Talk:Social Democratic Party of Croatia

Fair use rationale for Image:Sdp-logo.gif

Image:Sdp-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sdp-logo.gif

Image:Sdp-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Regarding this edit by DIREKTOR - the infobox doesn't really need to state that the party has sections for pensioners, women, students and youth, especially since none of them have a separate article. It also does not need to mention its spokesperson since Ivana Grljak is barely notable even for Croatian standards. Also, while the party stems from the former SKH, it is regarded as being founded in 1990 and is for that reason still in the Category:Political parties established in 1990, and the League of Communists of Croatia article states SKH was founded in 1937 and dissolved in 1990. Timbouctou (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not for you to pass judgement on. The infobox has those parameters, and they were filled out. Please do not edit-war. As for the SKH thing, nobody disputes that this party was founded in 1990 in its current organization, but I see no harm whatsoever in mentioning when the institution was originally founded. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I expected you to play the "infobox has those parameters so they must be filled out" card. No they don't have to be filled out, especially when nothing valuable is added to the article by it. And that is a judgment editors are allowed to make. Also, {{Infobox political party}} does not contain parameters for students', pensioners' and women's wings (only the youth wing param is standardized but SDP's youth wing doesn't have its own article either). The same goes for "Predecessor" parameter which you seem to have invented all by yourself. As for the foundation date - why do we need two? Is there any source stating that SDP was founded in 1937? Timbouctou (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not get to remove infobox parameters simply because you yourself judge "they add nothing valuable to the article". This is not a factual dispute. You either achieve consensus for your changes, or you stop edit-warring in the article. That is basic Wikiquette that you still do not seem to acknowledge. Now, I say again, you have a long history of this sort of edit-war instigating and I will be filing a report should you revert once more. And do not think you can WP:GAME THE SYSTEM by misusing WP:3RR.

Tim, you cannot push your personal opinions by edit-warring. Discuss. I refuse to have a conversation while you're trying to do so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Stop patronizing me. 2. Do you have any scintilla of something even remotely resembling an argument for keeping a bunch of pointless information in the infobox or do you think your random rants will suffice? 3. You accusing someone of a "long history" of edit-warring is truly laughable. Your block log probably looks like Al Capone's rap sheet :-) 4. Please report whatever you feel needs reporting here. Please do it now if you think you have anything other than rants to offer to a interested audience. 5. You reverted my edits first, before even attempting to raise the subject here (notice who started this fucking thread). 6. You offered no argument whatsoever. 7. You offered no argument whatsoever. 8. You offered no argument whatsoever. 9. You offered no argument whatsoever. 10. You offered no argument whatsoever. Timbouctou (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So what now? You won your edit-war and the issue is settled? I'll ask you again: why should anyone have to justify keeping accurate, related information in articles with you? This is a free encyclopedia, where you should not try to impose our own subjective opinions on others. Around here, Timbaktu, if information is (#1) related and (#2) accurate, everyone is free to add it and you have no right to remove it.
I am not going away :). I will report this and keep reporting it until people get the picture about what you're doing here. Bullying will get you nowhere, not with me, I'll take this all the way. So I suggest reasoning and compromise, and a quick and easy resolution.

Reading through your latest edits I am starting to think this whole thing you started may have a lot to do with the upcoming 2011 parliamentary elections in Croatia. (Uninformed editors, be advised this party is the second-strongest party in Croatia, and is the main opposition in the upcoming elections.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"I'll ask you again: why should anyone have to justify keeping accurate, related information in articles with you? This is a free encyclopedia, where you should not try to impose our own subjective opinions on others. Around here, Timbaktu, if information is (#1) related and (#2) accurate, everyone is free to add it and you have no right to remove it."

It seems you missed the part that everything here has to be notable and referenced. Party chairman's shoe size could be described as "related and accurate" and it would still be meaningless on Wikipedia. Oh btw, that "consensus" you keep bringing up that I've supposedly broken - where and when was it achieved? Also, if "everyone is free to add it" than everyone should be able to remove it. Ever heard of WP:BRD?

"I will report this and keep reporting it until people get the picture about what you're doing here. Bullying will get you nowhere, not with me, I'll take this all the way."

I'm not going away either. Your entire editing career consists of WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT and I sincerely hope that I will have lots of opportunities to describe your bullying ways to a wider audience. You misinterpret Wikipedia guidelines, you've bullied and driven away dozens of good faith editors and you've been doing it for years. I have yet to see a single article you actually improved in all the years you've spent here. Feel free to prove me wrong if you think you can.

"So I suggest reasoning and compromise, and a quick and easy resolution."

Which would be what? Me accepting any piece of unreferenced and marginal information you just happen to think is important?

"Reading through your latest edits I am starting to think this whole thing you started may have a lot to do with the upcoming 2011 parliamentary elections in Croatia."

What I "started" was the removal of irrelevant information. This particular information would be deemed irrelevant in any political party article on Wikipedia. What you argued for and edit-warred over was (among other things) inserting misleading information that the party was founded in 1937, which is contrary to both WP:OR and WP:V. What I proceeded to do following my 72 hour block was what I was trying to do earlier - that is, improve the article (contrary to your drive-by edit-warring). What you are "starting to think" is not my concern. Is there a specific piece of information you object? Timbouctou (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You're the one missing the point (deliberately). For the fifth time: who appointed you Grand Arbiter of Relevancy. I am (quite obviously) not referring to any past consensus, I am referring to your removal of information that is opposed and without consensus. You just keep posting "declarations" here. "Declaring" me and my editing to be this or that, "declaring" this or that information to be irrelevant - simply because you happen to think so :). You've got to admit, it takes a considerable amount of.. shall we say "self-confidence", to act like that.

Since you keep posting your (psychologically revealing) attempts to get to me, I feel I have to point out I could not care less what you think of me and my editing :). A user that keeps comfortably away from the difficult issues, and just makes petty issues difficult (as is beautifully evidenced here), should not be the one to point fingers at those who go around working on solving the real problems of these articles. It also strikes me as interesting that you, of all people, the person who thinks his opinion should overrule that of others by default, should happen to lecture anyone at all on "manners". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)