User talk:Autospark

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

Dominionism[edit]

Hi, please read Dominionism. The SGP is that and theocracy is a word to describe a rule by the church, or by a religious authority like the Vatican or Iran. The SGP advocates Dominionism. The sources use the word "theocracy" but in context of Dominionism and not in the way Wikipedia says theocracy and not in the way political scientists say theocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.33.82 (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello there. I realise that your edit may be in good faith, but I am trying to represent the referenced sources accurately, which say "theocracy" or "theocratic", without any reference to dominionism. Perhaps you could list dominionism separately in the Infobox, preferably with sources?--Autospark (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
If you are trying to represent the sources accurately, then represent them in the way that accurately reflects the meaning. Look up the definition of theocracy and look up dominionism and tell me which one better fits the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.33.82 (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The sources say "theocratic" or "theocracy", not Dominionism.--Autospark (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Very relevant. Different meanings behind the same word are often used in the dictionary and it is good to properly represent them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.33.82 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Social liberal policies[edit]

Thank you for your "thank you" and your recent improvements to many articles that I saw. You seem knowledgable of the subject matter and I was hoping to ask a question. Currently in the infobox for Labor Party (Israel), the party's ideology includes "social democracy" (with which it identifies) as well as Third Way. I have not been able to find a source verifying the latter ideology explicitly. I have, however, found the recently added source that indicates the party's socialism has evolved into "a political program that supports a capitalist economy with strong social welfare programs." Would this mean Third Way or social liberalism? Also, I found this source, that says, "While it retains membership in the Socialist International, it has a social liberal platform." What are your thoughts? --Precision123 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't categorise the Israeli Labour Party as social-liberal, to be honest. While Third Way type social democracy and social liberalism are very alike and overlap, the Israeli Labour Party's history is that of a social-democratic party rather than a liberal party, as are its international affiliations.--Autospark (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

UK Independence Party[edit]

Please see the discussion at Talk:UK Independence Party#Request for comment about whether academic sources describing the UK Independence Party as far-right are reliable. LordFixit (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Autonomy Liberty Participation Ecology[edit]

Why you have moved Autonomy Freedom Participation Ecology to Autonomy Liberty Participation Ecology? Consensus or not consensus Freedom is is a more appropriate term than Liberty!--Maremmano (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think? I think it's not and, anyway, before moving established articles, you should bring the issue to talks. --Checco (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you not reply? Alle the parties with the term "Libertà" have been translated with the term "Freedom" (PdL, SEL etc.). Why this case should be an exception?--Maremmano (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The French word Liberté translates into Liberty accurately enough, there is no consensus to change the article names, which itself would disrupt Wikipedia (many redirects, etc), and I see no pressing need to rename the articles at this time. If Autonomy Freedom Participation Ecology and Autonomy Freedom Democracy are or become widely-used English language translations of the organisation names in third-party sources then there would be a argument that we should alter the article names on Wikipedia, but that would require agreed consensus first.--Autospark (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The french word "Liberté" also translates into "Libertà" and this word has always been translated into "Freedom". This is a question of consistency, some parties are named with Liberty and others parties are named with Freedom! If a page of a party is created with a name, this name becomes immovable?--Maremmano (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't participate in the discussion I'll can remove te pages--Maremmano (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I've concluded what I have to say - and have no more on the subject - altering names of articles should not be done unilaterally without consensus.--Autospark (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference that cites Wikipedia as a source.[edit]

Hello Autospark,

I have seen that you have cited this page (Jeff Haynes; Anja Hennig (3 July 2013). Religious Actors in the Public Sphere: Means, Objectives, and Effects. Routledge. pp. 17–. ISBN 978-1-136-66171-6. ) in several articles. However it is problematic, because it cites Wikipedia as its source! For understandable reasons, sources that use Wikipedia as a source are not considered reliable. Otherwise we could directly cite Wikipedia articles as a source, as well. In my opinion, it would be best to remove these references. Do you agree?

Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I really hadn't noticed… Best remove it then for sake of accuracy.--Autospark (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I have a question about your citation style: You often write "pp. xx–" (i.e. "page xx and the following pages") instead of just "p. xx" (i.e. "only at page xx") when the statement you are referring to is actually only on one page. If I read "pp. xx–", I expect to find further relevant information on the following pages, but sometimes there is not any. I wonder if this is an accident, or if I just read your abbreviations incorrectly? --RJFF (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No answer? --RJFF (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Please compare Template:Cite book: use "page" if the number of a single page in the source that supports the content, use "pages" if a range of pages in the source that supports the content. Thank you. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply RJFF! Thanks for the tip. I admit that I use the auto-citation tool a bit too heavily.--Autospark (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand. No offense! --RJFF (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
None taken!--Autospark (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

SI expulsions?[edit]

Hi. What's the reference for the various expulsions from SI? --Soman (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I notice you have edited a number of articles with edit summaries indicating that these parties have been expelled from the Socialist International. I have been unable to find a source for this (but I am not doubting the accuracy of your edits). What is the source of your information? These parties will need to be moved to the former members section of Socialist International with a suitable reference.-gadfium 21:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply Soman and gadfium. To be exact and honest, there is no exact reference for the expulsions, other than the removal of those parties from the listing on the SI membership page, which is why I have not explicitly written in those article texts "party x was expelled from SI", and so on, merely amended their international affiliation from the relevant infoboxes. If you look at the minutes from the December 2014 SI Council, you will notice the sentance: "Following the decision of the previous Council to enforce the statutes in regard to non-payment of membership fees, he presented the list of parties and organisations that would cease to be members of the SI with immediate effect, having not paid their fees for three or more years. The decisions were adopted unanimously". The SI website does not list the expelled parties, and almost certainly never will mention them, but you can judge from the recently amended official SI membership list whom those parties are (most were parties who were demoted to Observer status a couple of years ago, if you compare earlier versions of the webpage at archive.org).--Autospark (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.-gadfium 08:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for writing a brilliantly sourced article! smileguy91talk 02:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This notice should have been posted by a different user, but they didn't. The relevant section is here John Smith the Gamer (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK)[edit]

Thank you - I'm very well aware that democratic socialism is not the same as social democracy: it's precisely the reason I added the description! The party was founded as a democratic socialist party, based on Marxist principles - certainly NOT as a social democratic party, which in Europe is usually the description of Centrist parties. Where in PASOK's Constitution has it changed its status to that of a social democratic party? It has embraced some social democratic policies - but it ISN'T a social democratic party! Zhu Haifeng (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Democratic Party (Italy) color[edit]

Hi Autospark, sorry if I write you here, but I think that we need your opinion on this page. We are discussing about the color which must be used for the Democratic Party. I supported the one currently used, which is red, because it is used in rallies, in the symbol and in the PD Assembly and is also more appropriate for a social democratic party; the other user instead support the use of orange, because red was used by DS and the PD was not formed only by that party. Moreover he said that orange is used in the website of the Senate, but I don't think that parties' color should be choose from the site of an House of the Parliament, and in these site parties like NCD or Civic Choice are in purple and black (which are not absolutley their colors). So it will be great if you can give us your opinion, because you are on of the main contributors concerning politics. Thanks -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Now he have reached an agreement changing the colors of PDS and DS, anyway if you want express your opinion it would be great! -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nick.mon. I will write my opinion, but I'm not entirely sure what the PD's official colours are, or if any Italian parties other than Lega Nord even have official colours! Here in the UK, the official party colours are all very well-known (well, apart from the parties in Northern Ireland), but less so in Italy. Still, I think for simplicity's sake I will support you in identifying red as the de facto official colour of PD, and TBH I can't remember the PD identifying with orange apart from at its founding congress in 2007.--Autospark (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes you are right, there is no official colors in moder IItalian politics, anyway I think that red is the most correct one, thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem, happy to help! (Aside: Has anyone else ever noticed that the PD logo looks like that of PG Tips?)--Autospark (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Lol, yes it is very similar! Maybe no one noticed it because in Italy is not very common, for example I have never seen it before today! Please forgive my ignorance! :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

PES[edit]

Hi autospark, Can i know why did you revert my edit, thanks Barjimoa (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page.--Autospark (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok I will thanksBarjimoa (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Progressive Alliance[edit]

Better now? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Lib Dems[edit]

please stop that partisan troll ToryBoy from deleting citations over and over again.

I've been monitoring the page and he does it every day without fail, even removing half dozen citations.

Surely he should have been warned/banned by now? I've been reprimanded for less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.107.174 (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC) 1

ALFA[edit]

Dear Autospark,

How great to have the party already represented in Wikipedia!

I am wondering about the "right-wing" designation in the info-box under Political position. Is that really the case? Do you see a problem with using "Centrist" instead? That seems to me to be both more accurate and less misleading.

I also wonder about the term "euroscepticism" under Ideology If you follow the link you get an article containing both much too much and much too little as far as ALFA is concerned. What about something like "euro-currency critical; economic liberalist" (the latter with an internal link to the Wikipedia article "economic liberalism")?

Thanks for any consideration of these suggestions. I just expanded the short English text by adding a translation of the German Wikipedia article (I'm former AfD member No. 38 and the person who translated the AfD Politische Leitlinien and the Europaprogramm)

With best wishes, --Remotelysensed (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (Romania), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Constantin (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) 08:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Democratic Action Party page moves[edit]

Hi, could you please comment at this discussion? Thanks, --doncram 05:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pentapartito, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Democratic Union (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) 11:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Political groups of the European Parliament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classical (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) 13:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Democrats[edit]

There is a reason why I wouldn't pursue changes to the meta color template. That color has been changed to the Democratic Party's official blue, #34AAE0, in the past. However due to the expansive nature of this template, changing its color code adversely affects many applications wherein the official color does not blend well with certain graphs, etc. and there are accessibility issues with some of that template's specific applications. I used the color code specifically because this example is one wherein: the color should be used an can easily be used without issue. The present blue simply works universally for that template, but there are places, such as this, where #34AAE0 works perfectly, and should be used.   Spartan7W §   21:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Social democracy[edit]

Hello there. Could you check on this page (especially the second paragraph)? Because, I was sure that social democracy, while rejecting Marxist approach on socialism, still wanted to replace capitalism with socialism. — B.Lameira (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 November[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, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Défi[edit]

Hi, could you please undo your title move on this? It's covered under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). They keep their original name (here undisputedly French) unless there's a good reason - plus "Défi" (almost an acronym) is as meaningless in French as it is in English, yet it's the name they've rebranded to, not the extrapolated title.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Foundation for European Progressive Studies[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Foundation for European Progressive Studies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:United Left (Poland) Logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:United Left (Poland) Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Euroscepticism of Civic Democratic Party (Czech Republic)[edit]

Hello, in article Civic Democratic Party (Czech Republic) we are using terms Euroscepticism and Soft euroscepticism as description of parties which have ideology more close to wanting leave EU or not within political system of the Czech Republic. So if you want to change English Wikipedia-wide term you should firstly change it on profile of the Tory Party. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant! The source says "Euroscepticism" - not "soft Euroscepticism", which itself is a controversial invention of terminology. If you are completely unable to do something as basic as use a source as a citation properly and correctly, then you have no business being here on en.wiki, particularly with your written English being so borderline unintelligible.--Autospark (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Change that TERMINOLOGY on article of the Conservative Party! This is like retardment u are attacking other countries and can't do your job about putting Euroscepticism to tories. Two used neoligisms for same thing u are crazy labour bureaucrat.--ThecentreCZ (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

English Democrats[edit]

Hi. Back in September 2015 you made this edit to English Democrats; do you still have the book by Tonkiss? I ask because of this edit, with the summary "the author of this book has explicitly stated that it does not support this description". I'm intrigued to know what was said on page 120, to get some idea why the author should contact otrs to distance herself from it. Cheers. Keri (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Hello!
You reverted my edit here. What makes you think the source is invalid for this claim? I could agree centre-left is a bit exaggerated (I'm totally not of the opinion it is possible to categorise a party into that scheme objectively), but the polls actually state what the public "considers" the party to be. And that is, as of today, not centre-right. --Vogone (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

May I expect a reply on this issue anytime soon or are you still investigating? --Vogone (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Hello. I accept your recent reverts, based on WP:RECENTISM. If the next parliamentary elections confirm the current situation in the polls, I will edit the articles once more. The one exception is the SPÖ article, where the heading says that it is one of the two major parties in Austria. This is cast in severe doubt after the first round of the presidential election. Therefore I sustain that this point should not be highligted in the heading, and I have thus removed it. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bare URLs[edit]

About this, would you please provide complete citations for your refs? Please see WP:Bare URLs. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

CDI[edit]

The links in the old/reverted section are all in the timeline section now (sans the dead link). The intro that I had edited is material taken from the idc-cdi website (I just forgot to add the link itself [1]). If I add that link, would it be appropriate to revert the reversion? The alliance (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there The alliance. Basically, I don't think on en.wiki we should be using a political organisation's self-description verbatim. --Autospark (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'll have to see what a better intro would look like. The reason why I added the timeline section was because the intro was so confusing and didn't really add to actually introducing the CDI. The alliance (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Left-wing SP[edit]

Autospark, this Party is officially considered in Switzerland as Left wing. In their program they want to get rid of the capitalism system in Switzerland, plus the latest sources as the swiss media specific states that the party is left-wing. Take a look on their politics first on their German website. Can I ask you not to change sources? We already had this discussion six months ago and we should aim to stay neutral in Wikipedia. I know that you are a proud socialist, but putting false statements shouldn't be done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.65.152.92 (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

World of Spectrum[edit]

Hi, I see that you have added a COI maintenance tag to World of Spectrum because of editing by 'owner' Lee Fogarty. For your information, Lee Fogarty is not actually the owner of the site. He, and some others from the site are currently involved in repeated edits to remove the true owners name (cited with a reference to the ICANN domain records) and other facts about the site. I have requested temporary protection for the page. MrMajors (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Autospark. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

About the edits in National liberalism[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rupert Loup (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DemocraticCoalitionGreeceLogo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DemocraticCoalitionGreeceLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://idc-cdi.com/en/history/