RedParty

Paul de Groot

There is a discrepancy:

The opening paragraph says "Paul de Groot (Amsterdam, 19 July 1899 – Bussum" , which states that he was born in Bussum.

The infobox states:

Personal details

Born 19 July 1899

Amsterdam

LittleOldMe (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I see where the problem lies. The English convention is to state the birth date then the place. You have it the other way around and it confused me. LittleOldMe (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that in English you have to do the before the birth date place.--RedParty (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Communist Party of the Russian Federation has been reverted.
Your edit here to Communist Party of the Russian Federation was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/user/CommunistPartyRF) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, RedParty. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Communist Party of the Russian Federation, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 09:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What exactly did I do wrong?--RedParty (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a warning that you have done something wrong. It basically just says "hey, it seems like you might be closely affiliated / linked to an article you edited, and we at Wikipedia are very careful about always writing articles from a neutral point of view, so be careful about that. Many editors find it's best to simply stay away from those kinds of articles to avoid accidentally adding biased material." Nothing more, nothing less.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 09:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

List of communist and anti-capitalist parties with parliamentary representation

You're latest edits at the article have been disruptive... The socialist states of China, Laos and Vietnam are officially Marxist-Leninist... They are not conservative social democrats, since that would mean those states would support liberal democracy (which the don't), and they are only conservative in that sense that they support retaining the one-party state.. But they are conservative because, officially, they still believe in Marxism-Leninism.. That's the official story - what the leaderships in those countries actually think is unknown, but the official version is that they still believe in communism.. Don't revert my edits. --TIAYN (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of the Noul Partid Comunist Român.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of the Noul Partid Comunist Român.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. — ξ^xplicit 00:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Your recent editing history at Nicolae Ceaușescu shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SummerPhD (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RedParty for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SummerPhD (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Idiot

Why in goods name did you move the page to List of communist and socialist parties with parliamentary representation??? You do know that social democratic parties are also socialist right??? You do know that this list now needs to include the Socialist Party which rules Spain for instance, the Labour Party in Norway and so on.... Move the fucking page back you idiot. --TIAYN (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Social democratic parties are not socialist. And this is based on the ideology not the name!--RedParty (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Officially it is... Social democracy developed from Marxist ideology... There is a reason why the British Labour Party calls themselves socialist, or the Norwegian Labour Party calls themselves socialist.. Its because they believe themselves to be socialist... --TIAYN (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

They are not calling them selfs socialist. The page include only parties that has as ideology socialism.--RedParty (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No their constitutions just use the word socialist, and the British Labour Party is just officially a democratic socialist party, and Ed Miliband is always using the word socialist in his speeches... This is just coincidence isn't it??? Please.. Just because you are a communist or an anti-capitalist you can't denie the truth; they are socialists who support the market, just as the Chinese and Vietnamese are communists who support capitalism... --TIAYN (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why you want the page rename back? Yes there are parties who called them (democratic) socialist but are not. But that is also with communist parties for example the Communist Party of China or the Party of Communists of Moldova.--RedParty (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Who gave you the right to say that they were not socialist... WHo gives you that right???? Are you dum?? Do all socialist parties have to agree with you??? Stupid idiot... The Communist Party in Moldova is communist as long as they call themselves communist and believe themselves to be communist... --TIAYN (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why give you the right to call the British Labour Party not socialist? You can't discuss.. --RedParty (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm calling the British Labour Party socialist because they call themselves socialist, and because they themselves believe they are socialist.. I'm not discussing, I'm just agreeing with facts... You were the first person to move the page; I will only begin to discuss properly when you move the page back to its half-original title... I don't care about what you think is socialist, because you're a person who would believe that Syria and North Korea are socialist, when they are really ffascist dictatorship killing innocent people. Fuck off, stop vandalising Wikipedia and start reading Karl Marx - unlike you, I've actually read some of his work... --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why you want the page to do not include socialist parties? And stop with attacking on the person.... And i didnt call Syria and NK socialist..--RedParty (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

sorry for attacking you personally.. The reason is this; such a list would have no purpose, and would be deleted... This list was created to show that the far-left, communist and anti-capitalist forces are still a force in modern politics... Be my guest if you want to create a list about Arab socialist parties or all social democratic parties... Thirdly, the word socialist is vague, vague in the extremist sense of the word.. Take one example; you don't believe social democracy to be socialist, I do... Another example, National socialism, by using the word socialism, some people are going to try to include fascist parties in the infobox. There are more examples of course, but using the word socialism will only lead to more edit warring and more problems; and example being the List of socialist countries, the list is in a state of collapse.... --TIAYN (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Socialist parties are mostly too seeing as far-left. Arab socialist parties are mostly too anti-capitalist. The word "socialism" in "national socialism" has nothing to do with the ideology socialism, so there isnt a risk that it would be included.--RedParty (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Socialist parties don't need to be anti-capitalist.... China is still socialist despite its support of capitalism, Hugo Chavez is still socialist despite his support of capitalism... It doesn't need to be anti-capitalist, get that into you're freaking head.

Please stop vandalising wikipedia, please stop edit warring, please.. I can do this the whole day, but I don't want to... I will move the page back to the original name, and then have a discussion... You started to move the page, I only moved it back to its original name... You do know what original means right?? It means its first name... Stop edit warring, cause I want to have a discussion. But if its such that you're not willing to start discussing the matter, then this will never be solved. Stop moving the page - this is just another way to vandalise wikipedia. --TIAYN (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You started to revert mine rename at a wrong way without discussing...--RedParty (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, thats the right way.. But okay, since you don't won't stop edit warring we can continue... I mean, I'm willing to use the whole day, the whole week, the whole month on this... I won't let you vandalise wikipedia.. And no, this is not a threat, I've done the same thing before... You will discuss this topic with me? OK? --TIAYN (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't you have to request that at the url is posted before. You started to revert mine rename without discussion at a wrong way. So you are vandalise wikipedia.

Noh, because you're edit is misguided... This article was about communist and anti-capitalist forces, and not the whole socialist movements, which would include social democrats and so on... You began this with an invalid edit, a faulty edit which I'm trying to correct. --TIAYN (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The socialist movement dont include social democrats. That is a fact. You started to rename the article wrong, with copy paste, you have to do a rename request. --RedParty (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So its just a coincidence that Karl Kautsky one of the biggest Marxist was a social democrat, its just a coincidence that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union first name was the Russian Social Democratic Labour PArty, its just a coincidence that Friedrich Engels supported the German Social Democratic Party.... I mean, some of the biggest names in Marxism supported social democracy, but Marxism is not socialist, right??? --TIAYN (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This hasnt anything to do with the page rename...--RedParty (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it has, because it proves that Marxists, the guys who founded modern socialism and communism, viewed social democracy as a form of socialism.. --TIAYN (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont agree. But please go back to the orginal discussion about the page rename.--RedParty (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't agree is not important.. What some of the most important socialist believes is important, what the modern social democratic movement views is important - I mean, even the Soviet Union believed social democrats were socialist... As Lenin put it "All communists are socialist, but not all socialist are communists".. the other socialists were the social democrats who opposed the Russian Revolution.. It doesn't matter what you think, if can't bring a source which states that social democracy is not a part of the socialist movement, this doesn't matter. I'm right, because you haven't been able to disprove me once .The only thing you're doing here is edit-warring because you think you're right, thats fine, just prove it with a number of reliable sources. --TIAYN (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad grammar, but if this continues I'll nominate you for a block; the reason, you havn't been able to give me one source which states, or one statement which says social democracy is not part of the socialist movement.... Not one.. I can give you thousands... Thats okay, because this means its easier for you to get blocked.. Of course, I didn't want it to end this way, even if it may have sounded like it. --TIAYN (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Trust Is All You Need. Thank you. dangerouspanda 09:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Libertarian Party logo Netherlands.svg.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Libertarian Party logo Netherlands.svg.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Communist Party of Moldova (2012) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Communist Party of Moldova (2012) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Party of Moldova (2012) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. XXN, 14:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of the Communist Party of the Netherlands.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of the Communist Party of the Netherlands.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)