Catalpa

Catalpa please leave messages below

Libertas (political movement)

Catalpa, hi! I'm trying to achieve consensus on the renaming of Libertas (lobby group) to Libertas (political movement). I know that you object to this because "...It is a party in name and with offices and has 600 odd facebook members..." and feel that addressing it as such would give it undue weight. I want to reassure you of the following:

• creating the umbrella article Libertas (political movement) will not imply that it is a mass movement (part 1): the level of support (or lack thereof) will be easily judged by the reader given the number of party members/candidates and the party's poll showings as we approach the Euros, and the lobby group/party's poll showings as we approach Lisbon II (of course, they may be simultaneous if latest rumblings are correct).
• creating the umbrella article Libertas (political movement) will not imply that Libertas is a mass movement (part II): witness the Wikipedia precedents such as Colombian Community and Communal Political Movement, Citizens' Political Movement, Republican Socio-Political Movement Equality, Ladins Political Movement, Nacionalismo (Argentine political movement), all of which were quite small-scale.
• creating the umbrella article Libertas (political movement) will enable us to write separate articles about Libertas Poland, Libertas France (the reported rename of MPF), Libertas.cz (the Ganley-disavowed Czech Libertas), Libertas UK, the rumoured Libertas Nederland and even the potential Libertas Ireland (word is Ganley's going to stand in North West)
• creating the umbrella article Libertas (political movement) will enable us to focus on the fine detail (e.g. Libertas.eu is being largely run by Jens-Peter Bonde and has hired Robin Matthews, a former British army communications officer: i.e. its staffing arrangements is different to the lobby group). At the moment, the fine detail is being smeared out due to the lack of differentiation between lobby group, Eurofoundation, Europarty, the multiple Libertas political parties and (for all I know), the Ben and Jerry's ice cream.
• creating the umbrella article Libertas (political movement) will prevent the article size going ballistic by enabling us to bud off subarticles as need arises.

I appreciate that you have reservations: I hope I have addressed them above. I also need to point out that given the workload involved (so far I've had to read thru sources in Polish and Estonian, and that's not easy), this structural change will enable me to write articles without having to worry about the structure I'm trying to fit them into, and given the soap-opera level of complexity (Igor Grazin was a VP of Bonde's EUDemocrats before signing up to Libertas: yikes?!), that's a lot of worry.

Thank you for your time, regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough if you need any source material email. Catapla (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply: I appreciate the confidence shown. The lobby group blog is accessible via wayback, so I can get details and the previous logo off that (interesting list of signatories, btw). The party is making headlines all across europe, so no obvious shortage of material there. The Eurofoundation failed EU recognition (name was same as party and only people from one member state were on the board) and lost 110,000 euros of funding, and I've added that to the Eurofoundation article. I'll try and get articles done on the various Libertases, plus the Shelbourne Hotel meeting of November 2008 may warrant an article of its own, so I may get a DYK out of this. Libertas.eu's internal structure is a mystery (is it a collection of national parties or one singular party? How does MPF fit into this? It's not a trivial question, since Europarties are specifically excluded from funding national parties: lawyers could have a field day with this) Will keep u in mind if run short of material. Once again, thanks. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've moved Libertas (lobby group) to Libertas (political movement) and peeled the details about the lobby group off to Libertas Institute Limited. I'll move the political party details to Libertas Party Limited over the next couple of days. You mentioned on the talk page about Libertas being a shell company. This is, broadly speaking, correct: every time Ganley starts a new venture, he starts a new company. I've attempted to draw up a list of his companies (a futile gesture, since there are a lot of them and I have inevitably missed some out): that list can be found on Libertas Institute Limited, although it will eventually be moved to List of Declan Ganley organizations to prevent WP:COATRACK accusations. As you are the primary contributor to Declan Ganley, you may want to note them.

Some questions for you to ponder.

• Why does everybody think Ganley spent a lot on the Lisbon I campaign?
• Why does everybody think Rivada is an American company?

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Libertas Party Limited now done. Some more questions for you to ponder.

• Who is funding Libertas (political party)?
• Why did Declan apply for political party at European level and political foundation at European level recognition?

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry for the delay in getting back , you have done amazing work. It is all clear and has the best layout of any political Wiki pages I have seen.

I note your questions and will read the pages again and get back to you. Catapla (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Question re Topic ban

if a user is under a topic ban should they be editing on any of the pages talk or main that he is banned from?

I ask this because a topic banned user was subsequently banned from attempting to frame a user also on a topic ban. he was let back on Wiki to participate in resolution but is now violating the topic ban with unsigned post Re can you please please please crack the whip here. There is a process in operation. No one involved is supposed to be editing talk or main pages as per the Topic ban,[1]

A re ban is now in order User:BKLisenbee I refrain from bringing this up at ANI just yet awaiting your opinion. thanksCatapla (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends whether the topic ban includes talk pages or not. In most cases, people are not restricted to use talk pages unless they are disruptive but in your (both) case I see no need for talk pages since we got /JK page. I've also left a note to your longish post at /JK; it is not the apporpriate time for it. We've taken the one-by-one article approach. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks I moved the post up to Catalpa concerns (just to park it there for the moment)

I think you should absolutely make the topic ban include all the talk pages as I was under the impression it did. Let's try and keep all this where it can be somewhat followed by us all. I for one am not following a lot of the edits there as there have been so many changes, additions and redactions of original points and info by BKL. It is a bit like jumping on quicksand. I think it is only fair to restrict comment by either user on talk pages until this process has concluded Catapla (talk)

I really don't see the need for it. Restrictions are generally prescribed to avoid disruption. I really doubt BKLisenbee did it in purpose. I've left him a note and he'd get it.

As for the changes, they are documented at the JK page. I don't miss anyone important. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you do, you have let lots of material of a personal nature about living people sit there and it is there still. I for one must insist if that is permissible that all this is confined to one page. It is impossible to follow BKlisenee's continuous edits on one page without spliilage .

You have also allowed anon edits to stand on pages under discussion. I have not bothered to track down the IPs or ask for check users but enough is enough. if this is ever going to reach a conclusion . One page , One discussion no side bars. That is only fair. It was you who unblocked BKL so please take responsibility for his editing and his behaviourCatapla (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Catalpa, you whether concentrate on the essential or drop it all. There is no IP discussion that I can see. There's no IP edits to the articles that I can see. I am concentrating my efforts on JK page and would not waste my time chasing IPs at talk pages; IPs that would have no particular influence whatsoever in the JK page process or the editing. I am not listening to any IP and as long as there's no disruption then why would I waste my energies? I've wasted enough!!! I'd better keep my energies for the essential. We are not in a kindergarten. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry had not read your note thanks Catapla (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish Times

I can't see the article: every time I click on the link I get "Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site....operation aborted". Are they lifting my copy again <grin>? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, can see it now. OK "...Libertas is proving more successful in fielding candidates in the Czech Republic, where it is expected to announce today it is fielding 25 candidates in the elections...". Madam's got it wrong again: it's Zelezny's Libertas that's doing the fielding, not Ganley's Libertas. Shall I email them and tell them to just read the Libertas Czechia article? Also, have you seen the Libertas.eu press release in which Ganley lauds the two Czech MEPs but conspicuously fails to do likewise for Zelezny?

Oh, one of the two Libertas Lithuania candidates hasn't read the Lisbon Treaty.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if you called Irish Times 00 353 1 675 8000 and ask for the journalist who might be interested they will certainly take the call.

I have wondered whether Ganley the leader has read it , if I was a journalist I would ask him some spot questions.

Germany must have redesigned its laws after 1945.

You have done an amazing job organising all that info. Is there an EU barnstar? Catapla (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. File:European_Merit_Barnstar_of_the_EU.svg. It's been over a year since I had one last, tho' I nearly had one after factchecking the Budget of the European Union, which meant I had to read the <expletive-deleted> budget. Ouch! Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

More Ganleykipple

• Where the hell is Irish Times getting the figure of 22 Czechia candidates?[2]
• EUDemocrats running scared.[3] Told you Libertas might do well in Sweden.
• Where is my shiny new barnstar? You have to put this on my user page: I can't award one to myself, y'know.:-}

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar. As for your question re far-right Libertas folk, you may consider Philippe de Villiers or League of Polish Families, who have been labeled far-right by the international press. Mintcho Hristov Kouminev is former Ataka. Piotr Farfał, the Polish television head accused of bigging up Ganley, is a former skinhead. As for the far-left, didn't Igor Gräzin and Vaclav Klaus hold governmental posts before the fall of the Soviet Union? Working up bios for all the Libertas candidates is probably beyond my capabilities - I can barely keep up with the parties (and if Ganley's current running estimate of over a hundred candidates is even half-right, we're missing some fairly big chunks: has he got lots of Spanish/Italian/Greek/Bulgarian/Romanian candidates that he's not letting on? Romania has a pop'n of over 20million people) - but I will keep my eye out.

As for your observations concerning Junilistan's illogic: political parties of all stripes use language as a tool to appeal to and reinforce their target constituent's prejudices: logic has precisely nothing to do with it...:-) Oddly enough, Junilistan is one of the more rational Eurosceptic parties.

As for your observations regarding Junilistan/EUDemocrats' surprising offer to sit in a group with Libertas: the convention that Eurosceptic parties flock together around the themes of EU democratisation and accountability has been observed in IND/DEM, where UKIP and EUDemocrats do exactly the same thing despite the fact that they cannot stand each other. It is a rule of European politics that deadly enemies will sit together in the EP, because they are entirely powerless if they sit on their own. Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty stayed together for seven months even though each national party thought the other parties in the group should be killed.

I will get Libertas Slovakia up over the next couple of days. Once again, thanks for the barnstar. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Libertas personnel editing Declan Ganley article

Catalpa, hi!

Thank you for your message on my talk page here. Your observation that an IP registered in Tuam is editing the Declan Ganley article has an obvious corollary: since Libertas is based in Tuam, it implies that it is Libertas personnel doing the editing: a rather obvious Wikipedia:Conflict of interest violation. I'm not sure how to combat it: I'm so deep in the Libertas articles I can't devote any time to help. You can ask an admin to semi-protect the article: that won't prevent interested vandalism, but will require them to register first.

Sorry I can't be of more help. Give me a few weeks to get the Libertas articles sorted out.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI or article?

Thank you for your message on my talk page here. You state that "The ANI seems to have disappeared, can you sandbox a version I can replace the current on ewith that would bring the page back to before the NPOV edits?". Please note the following:

• The ANI has been moved to IncidentArchive538. It was automatically archived.
• Do you want me to set you up a sandbox of the ANI, or a sandbox of Declan Ganley?

You will also wish to note the following:

• Declan Ganley falls under WP:BLP and therefore will be strictly monitored. If you are proposing to bring the Declan article up to spec than I suggest you contact an admin with experience of WP:BLP (a list is here) and ask him to pre-approve your sandbox article before you put it into mainspace. That way, if anybody removes sourced relevant text then you can demonstrate you made a good faith effort.
• You may want to explain to that admin that the subject is not just a private individual but also a candidate standing for a named political party in a named constituency for a named election: I think that this would let that subject's political positions be displayed, albeit on a separate page: see Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton for an example.
• Additionally, the political positions of a given individual who is standing for election for a named party are permissible as citations for the political positions of that party. For example, the statement "John Doe of the Purple Party believes children should be pureed and fed to our new lizard overlords (ref)" is contentious when placed on John Doe's page but the statement "Positions taken by Purple Party candidates include that children should be pureed and fed to our new lizard overlords (same ref)" is not.
• You may have to reconcile yourself to the fact that you may have to lose this one: WP:BLP is pretty heavily enforced, and you may find that your edits are reverted by admins on WP:BLP grounds. Instead of wasting your energies on pages of named individuals, you may wish to consider whether editing other pages may be more productive. NPOV statements backed up by WP:RS's are the Wiki equivalent of gold-dust and will always find a place.
• I genuinely urge you to stay within the rules. Admins when dealing with disputes are correctly concerned with restoring order and you may find yourself on the wrong side of an ban/block, even though you feel yourself to be in the right. Take care that you do not give admins an excuse to ban/block you.
• I share your frustration: just yesterday, when I was creating Libertas Bulgaria, it became apparent that "Hristo Atanassov", Libertas Bulgaria's chairman (see here for picture), *may* also be "Hristo Atanassov Kovachki", seen on trial here. I can't put it in the article because it's WP:OR, and, well...that's life. Wiki demands that we use WP:RS's and NPOV language and I am content to remain within those parameters, but I do appreciate that it can be hard, especially when faced with irrational/biased editors.
• Should you feel frustrated, you may wish to join us on editing Libertas.eu: we are short-staffed and every little helps, and that will free me up to concentrate on the member parties and associated articles.

Hope that helps, kind regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Declan Ganley Page

Factual evidence being clearly referenced from reputable sources is constantly being removed by what are probably Ganley supports. Any ideas what we could do against this? Truthinirishpolitics (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re your 7 April 2009 request

Regarding your 7 April 2009 request that I inform you should a link from Libertas to the far-right be discovered. The Bulgarian "Freedom" party (Партия СВОБОДА) are claiming involvement with Libertas on their website. Their website is here and they have several articles concerning Libertas (Либертас). They placed a photograph of Freedom personnel with Jens-Peter Bonde on one of their articles. That article is called Affair "Libertas" (Аферата "Либертас") and can be found here. The English translation is here. The photograph is here. In fairness, it has to be emphasised that the article states that JPB eventually repudiated them.

You have User:QuotationMan to thank for this. S/he removed the details of "Libertas Bulgaria" from the Libertas Bulgaria article, stating that it had nothing to do with the movement (correctly, btw: "Libertas Bulgaria" is a faux-Libertas: yes, another one - I didn't know). Since I figured s/he had knowledge I did not, I looked further to find out what the personnel of Libertas in Bulgaria actually were. I sought. And I found.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fairness compels me to point out that if User:QuotationMan is correct, and s/he probably is, then the info I gave you above in a previous section about Hristo Atanassov refers to a faux-Libertas, not a Ganley-sanctioned Libertas. Apologies for the confusion.

Oh incidentally, Libertas Sweden just folded.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Declan Ganley Sources

Don't worry, all the sources I've been using are from the Irish Times and other broadsheets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthinirishpolitics (talk • contribs) 07:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

Catalpa, hi!

So that's it: Libertas articles completed on Wikipedia. Libertas in-real-life is effectively over now: although it may continue as a rump, it'll never be as it was. During the past year, I alluded to several points which you didn't pick up on: I couldn't elaborate because of WP:OR, but here we go:

• Why did Libertas apply for Europarty and Eurofoundation status?

• Because he needed the money.

Everybody, Europhile and Europhobe, characterized Declan as a billionaire out to buy an election, but that's not strictly true: he's very wealthy but not that rich, and even multi-millionaires can't write checks for millions on their own account. He would find it difficult to appropriate Ganley Group funds for his own personal use at the amounts necessary to create ab initio a pan-European political party. And to build a party like that properly takes tens of millions, and he didn't have it. He did the best he could by collateralized loans, but that's not the same as actual cash and whenever somebody tried to get money from him (Libertas Sweden, Libertas Bulgaria), it just wasn't there.

• Was Ganley far-right?

• No.

He's a National Conservative and although it's difficult to tell the difference between them and the far-right in Poland, there are differences. He did however flirt with the far-right, homophobes, anti-Semites, and violent xenophobes, and although for him it was just business, he really should have known better.

• Was Ganley CIA funded?

• Probably not.

He may have recieved some funding in his early days, but these days? Not really. At best, he was a contact giving info and receiving limited expenses and business opportunities in return. Enough to, say, go to Russia and buy some aluminum.

• Were Rivada and Libertas the same organization?

• Yes

• Is Rivada an American organization?

• No.

Like everything Declan does, Rivada is a shell organization based at his house with few employees, some high-profile non-executive directors, some good ideas, and a very good secretary. Declan is what he says he is: a serial entrepreneur who sets up deals. He creates the structure, assembles the talent (who often pay him for the privilege!), and sells it on. I don't think he's ever run an organization with more than ten employees for longer than six months. He doesn't have the character, patience, nor man-management skills to do anything else - remember that he lost control of his own party in Poland and Czechia.

• What are the implications for the European Parliament?

• Libertas destroyed Eurorealism

One major surprise of the elections was the lousy performance of the specific brand of Euroscepticism called "Eurorealism" - political parties based around the contention that the EU must be reformed, not seceded from. They did badly everywhere: their votes were sucked up by the far-right on one side, the conservative right on another side, and hard Eurosceptics on a third. Libertas split the Eurorealists everywhere at a time when Euroscepticism fell apart in Central Europe - very bad timing (if Ganley had done it in 2004, things would have been very different). The proposed European Conservatives and Reformists group will be labeled Eurosceptic, but it'll be classic Atlanticist, free-market conservatism. They'll be noisy, attract attention and headlines, but won't achieve much. From here on in it's the hard-right, classic Eurosceptics and Conservatives versus Socialists, Liberals and Christian Democrats, with the Greens and the Radical Left vacillating between the two. European politics in the 21st century.

• What are the implications for Lisbon II?

• I have no idea...

But whatever happens from here on in, the Irish polity will decide the fate of the Lisbon Treaty in the proper democratic manner via referendum, based on facts about the advantages and disadvantages and Ireland's approach to our strange 21st century world, not on lies about compulsory conscription, compulsory abortions, children being kidnapped, the endless list of fiction that deformed Lisbon I. And whatever is decided, yes or no, that's got to be for the best.

I'm off now: groups to write articles about, more Polish sources to wade through. If you ever feel like joining Wikiproject European Union, please feel free: God knows we're short-staffed. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you that is highly insightful. There are several other words that apply then , one rhymes with dancer,

Catapla (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[4] Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. User:Calmer Waters (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Calmer Waters 07:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

February 2011

I've blocked the IP address and posted comments at WP:ANI ([5]). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:The stars are underground cover image Cat fr007 VHS olkrum records.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The stars are underground cover image Cat fr007 VHS olkrum records.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka

I reverted that section to an earlier version (before the edits in question). I also left a note for the anonymous IP address, but it's probably for the sake of documentation at this point – I doubt that editor is using the same IP address at this point. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A wise course of action as it should have been spotted earlier but I have been very busy and dont check in that much. Catapla (talk) 23:03, 8 October 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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)