ article to have a link to the 1975 election. The sidebar is used for key topics that cover New Zealand politics as a whole, not topics that only affect a small part of New Zealand politics.
  • The sidebar is sometimes longer than the article it's added to. This occasionally produces formatting dificulties - for example, Minister of Foreign Affairs (New Zealand) has the sidebar overlapping the table, at least on my system.

That said, I understand your point. Might I suggest that that rather than use the main sidebar, a smaller, more focused one could be used? For example, the one below might go on each election page.

New Zealand elections
1853 | 1855 | 1860 | 1866
1871 | 1875 | 1879 | 1881
1884 | 1887 | 1890 | 1893
1896 | 1899 | 1902 | 1905
1908 | 1911 | 1914 | 1919
1922 | 1925 | 1928 | 1931
1935 | 1935 | 1938 | 1943
1946 | 1949 | 1951 | 1954
1957 | 1960 | 1963 | 1966
1969 | 1972 | 1975 | 1978
1981 | 1984 | 1987 | 1990
1993 | 1996 | 1999 | 2002

Please let me know if you think something like this would help. Thanks. -- Vardion 07:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I've just experimentally added a version of this to the various election pages, in template form. Please take a look and see what you think. -- Vardion 11:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Liberalism

The problem with your "liberalism" tags is that there is no consensus as to what "liberalism" is or which parties are "liberal"? Why is the Liberal Party of Australia not a liberal party? It calls itself one and its members say it is one. But you have decided that it is in fact a conservative party. I might agree with you about that, but it is a subjective judgement. On the other hand you have decided that the Australian Progressive Alliance is a liberal party, despite the fact that it is allied with the Liberal Party and is well to the right of the Australian Democrats. I could make a good case that the Australian Labor Party is a liberal party, despite it being formally a social-democratic party. My view is that there is now no real difference between liberalism and social democracy. Adam 01:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Relating also to the whole liberalism idea, I have some issues with the categorization of Girondist in the liberal parties category. See Talk:Girondist, if you'd like. john k 07:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You seem to have an interest in Template:Liberalism Related, so I wanted to let you know I've listed it on tfd. --Twinxor 08:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

McCain, Liberalism, &c

Why is McCain not a liberal? Because he's not a liberal, perhaps? He wouldn't describe himself as a liberal. American liberals would not describe him as a liberal. He was Barry Goldwater's successor in the Senate. McCain is a conservative. if you want a liberal contemporary republican, put in someone like Lincoln Chafee, say, but I think the whole category is deeply flawed, and inherently POV, especially when you're going back to 19th century figures and earlier. Why not just divide people up based on their political party, which is objective, rather than such a vague notion as "liberalism"? Did you ever check out Talk:Girondist, by the way, which I asked you about the same kind of thing some time ago? john k 22:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In other countries, you generally have liberal political parties. That makes it easier. Liberal leaders in Britain just means leaders of the Liberal Party. In the US it's much, much more difficult. In the 19th century it's virtually meaningless. The Democrats are more populist than the Whigs/Republicans, but it's difficult to say which party is more "liberal" (the Liberal Republicans, I suppose, can justly be called Liberals). In the 20th century, you have the problem that, especially as time goes on, "liberal" Democrats are much to the left of "liberal" Republicans, who gradually cease toexist. That is to say, Jimmy Carter was very much not seen as a "liberal" at the time, even if he was, on some issues at least, to the left of "liberal" Republicans...the very term "liberal" is such a mess that I think it's best to avoid using it, at least when discussing the US. john k 06:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of countries and capitals in native languages

It's good that you're specifying the language in the table, but many of the links head to disambiguation pages. Language articles usually have the word "language" eg German language not German. --Jiang 07:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of liberal leaders

The consensus on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/resolved#Category:Liberal_leaders_in_the_United_States seemed to me to be that all the Liberal Leaders cats should be deleted. (All of the arguments for deleting LL in the US apply equally well to all other countries, and some of the respondants specifically stated that all LL categories should be deleted.) If you think otherwise, I could list all 37 categories under Category:Liberal leaders on cfd, but it would be somewhat labor-intensive, and the outcome would be the same.

By the way, if you sign your posts with ~~~~, it makes it easier for people to see who is asking them questions. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:54, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop removing articles from the LL categories, and I'll list the cats on vfd instead. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 22:16, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Firefox

I just loaded IE and I can see Bengali fine, probably because I downloaded the font in the past; while Firefox might have better support, if you find the font, you can still see it in IE. I just don't think we should recommend browsers in articles, because it means going back and changing these when the best browser changes, and there's the risk of running into a browser war, with different people changing it to Safari, or Konqueror, or Mozilla, or what not. --Golbez 19:47, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Question For You

Hello, I am the author of the Advantages and Disadvantages of the article on presidential systems. I am interested in different forms of democracy. Based on your mini bio, I assume that you are an expert on parliamentary systems (although I know that Democracy 66 favored a separately elected PM for the Netherlands)

My question is this, in continental European parliamentary systems, do prime ministers/chancellors/premiers do question time like they do in Westminister systems? dinopup

Parliamentary system: I do not know the parliamentary traditions in other countries, but in NL the ministers answers questions to parliament. This can be written questions and oral questions. --Gangulf 18:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Liberalism

Venstre Norway and Radikale Venstre Denmark are not refered to as liberal in these countries at least not in the native languages, the party Det Liberale Folkeparti(Liberal People's Party) in Norway that split from Venstre is called liberal though, it bases it politics mainly on objectivist philosophy. Also in these countries the US Republican party is refered to as a economically liberal and socially conservative. Folkpartiet Liberalerna Sweden is refered to as a socialliberal party rather than a liberal party. In general the word liberal is used with a meaning close to what is called libertarian in english, although sometimes it is used to refered only to the social or economic meaning of the word such as in Folkpartiet Liberalerna where it refers to the social meaning of the word but not the economic, but in an economic context liberal refers to classical liberalism.Passw0rd

To inform you. Liberalism in Denmark is divided since 1905. The more progressive liberals formed the Radikale Venstre. The more conservative liberals in Denmark formed Venstre, which is a more classical liberal party. In Denmmark, liberals developped into Folkpartiet, later Folkpartiet Liberalerna, a liberal party that clearly defines itself as a social liberal party. So liberalism in Sweden is not classical liberal. In Norway the liberal current is represented by Venstre, also a social liberal party. The new DLF might be classical liberal, but didn't manage to be represented in parliament. So liberalism in Norway is mainly social liberal. There is a difference between economic liberalism and political liberalism. The US Republican Party is in no way a liberal party in the European sense of the word. Most Europeans would consider it a conservative or even a christian fundamentalist party. --Gangulf 20:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'm talking about how the word liberal is used in normal conversation, if someone speaks about classical liberalism the word liberal will often be used. Liberal can also mean liberal only in the social sense and is often used this way too and sometimes to refer too the politics of Venstre parties, it all depends on the context, but the word liberal is still used as a synonym for classical liberalism in many contexts. Yes the US Republican party is considered a conservative party, but it's economic policies are sometimes considered a liberal(as in supportive of free markets), or more probable, a liberalist party. Liberalist is more often used in the classical liberal sense and liberal more often to mean socially liberal, but there are no clear definitions. The dictionary definition is that liberal either means tolerant/open minded or someone who favors political, economical and religious freedom although in common use it may be used to refer to any one of these in varying degrees. Passw0rd 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your and my websites

Wilfried, you might note that all the country entries at my website now take the form: /countries/a/australia, so many of the links from your website to mine are now dead. Adam 23:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The backlinks to the list are needless given that the list is listed on top of the category (after I fixed that myself a few minutes ago) and that it doesn't provide all that much more information than the category does. There's simply no need to over-link, especially in those articles which are, by and large, stubs. --Joy [shallot] 21:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is the basis of this dislike for categories? I don't get it. (And needless to mention, we shouldn't ignore a perfectly valid and widely accepted categorization scheme because an unknown number of unnamed users have different personal preferences.) --Joy [shallot] 22:00, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but why do these advantages imply that we need both of them in all articles related to a topic? In a page about a political party in some country, the fact that the party is categorized as a political party of that same country is directly pertinent to the topic. On the other hand, the fact that there exists a list of more parties is not directly pertinent. The link is vaguely useful, of course, but it can exist on the category page, it doesn't have to be everywhere. IOW, it doesn't really deserve to be one click away, it can be two clicks away. --Joy [shallot] 22:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, what's so wrong with requiring people to use categories? They're pages pretty much like all others, it won't hurt anyone to click on those links just like it wouldn't hurt them to click on any other link... and giving choice here amounts to crowding pages with what is basically administrivia, while the main content remains short. --Joy [shallot] 10:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How do you mean it's not official? Wikipedia:Categorization? --Joy [shallot] 08:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it would seem to make sense to me that this is implied, that there should be no more redundancy once the categorization is done well. Perhaps we should discuss this elsewhere and see what other people think... Wikipedia:Policy thinktank? --Joy [shallot] 17:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, found it: Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_series_boxes#Linking_to_lists. I just made a note for now, mind if I move the whole thing over there? --Joy [shallot] 18:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eusko Alkartasuna/ Basque Solidarity

Please see Talk:Basque Solidarity. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:36, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me like you now did a cut-and-paste-move & completely messed up the history. Do you know how to repair this yourself, or should I do it? Because now it looks like you wrote the article, which is simply not true. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:20, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Naming organizations

I see that you've embarked on an anglization crusade on the political party titles. However in some cases the new article name just turn out weird. Some examples:

  • Chama Cha Mapinduzi is never refered to as "Revolutionary State Party". Tanzania is a country in which English is widely used, but CCM is always refered to as CCM. If it is a country which is English-speaking or has English as second language, then one ought to go by the name generally used. Similar examples are Naoero Amo,
  • Al Nahda is never refered to as "Renaissance" in English language media. Also, calling it "Renaissance" is somewhat confusing, how to separate the group from Baath? Should Al-Qaeda be moved to "The Base" by a similar logic?
  • Bund Demokratischer Sozialisten: Bund has a special historical meaning in the socialist tradition, but moreover "Alliance" doesn't seem as a correct translation. Similarly you have translated Danish Forbund as "Alliance". "Alliance" referes to a treaty between groups or individuals, whereas a "League" or "Union" is a uch more composite unit.

--Soman 18:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Along those lines, you might want to check out Talk:United States Democratic Party and join the discussion there. I happen to think your naming schema is the best choice, but we ought to work for consensus around a consistent standard. RadicalSubversiv E 21:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't realize your sig is different than your username. As it happens, the "official version" issue becomes slightly complicated with the (major) American parties, because the party and its central organization are not interchangeable in either name or function. (It gets even more complicated with the Greens, where the central organization carries "Party" in its name, but has not existed through most of the party's history.) RadicalSubversiv E 21:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Political parties by name

Category:Political parties by name is through voting at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion and the overwhelming consensus is to delete. We don't want to lose the information, though! Is it sufficient to request that articles be added to your list at User:Wilfried Derksen/Index of political parties before their categories are deleted? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, they can be deleted without any problem. Gangulf 19:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Radical Left (Denmark)

Hello,

In July, you renamed/moved what's currently Radical Left (Denmark). I believe that's an error. The article should either have "Det Radikale Venstre" (official Danish name) or "Danish Social Liberal Party" (official English name) as title. The current "Radical Left (Denmark)" title is a literal translation of the Danish name, but it's very misleading; literal translations are not always the proper way to translate. This was mentioned in the page's talk-section before your page-move. Is there a reason for the "Radical Left (Denmark)" name which I'm not seeing? TroelsArvin 22:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 21:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

"Jordanian" isn't it? Evercat 22:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, "Kosovan", not "Kosovare", at least in English... Evercat 22:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then don't committ vandalism. I'm well aware that there is a strong dutch contingent here with rather narrow views about what constitutess liberalism. It is a pity that tolerance doesn't seem to make your list of liberal values. If you continue to vandalize the list to your POV, I will continue to revert it. Stirling Newberry 21:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agrarianism

I'm sure you've your reasons, but to me it seems a bit strange to group agrarian parties together with liberal parties. I've noted this custom now and then, and have assumed this to be motivated by peculiar conditions on the European continent. Specifically for Finland, where in my opinion Risto Ryti was the last prominent Finnish language Liberal, my psychological equilibrium gets disturbed. The policies of the Finnish Centre Party are less Liberal than those of most other parties (Greens and Communists may be occasional exceptions to this). It represents, for instance, far from liberal positions on matters of Freedom of Expression, and for liberal parties an unusal fondness for state subsidies to projects and industries in hicktowns and distant rural areas. /Tuomas 03:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, de-categorizing your sandbox

I hope you don't mind, but I just converted the 231 category tags in User:Wilfried Derksen/Sandbox into :category tags since that didn't look like it was a "real" article that should have been categorized in those various places. I left the stub tags and their attendant categories because those are meta and so it's not such a big deal if something inappropriate winds up in them, IMO. Bryan 02:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

liberals in Greece

did you miss liberals.gr and libertynet.gr

yes I know there' in greek.

the first site, (liberals.gr) is a site of (temporary not working {they say}) party called Bulls (TAVROI) These guys had 2 represenatives in the greek parliament in 2000 (after a coalition they made with New Democracy Party) in 2004 (the party said: "no money, no honey" :) ), the president of Bulls (as a person himself) decided that it was time he and another famous liberal (of course that's under discussion what means: "some call them neo-conservatives") Andreas Andrianopoulos (andrianopoulos.gr) had an offer from George Papandreou (president of PASOK) of two places that don't need you to get voted to get to the greek parliament. They accepted, so we had the interesting mix of SocialDemocrats and Liberals (mostly known in Greece for 'shock economy').

I think you somehow need to mention them. I 'm not sure if bulls were a member of the european liberals, but Bulls never suceeded in any EU elections.

Yes, liberals cannot find their own home in Greece :), There's some hope with the "new PASOK" george papandreou wants to deliver, but it's too early to say. Keep it up!

Brazilian political parties

>You rewrote the list of political parties in Brazil.
>Did you add any political party in this rewriting?

Just one: the Socialism and Freedom Party. This article already existed, but was lost in a previous edit of the list.

I plan on adding the historical parties from the Portuguese Wiki article in the near future, however.

- Straczynski

Categories

You've got your sandbox in a whole list of categories. I realize that this is because those categories are appropriate to the articles you're working on, but user pages and sub-pages do not belong in categories (except Category:Wikipedians and sub-categories). Would you mind taking out all of those category tags, or else making them into links? -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Politics template

What is the template you're adding to country articles for? It's destroying the summary style. Can you first discuss this at Wikipedia:wikiProject Countries? --Jiang 16:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Intros to "List of political parties in X" articles

Hi, Wilfried. We seem to be in disagreement over whether it's useful to have a definition of "political party" on every list of political parties. I posted a request for comments on the Village pump, together with my opinion. You might want to add your opinion there. Cheers -- uriber 18:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW (I should have said this earlier), kudos for the project itself (listing political parties and elections in countries of the world). I find it important and useful. -- uriber 19:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Electionworld.org

The site lists Max Richards (President of Trinidad and Tobago) as a member of the PNM, when in fact the Presidency in TT is not supposed to be a partisan post, and Max has stated that he is not and has never been a member of the PNM. (Sorry about doing this here, but the "contact" page yielded a 404 error). Guettarda 22:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraq elections

Do you seriously think Wikipedia readers need to be told what an election is? Adam 14:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Canadian federal elections charts

I’d like to get some consensus on what to do about colours in the elections charts, but I don’t want to get into a revert war, so I’m asking people to express their opinions here before any changes are made. Since you have contributed to these pages, I’m inviting your comments. I am initiating this discussion because some of the colours that are currently being used are too dark for some monitors so that it is difficult to read the text. The point of adding colours to the charts is to make it easier for readers to derive information from the charts. This goal is foiled by using colours dark enough to obscure the text. The Wikipedia style guide is clear on the issue:

Use colour sparingly. Computers and browsers vary: you cannot know how much colour is presented on the recipient's machine if any. Wikipedia is international: colours have different meaning in different cultures. Too many colours on one page make them look cluttered and unencyclopedic. Use the colour red only for alerts and warnings.

So let’s choose some colours that are light enough that red Wilkilinked text and blue Wikilinked text are both easy to read through.

Please join the discussion at: Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867. Thanks, Kevintoronto 17:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Former Dutch colonies

I have moved the Former Dutch colonies banner to Dutch Governor of Taiwan for the sake of the overall consistency of the article. I hope you will understand that. I think we shall have a Taiwan under Dutch rule or expand the Dutch Governor of Taiwan in the future, and that would definitely be a better article to permanently place the banner. There is going to be some positive and negative impression left on Taiwan though, which is common for a colonial rule and I hope you won't mind. Also, I wonder if you would happen to know the copyright status of the figure [2] and whether we can upload it to Wiki? Mababa 07:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan and Republic of China

Hello Gangulf. Recently you have cast a vote at WP:RM#Politics of Taiwan → Politics of the ROC. You mentioned you could agree with Elections or Politics in Taiwan (Republic of China). I would like to know if you can also agree on "..of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "..of the ROC (Taiwan)"? — Instantnood 13:43 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Re: Compromise
Thank you. Would you mind putting it as a comment to your votes at Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion? — Instantnood 21:01 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. — Instantnood 12:43 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Hello there. I am recently being listed on RfC. Feel free to comment as you wish to. I regard it as a way out and to have the matter settled. Thanks. — Instantnood 18:37 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

Translation about names, help

Hello, My user name, is Messhermit. Another User:HappyApple is in an endless discussion with another user regarding the name of a Peruvian Institution. User:Viajero is trying to impose it's own point of view regarding the translation of names, espeacily about the "University of Saint Mark". Viajero is also trying to start a RfC (just like he did against me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Messhermit) just becouse we did not agree with his POV. Any ways, he is trying to ban him just becouse he is translating some names. The discussion can be read here. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29 )Please, since you change the name of Political parties of Peru, We will appreciate your help here. Messhermit 05:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We would appreciate very much your help you may help with your opinion in the following link

[[3]] thank you again. HappyApple 05:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Self references

It seems that every political party list you made contains references to wikipedia, counter to the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references rule.

For example, the political party by country articles all have "The general rule on naming applies. That means: the parties are named in the English translation and the original native name is placed on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. Rationale and specifics: See: ]]Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)]]."

I find the link highly inappropriate because it will not make sense for those who would like to copy wikipedia content and use it on other sites. Also, in future published versions such as Wikipedia 1.0, utility pages in the wikipedia pages are unlikely to be included so it would make little sense to refer people there.

In other articles such as List of political parties by ideology, the you've inserted "Ways to browse Wikipedia for political parties are by name of the party, country, ideology or by membership of internationals and through the category system: especially by country and ideology. See also the List of generic names of political parties."

This is again a self-reference and would be inapproriate for people trying to reproduce our content in other contexts. I also think the header "introduction" is not necessary since the lead section is the introduction. Your take? --Jiang 09:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will come back on this issue soon. Gangulf 18:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am ready to accept the move of the naming convention to the discussion page. I am thinking on the browse text. Electionworld 19:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We could try commenting some of the text out using <!--text--> so that it's only visible to editors. --Jiang 05:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, great. I changed the browse text. It will take some time to nowiki the naming convention. Electionworld 20:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of South Africa

Hello, I saw that you recently edited History of South Africa. I'm attempting to completely rewrite the article to deal with the fairly shaky organisation of the current version. I would appreciate all assistance you can offer with edits to my interim version before I post it on the History of South Africa article. The version I am working on can be accessed here. Thank you so much! Páll 09:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of coinage by country

Hello. Just coming to tell you that the list of coinage by country is recently removed from the category:Lists of countries by SchmuckyTheCat, as she/he thought that it is inappropriate to categorised articles in user space. — Instantnood 07:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:Wilfried Derksen/Quick country list was also removed from the categories. — Instantnood 17:45, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Poli-substub

Hi... Just noticed your creation (last November) of poli-substub. There's a general feeling at WikiProject Stub sorting that Category:Substubs shouldn't be divided into subcategories, and it's generally discouraged. The reason is that it means that twice the number of categories have to be sorted by editors to look for items to expand. In general, the substubs should be either expanded slightly and given the full stub subcategory (in this case poli-stub) or dealt with in other ways (vfd or merger). In cases where the article deserves to be kept, simply giving the article the stub subcategory is usually considered ok (since there's often not a lot of difference between a stub and a substub in those cases, and it will put the article somewhere where someone is more likely to expand it anyway). Basically, then, the general idea is no substub subcategories; use the stub subcategories instead. Grutness|hello? 10:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Party names

Just to be clear, I'm not at all against English→Other language redirects; those I have filed for speedy deletion were because they were redirects to non-existent articles. AIUI, this automatically makes them candidates.

(I should also point out that I did make sure, with due diligence, that there wasn't any existent article they could point to. They're being flagged because, in their current state, they are truly useless. In fact, they're quite annoying, since they show up in blue, even though they are broken. That's why we hate 'em.)

I do see your point that they would be useful again once the target article is written. The cynical answer would be: write stubs! :)

If you can't/won't add a stub at the end of such a redirect, I suggest you make a case on the RfD page, asking for a consensus. (I'm not an admin; I can't delete redirects, only flag them.)

I'll skip over other such redirects in the meantime. Fbriere 08:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow! You added stubs not 30 minutes later, and yet, poof! They're not kiddin' when they say speedy deletions...
Please feel free to put up new redirects to your stubs. (list) As for me, if I come upon other such broken redirects, I'll bring them to your attention. Ciao! Fbriere 18:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requests for political party stubs

Here's the list (so far) of missing political party articles which are dangling at the end of a redirect:

Thanks! Here's the last one:

All done! Again, thank you for all your hard work! --Fbriere 22:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Just curious: Did you comment on the location of the Netherlands article but forget to vote, or did you not want to vote for some other reason? —Lowellian (talk) 21:52, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:The Netherlands

You write "Agree with Henrygb to KEEP" on Talk:The Netherlands. Do you mean by this that you wish the article to be moved to Netherlands, or that you wish the article to remain at The Netherlands? You voted in the section favoring the move (which Henrygb also favors) but you use the word "keep", which seems ambiguous. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do NOT repeat same paragraphs in every issue about a topic.

Do NOT define what "political party" is in every single list of political parties there exists in Wikipedia. That's what links are there for, *if* people want to know the definition of political parties, they can click the link.

For that matter, PLEASE DO NOT define what elections are either in every single elections article you can find. That's what links are there for, people CAN head over to the elections article to find info about the concept of elections. You repeating the same information everywhere clutters up the actually relevant and unique bits of information that exist in each article.

Thank you. Aris Katsaris 13:25, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Translations of Maori party names

Both "Mana Maori" and "Mana Motuhake" are quite difficult to translate accurately into English. (The problem is the word "mana", which doesn't have an exact English translation). My best attempt for "Mana Maori" would be "Maori dignity", while my best attempt for "Mana Motuhake" would be "self-government". You might find people who disagree with these translations, but I think they're good enough as a summary. -- Vardion 17:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List ofPolitical Parties in Honduras

Youn really stepped over the line with your mistreatment of the above article. You should not have reverted without taking into consideration the Vfd notice. If you disagreed with the decision your only legitimate course of action was to replace the Vfd notice. Instead of which you read the Vfd page and decided to ignore the consensus there, to not make a comment, and instead to revert. kindly stick to the rules in the future. It is my opinion that in doing what you did you did a bad faith edit, --SqueakBox 01:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • See my reaction on the VfD page. I think we bot stepped over the line. I with reverting and you with deleting after three hours of discussion. Gangulf 06:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was actually CesaraB who proposed and deleted; I just went along with consent. I believe what we did was legitimate according to the rules, because it appeared we had a consensus. Anyway it is back there now. If I had suspected your opposition I would have insisted on leaving the Vfd longer. I think our basic conflict is you are interested in political articles and i am interested in Honduras and countries, so keep an eye on my edits because I may do more Vfd's in other Central American countries, --SqueakBox 13:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • If the decision goes to keep the list of political parties in Honduras of course I won't try it on with another country. What I meant is I am making quite radical reorganisations of countries material, and I could unknowingly tread on your toes again, which I don't wish to do, --SqueakBox 20:06, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think either of you stepped over the line; see Talk:List of political parties in Honduras#What happened for my comments. --cesarb 00:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of political parties in Canada

Wilfried, I can understand adding links to lists of political party links, but I disagree with adding links to individual parties. These links appear (or should appear) within the individual party articles. This article is already more than long enough. Your comments? Kevintoronto 21:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much. By the way, I am a big fan of the work you do here and at your website. Kevintoronto 22:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CEDA

Last year you moved Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas to Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right. I think the translation is misleading - you might want to respond to my comment on the talk page --Henrygb 16:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Chile

Much better. I shall adopt that henceforth, if and when I open up any more of those templates. Thanks. –Hajor 15:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Wilfried. I nominated you for an admin. Just go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wilfried Derksen and indicate your acceptance and answer a few questions. -- Darwinek 17:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adminship Nomination

Hey Wilfred, thanks for the comment. I changed my vote to support. --Lst27 (talk) 23:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have changed my vote to support too. I wish you the best of luck, and am sure you will be a great admin. Rje 01:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
You convinced me too, and I also changed my vote. Good luck. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Australian politics templates

Because I want Template:Politics of Australia to look more like every other "politics of {{Country}}" template. I'm trying to create a series of more specific templates - one for political parties, one for elections, and so on. "Politics of Australia" is linked within the article, of course - Maybe I'll link it in the template, as well. The important information is all easily retrivable from within the article, still. Slac speak up! 10:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Netherlands state

Alright if I add Union of Atrecht, Southern Netherlands and Kingdom of Belgium? Making a new template is pretty redundant for our shared history imo. Phlebas 00:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

I think less than two at this time would be awful. And i don't think it too optimistic to hope that the objective conditions experienced by the new WikiMan [wink] will produce two distinct articles, both of whose retention i would support on VfD.
--Jerzy (t) 21:42, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

List of political parties in the Pitcairn Islands

Hi! We've got another batch of broken redirects at WikiSyntax, and one of them is List of political parties in Pitcairn → List of political parties in the Pitcairn Islands. The latter was apparently deleted, as can be attested by its content at BJAODN. The redirect does seem useful, though. Anu chance you might know something about politics in that region? :) --Fbriere 21:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Fbriere 10:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism's color

I moved for a vote whether to keep the template of Liberalism blue or yellow. Some unknown guy just keeps on making it yellow, and making conservatism blue. Nowadays its the other way around, but i'd prefer if people vote. Your vote is appreciated. --Humble Guy 05:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Swedish Social Democratic Party

I have requested a move of Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden to Swedish Social Democratic Party. Please see the article's discussion page. /Jebur 20:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Political Parties of South Ossetia

Is there any info on the political parties of the presidents of S. Ossetia and Speakers of its parliament? Vital Component-- 4:22 am (est)

Democratic Party (Poland)

Hi Wilfried, I think that an article on the Democrats was overdue, thanks for taking care of that. However, there is a good case for keeping them and the Freedom Union separate - you may want to agree or disagree on the talk page Talk:Democratic Party (Poland). --Thorsten1 15:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kabaka Yekka

Thanks for the added info over at Kabaka Yekka! TreveXtalk 11:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PDPoland

Please have a look at Template talk:PDPoland - something is wrong with the formatting, but I can't quite figure out what. --Thorsten1 19:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the International Federation of Liberal & Radical Youth article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site this statement (or something similar): "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License".

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Teahouse. You can also leave a message on my talk page.

International Federation of Liberal & Radical Youth has been added to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/June 6 as it's a duplication of IFLRY page.

…Guy M… (soapbox) 10:34, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

spelling of đ

The letter đ (d with stroke) is transliterated in titles where it can't exist in its original form due to character set differences. Sometimes it becomes "dj", sometimes "d". But in article content, there is no charset problem, so you can just write it as it is. An English reader is not going to be able to pronounce the term properly one way or the other. --Joy [shallot] 22:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of Ukrainian parties

Hi. Thanks for your work on the list of Ukrainian parties. However, there is a problem with your transliterations, since you use diacritics and "j".

First, your transliterations are not accessible to users who read English, but are not familiar with diacritics. "j" may also be misleading: is it "y" or "dzh"?

Second, native speakers of Ukrainian who transliterate Ukrainian words into English, as a rule, abstain from using diacritics of any form. You can look at [4], which contains many examples of transliterated personal names in the news articles.

I suspect that you use a transliteration system which Romanization of Ukrainian calls "International Scholarly system". The problem with that system is that it has never been widely (if ever) used to transliterate Ukrainian. Current de facto standard is BGN/PCGN (e.g., "sh", "ch", "shch", "ya", "yu", etc.). Could you, please, revert your transliterations into it? Sashazlv 00:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PSDP as Pakistan Social Democratic Party.

Pakistan Social Democratic platform in converted into a political party from June 11, 2005. It was a Platform formed in August 11, 2003, as its membership raised to over sixty at Yahoo! and MSN together. Thank you for your comments. Could you add this party in the List of Political Parties in Pakistan? jamilahmadgondal

Lankan parties

We've been through this before. Please shift back the following Lankan parties to their actual names: LSSP, DJVP, BNP. These parties use the names previously used in the titles, not arbitary English translations (whether 'Samasamaja" is to be translated as 'Equal Society' is open to linguistic discussion) or Tamil version. The choice to use Sinhala or Sinhala dominated ('Party' in LSSPs name is in English) is a conscious one. --Soman 17:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I'm a bit confused about DVJP. It should be moved from National Liberation People's Party to DVJP. But I think Deshiya Jathika Vimukthi Peramuna is not a separate party, but just a mispelling of DVJP's name. Deshiya Jathika Vimukthi Peramuna would mean National National Liberation Front. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Note that DVJP is a small party, and many Lankan journalists might mispell their name at many times. --Soman 17:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)

Hi. I put this article up as a WP:FAC a little a week and a half ago. Although the feedback has been good, only three people have given me feedback, all of which are now "suport" votes. But three votes is rather thin support for a FAC. So I was wondering if you might be interested in supplying some feedback on the article. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago). Thanks. Guettarda 17:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Workers' Party (Brazil)

I added some information for Workers' Party (Brazil). Please, take a look and see if it is ok. Thank you.--Carlosar 6 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Contributer to your electionworld site

Hello. I am Pellaken, and I contribute often to your electionworld site. You once referenced me as Marie Plourde. I e-mail you whenever there's something going on in canadian politics (elections, creation of new parties with seats such as the merged conservatives or the canadian alliance) I just wanted to say hi, and to let you know that I plan on continuing to contribute, and that I'm happy to see you here at wikipedia! BTW - those tables that you see in all the canadian election pages here, the ones with the seats and pop vote and colours? I created those :) if anyone does not beleive me they can search for it, and you'll see I did the first one.

German Centre Party

Hallo! You created the article "German Centre Party". Thanks for your effort, but there already exists an article called Centre Party (Germany). I redirect your page to the existing one and posted the stub contents into the talk page. Str1977 21:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An ugly series of edits you may want to look at

Have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Liberalism. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Subnational entities or dependent territories

Hello Wilfried as for your recent edits to the list of dependent territories and joining at discussions of its talk page, I'd like to know if you'd be interested to join the discussion at talk:lists of office-holders#Which version to be displayed, over if Hong Kong and Macao should be presented under the PRC under the section for modern entities, or under the section for modern subnational entities. :-) — Instantnood 17:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I do hope you can help mediate the months-long disagreement between user:Huaiwei and I. — Instantnood 08:09, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Are you the same?

Hi, Are you the same Benne who had for some years a website on political parties around the world? - Electionworld 07:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,
Yes I am. But that's been quite a while, some 8 years ago, I guess. I just didn't have the time to keep the website up to date. Some pages are still online, I recently noticed.
The advantage of Wikipedia is that I won't have to take care of all the maintenance, and just throw in some effort when I have time for it and when I feel like it.
I guess you noticed my editing of the Azerbaijani pages. I can't speak Azerbaijani, but have been learning Turkish over the past few years, and with a little effort, I can read the Azeri websites. Let me know if I can be of any help. (Dat mag natuurlijk ook in het Nederlands.) Benne 09:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Waar ik met name mee bezig ben is het opzetten van een door iedereen bewerkbare database over verkiezingen en politieke partijen. Op den duur wil ik dan met mijn huidige website [www.electionworld.org] stoppen. Azerbeidzjan is geen bijzonder doel van mijn wikiwerk, maar past bij het overbrengen van informatie over partijen. Groet, Electionworld 10:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't database driven, is it? It would make maintaining information much easier. For instance, I noticed that you applied my edits on the Azeri pages to the overall list of political parties. This would not have been necessary if the information had been stored in a database.
Are you aware of initiatives in this regard? Benne 15:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While it's great to see all these political parties getting articles, it'd be also nice if they had proper grammar. There's a ton of articles like Transparency (Guatemala) which you've created but don't even have the months capitalised. It'd be nice if you could be a little more careful in future. Ambi 13:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. :) Ambi 00:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Party names in Hong Kong and Macau

I've been adding romanisation of the Chinese names bit by bit to Hong Kong and Macao-related articles. Since Hong Kong is officially bilingual, the English names of the parties are official names. I'm not sure if parties in Macao would prefer being identified in English by their Portuguese names (Portuguese is official in Macao), or by English translations. — Instantnood 21:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

In fact in Hong Kong and Macau the most spoken Chinese language is Cantonese. I'll add the romanisations of both Cantonese and Mandarin. — Instantnood 07:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
No problem. :-D — Instantnood 17:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria redirect

Why did you changed this? [5]

redirectTransnistria -> redirect Pridnestrovie

bogdan | Talk 11:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move Transnistria to Pridnestrovie, it's definitely not a good idea. There are 249,000 google hits for "Transnistria" vs. 600 for "Pridnestrovie". It's obvious that Transnistria is the most common form in English. bogdan | Talk 11:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mediation

Thanks so much. Did you watch the edit history of the article, and the long discussions at the talk page (#1, #2)?  :-D — Instantnood 07:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

For the first question, frankly, don't know, but IMO this mediation would likely be starting around which version to be displayed, while keeping the twoversions tag. An eventual resolution will be a much longer way to go. For the second question, my opinion is that Hong Kong and Macao are not ordinary subnational entities, which Huaiwei insisted. Before Huaiwei's edit Hong Kong and Macao were under the #Asia section, standalone. While I undid Huaiwei's edit to move them to the #Subnational entities section, I moved them back to the #Asia section, but under the PRC entry. I also kept a pointer at the #Subnational entities section to acknowledge the fact that Hong Kong and Macao are considered by some as subnational entities. — Instantnood 17:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian parties

Hi there. I see you have massively increased the coverage of the Syrian parties on Wikipedia. Nice work.

I have made some edits to some of the articles (esp. re the NPF) and rewritten the SCP article (I also moved it back to the original name, which is the correct one). It is simplistic to say that the NPF parties are "government-controlled": they are certainly subject to restrictions but the SCP factions in particular are not shy of speaking their mind where this is possible. I have tried to reflect this in the articles. Also, the NPF is established since 1972 and most (actually I think all) of the member parties are either members of it since then or have split off from other member parties. As for election results, off the top of my head I think there are 11 seats in parliament for the non-Ba'th parties in the NPF, but I'm not sure about that.

Do you have sources for your material, by the way? I'm aware that I haven;t provided any either, I'm simply curious to know where there is info about Syrian political parties readily available. Palmiro | Talk 23:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in France

I note that you have used the phrase "(semi-)colonial" when adding this section. "Colony" is a very loaded word, which generally implies an absence of political representation of the locals at the national level and/or unequal political rights locally, neither of which apply. The use of such words is thus highly POV. David.Monniaux 07:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of second version despite 2V protection

Despite the explicit request in the template, you deleted a second version of a disputed article, so that the second version is no longer visible on either link in the template. Since dispute resolution procedures suggest an initial appraoch to the other party, I request you to reverse this deletion, and not to do it again. You can reply via the Liberalism talk page.Ruzmanci 18:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

let's see if we cannot work together to find a compromise

I think we both agree that Raz is way out on a limb without support, though his image of hundreds of George Bush paid employees rewriting the Bush article in wiki is a frightening one. I hope that you can I can work together on a compromise.

I will carefully reread your introduction again, but my first impressing was that

A) it too strongly stressed economic freedom over against individual freedom B) it too strongly stressed modern European liberalism over against other liberal movements in history and around the world. I'm sure you know much more about world liberalism than I, but you may be too close to your particular brand of liberalism to be objective.

But, as I said, let me read it again, and perhaps I'll come around. After I read it, I'll comment on the Libralism Talk page. Rick Norwood 23:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Electionworld&oldid=24272162"