User talk:RJFF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive

Chatichai Choonhavan[edit]


Template:Costa Rican presidential election, 2014[edit]

Thanks for making the Template:Costa Rican presidential election, 2014. I filled it in with the percentages and number of votes. Great job!! Mvblair (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sonny1998 = Mafia1960 ?[edit]

Hi, I guess we ran into the same person see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonny1998. If you have anything to add that might have happened recently in relation to these users, please do not hesitate to add at SPI. Thanks. - DonCalo (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yingluck Shinawatra may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

List of libertarian political parties[edit]

Can you explain why you removed Libertarian Movement (Costa Rica) from the List of libertarian political parties? The heading to the list says, Although these parties may describe themselves as "libertarian," their ideologies differ considerably and not all of them support all elements of the libertarian agenda. Thus, regardless of whether any particular person considers them to be libertarian, they ought to be listed if nothing else because their name says they are libertarian. Their specific political position can be described in the notes column to the table. In addition, the party is described as libertarian by such sources as Reason.com and the Independent Institute. If you have sources that say that Libertarian Movement (Costa Rica), you can cite those as well in the notes column of the table, but even so that doesn't mean that the party should be kept off the list entirely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have answered you at Talk:List of libertarian political parties#Costa Rican ML. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

German pirates in EU parliament[edit]

Dear RJFF, thank you for your excellent contributions to listing correct results of the 2014 EU parliament elections. In a recent bulk edit, you moved the German pirate party to the Greens-EFA group column. Even though the Swedish pirates were sitting in that group since 2009, this bears no relevance to the German pirates, whose newly-elected MEP Julia Reda hasn't professed any affiliation yet.[1] Besides, both Swedish pirate MEPs just lost their seats. I had pointed out this error earlier, and I still don't see any relevant announcement, so I moved Piraten back to the New parties column for Germany. If they ever announce a group affiliation, this fact should be sourced and noted in the Group reshuffling section. Hope this helps clear any misunderstanding. — JFG talk 05:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Number of local councillors for Spanish political parties[edit]

I'm going to restore the party strength in local government figure that you recently removed. While you're right that that is impossible to keep up to date, that's the type of valuable info that should be in an infobox to give people a quick overview. The better solution is to treat it exactly like party membership figures, by noting when the figure is relevant for. Valenciano (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Janusz Korwin Mikke[edit]

Hi, you typed "wikilinks that are not in line with text should be avoided) (undo)", and removed link to the intelligence. Could you explain what you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JegoKrulewskaMosc (talkcontribs) 07:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC) --JegoKrulewskaMosc (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@JegoKrulewskaMosc: I have not removed a link to intelligence, but to intelligence quotient. Intelligence quotient is not mentioned in the text. The text says "women are generally less intelligent", not "Woman generally have a lower IQ."--RJFF (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

European parties and national legislatures[edit]

You wrote: "AECR is not represented in national parliaments. It only exists on a European level."[1] The same could be said of PES and EPP, yet the infoboxes in those articles do include figures for representation in national legislatures. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaakko Sivonen: Then please delete them. --RJFF (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather keep them on all European party articles (not just some). --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaakko Sivonen: But the point of Europarties is that they only exist on a European level. It is original research (to say the least) to say that a certain Europarty had x seats in national parliaments. In fact they have no seats in national parliaments at all, their member parties have. I doubt that, say every PiS lawmaker in the Polish parliament would consider himself an AECR representative. (If they are not interested in European politics they may not even know that they are an indirect AECR member. Many people, even national-level politicians, are not familiar with Europarties.) --RJFF (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's clear to readers that the representation in national legislatures means in this context that the member parties of the Europarty are represented with x seats. In any case, the practice should be consistent with all Europarties. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaakko Sivonen: Done. For Europarties the Template:infobox European political party is more appropriate anyway, which does not have parameters for nos. of seats at all. --RJFF (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox improvement, "Leaders", Spitzenkandidaten & editing[edit]

First thing, if we are to develop an infobox for EP elections, I thought I might run some ideas by you first, perhaps hash out a rough consensus between the two of us. I was thinking that we could see:

  • instead of the header being First Party, Second Party, etc. we replace with First Group, Second Group
  • the Party line be eliminated or renamed Main Party and dropped below Alliance (which should be changed to Parliamentary Group)
  • keep Seats won but use it for pre-existing EP group parties; i.e. won on election night, prior to realignments. Maybe rename something like Elected seats
  • add Realignment for net changes on realignment
  • add line Total seats for the number as of the beginning of the new Parliament.
    • So, the overall pattern would go: leader/parliamentary group/main party/last election/seats won/realignment/total seats/seat change/percentage/swing

I hope that makes some sense to you. Anything you'd like to see? Do you want the main party line?

Secondly, I'd like to make the case that the current infobox shouldn't attract deference. Firstly, I did state reasons prior to editing on the talk page, and edited it a day later, having received no adverse comment. The initial revert wasn't done according to consensus, as two others had indicated approval of the change at that time. Moreover, the infobox with the Spitzenkandidaten represents a major shift from past practice in EP parliament articles. If anything, that's the status quo that should require consensus to change. I'm not arguing that the infobox should be changed on that basis alone, but that I can't see why the current situation should attract deference or the protection of requiring consensus to change it.

Thirdly, I've been a little frustrated that while some editors have replied with an initial objection, none save yourself have interacted with the critiques Jaako and I have made of their rationales. It's difficult to build consensus around political topics in general, but it's pretty impossible if editors don't engage in a dialogue. Any suggestions?

Lastly, any chance you're coming around to preferring the change to the infobox yourself? I hope the changes to the infobox template I proposed above allay some of your concerns. I also think we ought to have a table to summarise the results by Europarty, so that would at least present that information within the article as a whole. Thanks, Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gabrielthursday: Sorry for answering late. I have replied at Talk:European Parliament election, 2014. I principally agree with your proposals. I am afraid that I won't find the time to realise the template myself. In my opinion, the box should not identify a "main party". G-EFA and EUL-NGLA are confederal groups - EGP resp. EL are not the "main parties". In EFDD there is not even a main (European) party. Neither of the major MEP contributors (UKIP and M5S) is in MELD (which will perhaps collapse anyway after LN, DF and Finns defected and other member parties are weakened). Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European People's Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centre for European Studies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Antiklinala, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Talking about this [2]. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion?[edit]

Hi! Your reasoning in Talk:Middle Italy (political party) was very interesting. I would to alert you this discussion to also have your opinion: Talk:Sgarbi Liberals. In this case the original name "Liberal Sgarbi" is translated into "Sgarbi Liberals", but I am not convinced that this translation is correct. In effect, for me, "Liberal Sgarbi" could be an italian word game. I am not really very interested to this little party, however, I think that the original name is preferable if there is a doubt about the correct translation. What do you think?--Maremmano (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Maremmano: My opinion that if there is no English-language source using an English translation of the name of any organisation the original name in the local language should be used, applies to every article, and is based on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline and the core principles of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. However, I have never heard of and am not at all interested in this party. --RJFF (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It is only a little italian party. I am not too interested in this page, but I think that the translation could be wrong and I can't move the page without consensus, also if the conventions are very clear...--Maremmano (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting complete[edit]

@RGloucester: Thanks a lot! I had to make some contentual corrections (probably based on misunderstandings, e.g. only Dollfuss was assassinated, Schuschnigg wasn't.) Moreover, I have noticed that you did not just do copy-editing in a strict sense, but also added some contentual information. While I am convinced that the added material is both correct and suitable, it would be great if you could add corresponding references, as these pieces of information are not supported by the references in the original article. Thanks again, and kind regards. —RJFF (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to do that. Some parts felt a bit bare, such as the "German-Austria" bit, so I thought I'd toss few extra details in. RGloucester 15:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: Perfect! --RJFF (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • from President Habyarimana's home region of Northern Rwanda. The party was founded in 1975 as the ). The elite group of MRND party members who were known to have influence on the President and [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I just would like to say thank you for reverting unreasonable reverts of my edits. I am not an active wikipedian, so your help is greatly appreciated. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Labour Party ideology[edit]

Four of the five people who've commented are supportive of the change, and it's been open a week. I think the discussion has more or less run its course, and has been as productive as its going to be. I feel like it's beginning to go in circles. Do you think there's consensus for the change, or do think it should wait until more people have had the chance to comment? --4idaho (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@4idaho: I share your observation that we are arguing in a circle. I have thought about a request for comment (RfC) to get some input from so far uninvolved users. I would not yet say that there is consensus for the change, even if the opposition mainly comes from a single user who seems not to be convinced at all. I have always been against determining "consensus" by counting !votes. --RJFF (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I'd say go ahead and request for comment then. I don't think we're getting anywhere as it is. Thanks. --4idaho (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

ECR[edit]

While I agree that the ECR article is not the correct place for detailed analysis on the Finns Party or any other individual member party, sources related to that discussion do become relevant when another user (Jeppiz) seeks to use the party as an example of "far-right" elements within the ECR. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jaakko Sivonen: This is an inherent problem of a Wiki: Someone writes something, someone else disagrees, if he cannot convince the other to delete it, he writes something to counter and then the article becomes cluttered with unrelated or secondary details like "According to A, X is Y, however according to B, X is not Y but rather Z etc. etc." Like this, articles lose their focus and conciseness. This would not happen in an encyclopedia with a professional editorial board. The opinions and disagreements of Wikipedians should not become the centre of work on articles. The article should only reflect what sources say on this very subject (i.e. ECR), not collect and arrange statements from sources on subjects that may be somehow related to the article's subject (which would be WP:Synthesis). In my view, the whole conflict around the ECR article's lead is totally fruitless and a waste of time (therefore I have not participated). Perhaps everyone involved should take one step back, wait some time and then reflect if this disagreement still seems important. At least you (not you personally, but all involved users) should not make edits to the controversial section as long as the RfC is still going on. --RJFF (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jaakko Sivonen: Anyway, we do not need these references that are solely about "The Finns", as we have the Cas Mudde reference (footnote 17) that more generally speaks of borderline cases that are considered far-right by some scholars and not far-right by others. This is totally sufficient, don't you think? --RJFF (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heimwehr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyrol. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about Kach etc.[edit]

Hello RJFF. I saw that you removed my part about Kach in the neo-fascism article, that's ok but I would like to know WHY it's NOT a fascist organization according to you. What aspects of the description of fascism in the article 'fascism' do not apply to Kach? According to Ehud Sprinzak Kach and Meir Kahane was in fact quasi-fascism: http://members.tripod.com/alabasters_archive/kach_and_kahane.html.

I recently read a newspaper article about an Israeli peace activist, he said that there are extremist right-wing Israelis wearing the same black t-shirts as neo-nazis and right-extremists in Europe reading: 'left side, good night'. I think this shows how there are facist elements in Israeli society with a significant influence on the politics of the country which is right-wing, I think that Kach is a very good representation of this. Bokareis (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bokareis: I do not know if it is fascist or not. But Wikipedia has the principle of WP:verifiability, meaning that every (non-trivial) piece of information has to be verifiable with reliable sources. It is not up to users to decide if a certain movement can be classified as fascist, because we think that it fits the definition of fascism (which is quite inconsistent and contentious, in fact there are many different definitions of fascism). We have to stick to what scholars who have done research about Kach say (WP:No original research). Do they describe it as a fascist movement or not? Not being an expert in this field, I cannot answer this. But according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the onus to provide references of verification is on the users who wants to include a certain statement or piece of information. If they cannot provide it, the material will be removed. Please also consider that while the terms "right-wing extremism" and "fascism" may have a significant overlap, they are not totally synonymous. Not every right-wing extremist movement is necessarily fascist. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Bolivian results[edit]

Hi RJFF. I've reverted your addition to the results table of the Bolivian elections - the figures you added were from an exit poll, and not actual results. Cheers, Number 57 20:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

TB[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, RJFF. You have new messages at Talk:Strong_Ukraine#Pro-Russian.3F_Really.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Tunisian Constituent Assembly election, 2011[edit]

Hi RJFF. Could you tell me where there is a long-standing consensus regarding the number of parties in the infobox? I don't understand your reason for reverting. Thanks, Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: There was no express consensus as the result of a talk page discussion, but I would say there was "silent" consensus insofar that this version was kept for a long time without opposition. I think it is arbitrary to include these 9 parties just because the technical limit of the infobox template is nine parties. In my opinion it is much more reasonable to have the limit of inclusion after PDP, because there is a great difference between PDP which I would consider a major or medium party with 16 seats (7.4 % of all seats) and Almoudabara or PDM that are minor parties with 5 seats (2.3 % of all seats). There is not such a big difference between PCOT with 3 and MP or MDS with 2 seats each, so having the limit of inclusion there seems more arbitrary to me. No one forces us to include six or nine parties, just because the infobox template displays three parties in a row. In this case it seems more natural to me to include the five major and medium-sized parties that are many times bigger than all of the minor ones (e.g. PDP had three times as many seats as Moudabara or PDM, while PCOT had just one seat more than MP or MDS). Do you see my point? --RJFF (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose moving Call of Tunisia to Nidaa Tounes[edit]

see Talk:Call of Tunisia. --PanchoS (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Third Way article 1st reference[edit]

Hello! I have just examined the very first reference in the mentioned article. Firstly, it has only one author, the other is the translator into English. Secondly, the single author, Norberto Bobbio is a socialist, so one could ask if his work is objective? The definition of third way seems to be extremly narrow in the article, knowing that even Hitler used the term. However, i think we can handle it together with rightist third position, as a pair, so there might be no need for modification at all :/ Tamás http://cnqzu.com/library/Politics/Bobbio-Norberto-Left-and-Right-Significance-Political-Distinction.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.72.132 (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Finnish Political Parties[edit]

Excuse me, but there's NO WAY that The Swedish People's Party of Finland is a centrist party. It's at least centre-right or even right-wing, and as a Finn I know this. You deleted my edit where I claimed the party to be cente-rightist, because there were no sources, but there isn't neither sources in the article for the party to be centrist. And then The Finns Party-article, where the party's political position isn't announced. I edited the article by writing the party's position to be centre to centre-right, 'cause party leader Timo Soini says the party to be centrist, but there are also party members such as Simon Elo and Jussi Halla-aho who are clearly right-wing politicians. So I ask you, why would you delete the editions? --Tohtori Koira (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Tohtori Koira:
Wikipedia is based on the principle of WP:Verifiability. Arguments like "as a Finn I know this" are not accepted here. For every edit of content, you have to refer to a reliable, published source backing your change to allow other users to verify it. In this case this means that you would have to cite a book or scholarly article that describes this party as centre-right or right-wing. WP:Original research done by users is not accepted in this project, no matter how experienced or knowledgeable they may be. This is our policy which has been agreed upon by a broad consensus among users. This does not mean that I disagree with the content of your edit. You may be right, I can simply not assess this, as I – unlike you – am not a Finn and have only little knowledge of Finnish politics. But the onus is on you to make your edit verifiable for me and other users. You are invited to redo your edit if you can cite a published source (satisfying our standards of reliability), otherwise the status quo (which is based on Christina Bergqvist (1999). Equal Democracies? Gender and Politics in the Nordic Countries. p. 319. ) will be maintained. Thanks for your understanding. Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Emigrants to/expatriates in Thailand[edit]

I completely understand your point in changing these. The fact is that categories are a blunt instrument and the manner in which they are nested is not always meant to express 100% logical truth in all cases. There has been a consensus to categorize the "FOOian emigrants to BAR" and the "FOOian expatriates in BAR" categories as subcategories of "BARian people of FOOian descent" in all cases. This is not meant to communicate that all FOOians in this situation became or are BARians, it's simply a nesting for convenience and to recognize that emigrants to BAR and expatriates in BAR should be accessible through easy navigation of the "BARian people" category tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi Accord Front[edit]

Hello colleague. Just to avoid misunderstandings: did your request 'citation needed' in this edit, May 2014, refer to IAF being Islamist — as I assumed yesterday, while editing it — or also to its being Sunni? --Corriebertus (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Pegida or PEGIDA?[edit]

I wasn't convinced that "Pegida" is more common than "PEGIDA". Therefore, it was moved back. You can request a move. --George Ho (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)