• User talk:C mon/archive1 December 18, 2005 - November 24, 2006
• User talk:C mon/archive2 November 24, 2006 - April 23, 2008

This will be a difficult subject for any Dutch national, however one must not seek to brush under the carpet the actuality of the situation. The Dutch judiciary and political establishment will increasingly have to defend their actions in international fora. They will not be able to avoid it and it is futile to try to censor these facts. Simply deleting Wiki articles out of chauvinism or misplaced national pride is not helpful to either Dutch or European democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.201.148.183 (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi C mon, I appreciate additions and revisions to the article I wrote List of Dutch vegetarians. I do however believe you got it wrong when you moved the image of Marianne Thieme , and have explained why on the relevant page [1] Baldrick90 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this solution jeopardises the order of the images, it's either keeping Thieme separated at the top or in the correct position, which would be between Nathalie de Rooij and Marijke Vos. Baldrick90 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C mon, I noticed you are putting in a lot of hard work getting the GreenLeft article to a high level. Although I have very limited time, I might be able to do some simple tasks. I could do some proofreading. Although I am not native English but Dutch, guessing you are too, I might pick up on some things you didn't. I could also have a thorough read-through. I know some of the issues (I am a moderately active GL member in Utrecht) so I could help, but might not always be able to find all the references due to my crazy workload in real life at the moment. Feel free to ask me something to do, if I won't be able to, I will use my Dutch directness (bluntness to other nationalities) to say I don't manage. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll correct the errors. Thanks for pointing them out. The Transhumanist 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you speedy a redirect? Please see pluriform.

The Transhumanist 19:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that synonymous with multi-party system?

Is there any such thing as a non-pluriform multi-party system?

The Transhumanist 19:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: [[2]]. The Transhumanist 19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your edits. First, listing non-member parties is fairly useful to make the article more complete: examples help! Second, EFA has generally limited its membership to progressive parties, which are the majority of the party, but there are also conservative parties as members, notably Liga Fronte Veneto and Bayernpartei. --Checco (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third, the sentence has no meaning and, however, EFA never expelled xenophobic parties because no xenophopic party ever joined it. Fourth, why does "observer members" is not ok? --Checco (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with Progressivism (Majority) [although I hate both the term progressivism and using majority/minority]. But the EFA has expelled parties for being xenophobic or suspended their membership, examples are the Italian Lega Nord, Union Valdôtaine and Union für Südtirol. But I can also live with the current version. C mon (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good compromise, but don't make me joke: none of these parties is xenophopic! Only UfS has a taste for nationalism, but both Lega Nord and UV are centrist parties, both pandering to the centre-left. Finally I don't understand why you oppose yourself to listing of non-member parties. It is very useful to explain to the reader that most of the leading regionalist parties in Europe are not members of EFA. --Checco (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put "separatism (minority)"? Most of the member parties are separatist... --Checco (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same Lega Nord? Well at least my source (the sole source on the EFA article) calls it a "Nationalist parties of the right" and Gallagher, Laver and Mair in their handbook on European politics have listed it under the "extreme right".

The point is when we start listing what a party is not, and not what it is we will be busy for very long, because more parties are not a member of the EFA, than parties are member.

We could which parties are separatist, I think it is the minority. Give me a sec. I'll count. C mon (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue here. It is fairly inadequate to classify "Lega Nord" as nationalist or extreme-right, but there is such a disinformation on the issue that I won't try to explain what Lega Nord is. In any case I continue to think that any reader should know that European leading parties, except PC, SNP, ER and BNG, are not members of EFA: Lega Nord, SVP, UV, PNV, NVA... --Checco (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've counted 13 separatist parties out of 31, so you're right. However these 13 separatist parties include all the relevant ones: those having parliamentary or regional representation. --Checco (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to list all non-member parties, but simply give some examples. --Checco (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see only 8 of the 26 parties are explicitly separatist (PC, SNP, AF, MK, BP, ERC, EA, Moravané). Of six I could not determine their stance. But 17 are definitely regionalist.

If the article would be longer, I could accept one or two sentences about which parties are not a member, but now it gives undue weight, because the article is already this short. Note that in the section European_Free_Alliance#Former_members we already discuss which parties have left the EFA. C mon (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not about those parties which left EFA, but that most of the leading regionalist parties in Europe are not members of EFA: some of them were formerly members (Lega Nord, UV), but most of them never applied for membership (CDC, UDC, PNV, CC, SVP, NVA...). Note that some of these parties have been or are members of ELDR (Lega Nord, CDC and CC), some others of the EPP (PNV, UDC, SVP and NVA). --Checco (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argumentation only works if we have a standard of which parties are leading regionalists. I don't think f.i. that the SVP, UV or NVA are good examples of leading regionalist parties. You've also not mentioned the Vlaams Belang, electorally, the most succesful separatist party in the European Union and not a member of the EFA either. BTW the Lega Nord is not a member of the ELDR, but of the UEN. The NVA is also not a member of the EPP, but only sits in their group. C mon (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lega Nord has been member of ELDR from 1994 to 1997 and wins 20-30% of the vote in Veneto and Lombardy, 8.3% nationally: probably the most successful regionalist party in Europe as it is also a mainstream party, frequently in government (its deputy-leader is now Minister of the Interior!). PNV, UV and SVP all obtain 40-60% of the vote in their regions. No problem about mentioning Vlaams Belang. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we settle on just mentioning thoser regionalist parties that have gained over 10% nationally? C mon (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say 20% regionally or 5% nationally because only Vlaams Belang, a regionalist party in a small country, would fit the category. Do you agree with this? --Checco (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that regionally Vlaams Belang is far less strong in Flanders equally stronger than Lega Nord in Veneto (Liga Veneta actually stronger than VB) and Lombardy (Lega Lombarda) and far less stronger than PNV in Basque Country, CiU in Catalonia, SVP in South Tyrol and UV in Aosta Valley. --Checco (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favour of listing notable regionalist parties which are not members of EFA, but we'd have to discuss which ones to mention, I suppose. —Nightstallion 10:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with may proposal of listing those parties which have a consistent share of votes in their region (20-25% would be fine), or which have a notable share of votes nationally (above 3-5%), or that have an important role in the government of their region or the whole country? --Checco (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me, yeah. —Nightstallion 11:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd settle for share of the votes nationally over 5% or participation in government. C mon (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea: only Lega Nord would fit into the category. It is fairly better what I proposed. --Checco (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three parties would fit the category: Vlaams Belang (Belgium, NI), Lega Nord (Italy, UEN) and Swedish People's Party (Finland, ELDR). I don't see the problem. C mon (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish People's Party is hardly a regionalist party, while on Vlaams Belang you're obviously right. I don't agree with you in listing only two parties and also Nightstallion seems to agree with me. --Checco (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Checco that there are more parties which are important enough to be specifically listed; could we simply compile a list of all parties which might be listed and then decide on a case-by-case basis? —Nightstallion 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have the list:

Anyone can add what party he wants. --Checco (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Christian Social Union of Bavaria? It is a regional party of course... --Checco (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal: since this about the EP why don't we just mention those that have more than 3 MEPs? VB & LN? C mon (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the parties you included in the table are not clearly regionalist. I would mention in the article about EFA: LN, MpA, VB, NVA, UV, SVP, CiU and PNV or at least the majority of them, not simply VB and LN. --Checco (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious! The MpA and UV haven't even got representation in the EP, the NVA hasn't got EP representation on its own. You can't argue that we are missing prominent regionalist parties if we don't include those. Moreover you insist on just including parties from Western Europe, what about eastern European regionalists? Can't we find some sort of compromise. C mon (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider EP representation as a fundamental issue. However MpA has a MEP and there are not such big regionalist parties in Western Europe. Both UV and SVP are very strong regionally, and all three (also MpA) have the President of the Region (Province in the case of South Tyrol). We are speaking about examples and more examples is better. I canlive even without NVA, UV and MpA (for evry different reasons), but all eight parties is the best solution for me. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Sinn Fein? The SDLP? SFP? And the Hungarian Parties in Rumenia and Slovakia? Why exclude those? C mon (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion list

Let's see. Of the full list of parties, I think we can all agree that we'll have to include: Lega Nord, Vlaams Belang, CiU, PNV, and the Democratic Union of Hungarians. Can we at least agree on those for starters? —Nightstallion 17:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless. I'm working on another solution an expanded EFA article which has a separate part on all regionalist parties that are not included, like the Dutch wikipedia. I will finish it tonight. C mon (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's great, too. :) —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next item: I'd personally also include both Valdotanian Union and Sinn Fein, as the former is simply too strong regionally not to merit inclusion, and the latter is clearly a very important party which still has ultimately separation from the UK as one of its program cornerstones. —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally not include the following:

• MpA -- negligible influence when compared to others in Europe, the UDC is more regionalist in Sicilia and the rest of the south than the MpA is
• NVA -- not as important as the Vlaams Belang
• SFP -- not really regionalist in the ultimate sense of the word, as there's no clearly defined Swedish region on mainland Finland; I would possibly include some of the parties on Åland, though...
• SPLD -- not really THAT regionalist, actually

What would you say? —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for SF, UV and also... SVP! About MpA you're wrong: we are talking about a party which scored 22% (combined of three MpA lists) in the last regional election and has the President of the Region.

If C mon does what he said our discussion is over. That would be the best solution: a spearate and complete listing of regionalist, regional and minority parties. In that case also SFP, SDLP and CSU should be included. Great C mon! --Checco (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. When you have time, can you create a table for all these parties? --Checco (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, thanks! —Nightstallion 10:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question has arisen concerning classification of groups in the European Parliament. A discussion has opened up in Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament. Your input is requested there. This is a neutrally worded notification sent to a small number of informed, but uninvolved, editors and is intended to improve rather than to influence the discussion. This notification falls under the "friendly notice" clause of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me something about the Brussels Declaration and why Valdotanian Union broke with EFA on this? --Checco (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I added "expelled". ---Checco (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion on Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament. You may wish to take part in the vote here if you have not already done so. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being recruited by the WikiProject Political Parties, Emphasizing consistency, global perspective, and neutrality, the WikiProject aims to create good articles about political parties worldwide. Join us!

--Soman (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you don't like me, but it's not ok to revert every single edit I make. For example, on Vlaams Belang, I simply wikified the infobox, added direct links and inserted "national conservatism" in place of "conservatism" for two reasons: 1) the party is definitely not as moderate to be classified as simply "conservative"; 2) VB is listed in National conservatism as a national-conservative party.

I think that your rollback in this case was a mistake, if it wasn't: no problem, you live near Belgium and you definitely know better the ideology of VB than me, but please do partial rollback, as direct links and correct punctuation are usually a good thing. --Checco (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I simply tried to fix the infobox of Vlaams Belang's article, but if you think that that was not ok, it will be fine for me as soon as punctuation is ok. If you want to remove "Vlaams Belang" from the article about national conservatism too, it is also ok with me as I did not add the party there. I do think that "national conservatism" is the more right-wing strand of conservatism, while "liberal conservatism" is a moderate kind of conservatism, but again if you think that "conservatism" is more appropriate than "national conservatism" I'm fine.

I understand your concerns about sources, but there is a problem: parties are generally classified in books as simply "conservative" or "liberal" or "christian-democratic. That's a problem with Wikipedia, where (in every single article) we classify parties more precisely, listing some different kind of ideologies in order to explain better what kind of parties they are. Italy is a specific case, as there is not a plenty of sources and they tend to be very generic. I understand that Italy is a strange country where parties tend to take example more from the US that the rest of Europe, but they are European parties and we need to classify them as European parties. It has been a little bit difficult to find sources about Forza Italia as "liberal conservative" also because it is more easier to find sources describing the party as "liberal", "christian-democratic" or "liberal-socialist" (liberal-socialista, a strange Italian term for liberal social-democrats). Its EPP membership, its policies, its program and its complexion tell us that FI is that kind of party: christian-democratic and liberal, in one word liberal-conservative. I understand that outside Europe you have a different perception of it, that's what it is. This is not to say that people outside Italy can't edit articles about Italian parties, on the contrary we need non-Italian editors because Italian editors (remember that I am not exactly Italian too) tend to be a little bit biased on the issue. --Checco (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did you want to do with this? I don't see any particular change following your edit... --Checco (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "2 columns", I don'see any change actually... --Checco (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's mysterious... anyway we'll need to make a table some day. --Checco (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Discovery of heaven.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservatism" has several meanings, which tend to diverge geographically and especially from Europe and the United State. "Conservatism" can be both a separate classification from "Christian democracy" and a general classification including "liberal conservatism", "national conservatism", "social conservatism", "Christian democracy", etc. You will find a large amount of sources identifying the Christian Democratic Union (Germany) as "conservative", but we will agree that the most precise classification for that party is "christian-democratic". Moreover also German sources classify CDU as "conservative" because in Germany the two terms are considered synonims, but the most precise classification remains "christian-democratic"

We should use precise classification by using European standards, not American, German or Italian standards. I know you realize this as I do. In Italy "liberal", "conservative" and "right-wing" are almost synoninms basically because in Southern Europe christian-democrats and liberals are often members of a united party (differently from Germany, the Netherlands and generally Northern Europe, where christian-democrats are divided also from the local "conservatives", who tend to be secular and more economy-oriented), but I won't use those terms as synonims in en.Wiki.

I acknowledge that every European party has its peculiarities. Forza Italia, UMP and CDU obviuously have differences, but what differences? I acknowledge that Italian parties (think also about the Democratic Party) and especially Forza Italia are very peculiar parties, but what are exactly their/its peculiarity. One peculiarity of Italian parties is that they tend to take example from American parties more than European parties (that's specifically the case of the Democratic Party (Italy)). The peculiarity of Forza Italia is that it is far more heterogeneous that UMP, CDU or Spanish PP: although most of Forza Italia members are christian-democrats and the party program explicitly supports Christian values and christian-democratic principles (as Christian humanism, solidairity and social market economy), there is also smaller but influent groups of liberals and social-democrats who take secular and "anti-clerical" stances.

What is very bizzare is that the result of this combination of christian-democrats and liberals which is Forza Italia is that the party, although not formally, endorses Christian views more than German CDU, Dutch CDA or Spanish PP do. Similarly to the US Republican Party, Forza Italia endorses Christian stances without being "Christian" by name as CDU or CDA. However that is not because Forza Italia takes example from America (it is the Democratic Party which is more modelled like its US counterpart), but because, like it or not (as an Italian voter, I'm not personally keen on this, but that's my POV!), it is stuck in the christian-democratic and centrist tradition of late Italian Christian Democracy). Definitely Berlusconi is a bizzarre figure in European politics, but his party is not so ideologically different from other EPP parties and especially christian-democratic ones.

All member parties of EPP are centre-right and can be classified as "conservative", especially by American and British political scientists, but we need to acknowledge the differences between those parties and not make the easy mistake of taking classifications out of context. That is what happens in en.Wiki on every single European party, also thanks to the work of our common friend Nightstallion, and this is what should happen also on Forza Italia. I hope we will have an interesting discussion on the issue here in your tlak page, as I put it in my watchlist. --Checco (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not sources, but how you read sources. If one is not intellectually honest he could find and use sources telling everything and the contrary of everything, but that's not proper way of working.

Saying that Forza Italia is simply a "conservative" party is correct like saying that it is a "democratic": too general! There are more sources telling us that CDU is "conservative" than "christian-democratic", but go and tell to Nightstallion and all the other users that you want to eliminate "Christian democracy" from CDU's ideology. Do you want to reserach truth or simply to prove your personal truth? I think that with Forza Italia you're trying to prove your opinion about a party you don't even know very much by using sources written by people who aren't experts of Italian politics and they give a general defintion of Forza Italia without knowing how it works. Why concentrating of Forza Italia and not on every other single EPP party?

Moreover it is simply absurd to clasify in different ways Forza Italia and Forza Europa.

PS: Forza Italia has nothing to do with your "nationalistic" and "patriotic" characterization.

PS 2: My arguments show no weakness, even if I might have not explained myself well. In Italy the term "conservative" is almost never used. When it is used, it is to refer to those who are aganist reforms. Christian-democrats, liberals and social-democrats of Forza Italia don't share consevatism, nor economic nor religious one, as the two last groups are staunchly secular. How can a social democrat be conservative? What connects the three groups is a set of reforms and a vision of the future of Italy. I don'think however that you are interested in a long dissertation about Italian politics. --Checco (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply said that calling Forza Italia (and thus Forza Europe) "conservative" is too general. It's like saying that it is democratic: correct, but too general. I found very interesting your intellectual exercise, although I don't agree on everything (especially letter f). It is always very interesting to discuss with you! Thank you for your verve and friendship. --Checco (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew it and I found it pretty ridicolous (POV!). Do you think that these two Portugues parties will merge someday? The definitely resemble to me FI and AN... --Checco (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A (very) draft discussion on the policy on political parties has been started by me here - User:Doktorbuk/pp. If you can assist with this discussion, or know how to help me get this policy looked at, advanced, and accepted by the larger Wiki community, please let me know. Many thanks doktorb _words^deeds 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up

Follow up to the political parties policy debate, I have updated the page User:Doktorbuk/pp for your comment. Cheers doktorb _words^deeds 11:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to see my posts at Talk:Committee of the Regions#European Alliance and Talk:European Democrats#European Democratic Group respectively. --Checco (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why you want to repeat the same references in two parts of the article: it is non-sense and no article in en.Wiki includes such repetition. And how can you talk about original research with that huge list of references? --Checco (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply POV: you can agree with it or not, but in party documents the party is presented like a Catholic and liberal party. We can express that this is a view of the party of itselft, but it is difficult to contest it. --Checco (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating sources twice and putting them in the infobox when they are in the body of the article is not OK. You can't decide what is OK by yourself. --Checco (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After lunch or tomorrow I will read all party documents and will reformulate the sentence you don't like. However, don't confuse what you imposed with consensus, please. In the end I want to tell you that you are the first person in the world I ever heard denying that liberalism and Christianity are not based on the individual: it was so obvious to me that I did not think it needed a source. --Checco (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You like to be confusing and you failed to remember that there is also a source stating that FI is a Catholic and liberal party, thus all your arguments are flawed. Moreover my last changes eliminate the problem: nothing of your syllogisms is therefore correct. --Checco (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Why don't we discuss in the article's talk page? --Checco (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copyied our discussions in the article's talk page and I added a remark. Let's discuss there! --Checco (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Probably I won't be able to use the computer in the next week, so sorry if I don't answer to you quickly. --Checco (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you the name of this article should be changed but I don’t think we will need an administrator to do that we can just copy the information from the existing article and paste it on the redirect article list of political ideologies and redirect the current article to the new article list of political ideologies.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. None of the other parties listed on List of frivolous political parties have any references suggesting that they are joke parties on that page. I live in Greece. The "Greek Ecologists" are widely viewed as a joke party. This is evident from the posters and manifestos of the organisation. It has no international affiliations with any Green parties. It is not to be confused with the Ecologist Greens - a genuine Green party with international affiliations and recognition.--Damac (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident that you know nothing about this party or its leader (you can check him out here on a party election poster, in full Robin Hood uniform[3]). Yet, you rush to remove it from a list of frivolous parties when many of the other parties on the list do not have the sources attesting to their status as joke parties that you're demanding for this one.

In relation to the "Greek Ecologists", you've asked for a source "preferably [from] the party site or the party leader saying "this is not a serious party" or a third source about joke parties encorporating [sic] this party in alist."

Can you direct me to such a source for the following parties?

• Anarchist Pogo Party of Germany
• Die PARTEI
• Partito dell'Amore
• The Political Party (Norway)
• Youth International Party

And there's more. The fact is that joke parties rarely describe themselves as such. But, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck ....--Damac (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article linked by KyZan (and written by himself) in the article about conservative liberalism spam or not? --Checco (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understant KyZan's attacks to me. I simply removed the link to his article from conservative liberalism, as also Nightstallion did and as you supported. I think that we need both your and his knowledge to improve the article, even if I don't think that he, as an American, knows exactly what conservative liberalism means in Europe. The article is anyway poorly sourced and we should work on it. I won't be able to connect to the Internet continously in the next month, so I would like also to ask you to monitor the article. --Checco (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, dear C mon: we need just to keep in mind that the article needs improvements. Regarding KyZan (who is now busy with other users), I have nothing against him and I would be very happy if we decides to share his knowledge with us (that's why I decided not to take him to WP:ANI): we'll see if that some collaboration will be possible some day. --Checco (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user made deep changes to the article. Waiting for your opinion and supervision, I put together the two versions as a compromise. It's just another signal showing us how the article needs to be improved, expanded and referenced. --Checco (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What has conservative liberalism got to do with positive freedom I really do not understand it all." Even I... --Checco (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I hope you enjoyed your vacation. I enjoyed mine... --Checco (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is clear from his posts both in Talk:Conservative liberalism and Talk:Social liberalism, CounterEconomics is simply referring to the American meaning of the concepts. Having both the American and the European definition is good, what is strange is that CounterEconomics says that the definition we inserted was US-centric when it is exactly the opposite! The issue is a little bit confusing now... I won't have access to the internet regularly in the next two or three weeks, so I won't answer to you quickly. --Checco (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing WikiProject United States Government...[edit]
	Hello C mon, Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief. Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying. Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government. You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace. Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier.	Help us get the project off the ground and flying.

I think you misunderstood that the source that I linked is unreliable. The source is from the beginning paragraph, the source is not mine. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your sentence.

A site operated by just any individual is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. C mon (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you say that individuals are unreliable, or did you say that link was unreliable. That link was in the beginning paragraph. I think you misunderstood. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your statement seems to not be accurate. The WP:RS states that any individual can be a reliable source, if the individual cited the source. The WP:RS did NOT say that one individual would be wrong. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the beginning paragraph:

'''Conservative liberalism'''<ref>http://www.ipolitique.fr/liberalisme-conservateur.htm</ref><ref>http://www.parties-and-elections.de/contents.html</ref> is a variant of [[liberalism]], combining liberal values and policies with [[Conservatism|conservative]] stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement. The roots of it are to be found at the beginning of the [[history of liberal thought|history of liberalism]]: until the [[World Wars]], in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from [[Germany]] to [[Italy]].

That red link is the SAME EXACT source that you criticized. I removed the beginning paragraph because it is an unreliable source http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservative_liberalism&diff=232322247&oldid=231527770. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JamesLucas (" " / +): slaps forehead —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C mon!I've seen you've changed my editing.I know that centrism is not an ideology,but I think in this case it represents well this party.I think I'm going to erase "social liberal",because these kind of parties are in the ELDR.What do you think of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itanesco (talk • contribs) 17:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C mon!Thank you for correcting me in the Daisy,Forza Italia and Northern League pages.But now I've a doubt.In Forza Italia and Northern League pages you've written "Liberal-centrists" ,while in the Daisy one "Centrist-liberal".So what is the right answer?In my opinion "Centrist-liberal",because if Social liberalism is a left-wing liberalism and Conservative liberalism a right-wing liberalism,Centrist-liberalism is a liberalism of centre.What do you think of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itanesco (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C mon!I would like to discuss with you about your corrections on my editings. Factions in the Democratic Party:you're absolutely right when you tell me that I don't have to erase an external link without a right reason.However,Progressive Democrats are against economic liberalism and militarianism,and they are in favour of fair trade and universal health care,are considered like European Democratic socialists. Liberal Forum:I wrote "not aligned",because every liberal party (not the conservative-liberals or the social-liberals) rejects the Left-Right spectrum.If you look at the comparison of American political parties,the Libertarian Party rejects this spectrum too. Czech social democratic party:you're right that I don't have to erase the word "Left" under "Social democracy".But all social-democratic parties are fiscally and socially centre-left.You can't state that in the Centre-left page this Czech party is centre-left,while in others it's left-wing.So I think the best solution is fiscally and socially centre-left. Table of political parties in Europe:I've read that there are in the table the parties represented in national parliaments or the European Parliament.Irish SP has no seat in the Irish Parliament.We better omit it. Thank you right now for you answers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itanesco (talk • contribs) 11:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Assymmetric federation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Tikar aurum (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably don't know American politics as well as European politics. The Congressional Progressive Caucus's ideology is very similar to (and probably to the left of) that of the European social democrats as you can see in their program (see http://cpc.lee.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=93&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=4&SectionTree=93) and one of the leaders of the "progressive" wing of the party, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, even stated that half of his party is social democratic (see http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2007/aprile/22/Dean_socialdemocratici_Sono_meta_del_co_9_070422057.shtml). Moreover, it is not correct to say that progressives are the social liberals of the party, as most members of the party are social liberal. Anyway, that's simply to be precise! Have a good day, Checco (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't insult you or at least I did not want to do so. It is not a problematic issue for me: I simply wanted to tell you my opinion. You're right anyway: the correct word was "social democracy" not "democratic socialism". When I have time I will edit the article including the corrected sentence and sources. Anyway, just to be precise, Bernie Sanders, who I was very fortunate to meet and to talk with, is not a marginal figure in US politics: sure, he is not a Democrats, but he is the founder and leader of the Progressive Congressional Caucus which most progressive Democrats belong to! In any case you are perfectly right when you say that there is a big difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. I agree with you and I am battling in it.Wiki with those people (the majority) who think that s.d. and d.s. are synonims. As a researcher on political ideologies, can you tell me some books or sources (better on the Internet) supporting the obvious fact that s.d. and d.s. are different ideologies? Thank you and enjoy the convention! --Checco (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding progressive Democrats, again, I don't think that the source tells that they are the "social liberals" of the party as also liberals and most party centrists are "socially liberal", in the American sense. What do you think about this?

Regarding the differences between social democracy and democratic socialism, there is no hurry about it, just tell me when you have some sources that I can use in it.Wiki to explain the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. Thank you again.

Finally, if you have time, I would like to ask you what is your forecast for the US presidential election: Obama wins hands-down? a tied race until the final days/hours? McCain's surprise? Have a good day. --Checco (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your articluate answer. I agree with you on everything. I especially agree with you when you underline that "social liberal" has a different meaning in the US and in Europe. That's why I think thant saying that progressive Democrats are the "social liberals" within the Democratic Party is not correct, both from an European perspective (if we are to make comparisons, they are closer to European social democrats than to European social liberals) and from an American perspective (most Democrats are social liberals, at least on abortion, not on gay marriage for sure!).

Thank you for the source, I will look at it.

Regarding US presidential election, I personally think that it will be a close race, but also that who finally wins will more convincingly than Bush did in 2004. Obama is definitely well equipped to win, but also McCain is, as the state polls tell us: as far as I know Obama has an edge in Colorado, New Mexico and Colorado (among the states won by Bush in 2004), but McCain is leading in Ohio and is very close to Obama in some states won by Kerry in 2004 (Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire). Let's see. I am a centrist, so, differently from you, I appreciate both candidates for different reasons, but anyway it will be very interesting to follow the race, especially in October. --Checco (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely US Democrats as a whole are to the right of European social-democrats, while progressive Democrats are very close to European social democracy, even if they seldom use the term. The Democratic Party did not join the Alliance of Democrats, it was the New Democrat Coalition to join. At the same time the National Democratic Institute is a member of Liberal International and progressives are more keen on an agreement with Socialist International (think only about that Dean, a "moderate" progressive in my view, has no problems with considering himself and "half of the Democratic Party" as social-democrats (see source above). At the end of this discussion, without inclunding in the article about US Democratic Party factions, any comparison with Europe for now, can we at least take away "social liberals" as synonim of "progressive Democrats"? --Checco (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion I have started regarding your recent edit to the Constitution Party article. Thanks. Have a wonderful day! JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"(→Ministers and State Secretaries: -that info is behind a wikilink!)"
Yes, that is a better soluton. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(However, not sure why the exclamation mark is necessary ... )

voor het mij verwelkomen :D --Scarpe (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C mon, how're you doing? The fact that an anonimous user had cancelled some sources and modified the party ideology in the infobox brought me again to Forza Italia article. I reverted his edits and also included more sources and citations from some books I've been reading for University this summer. In particular, I've found something about the link between liberalism and populism in Forza Italia's ideology. As you had long been interested in the article, I would be glad if you see the changes and the citations and, in case, make other changes. Have a good day! --Checco (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C mon!I've wanted to delete the U.S. Democratic Party,because as you can see in the "Factions in the Democratic Party" page,Progressives,Liberals and Unions advocate fair trade.Fair trade is adopted by social democratic parties,not by social liberal parties,which advocate free trade(without a laissez-faire economy).American Liberalism means a kind of social liberalism,but the three factions are clearly social democratic.If you look at the beginning of Progressive Democrats,you can see that the expression "social liberals" does not mean the ideology itself,but American Liberalism.Thanks to your corrections,I've erased the word "Centrism" in all the pages,where it is stated as ideology.I have not understood one thing:is Dutch Green Party economically social liberal,social democratic or eco-socialist?About Dutch parties,you took a source to define the political allegiance.For example VVD is right-wing according to this source:may I add Centre-right without deleting your source (Centre-right,Right) ?What do you think of? Itanesco (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C mon!I've understood that Wikipedia is based on facts and not on opinions.So the question is this:if this party is social-liberal,how is it possible that the liberal factions want fair trade?I can prove you this statement.If you go to Liberal International website,you can see that this organization promotes Free Trade.Socialist International promotes Fair Trade.In every congress they state to promote this kind of trade.You can see the article about 1996 Congress in the Socialist International website.Or the fact that these factions want fair trade is wrong.If you go to Factions in the Democratic Party,this statement of fair trade was already written.I have not written that.Anyway I will listen your advice and I will read a book about American politics.And about Dutch parties,if I find a source,I will tell you! Itanesco (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C mon!Finally I've understood that U.S. Democratic Party is a social liberal party for three reasons:1)Italian political scientist Giovanni Sartori stated that an American liberal means a social liberal in Europe (Go to Italian Wikipedia page about liberalism:you will find the Sartori's statement at the beginning of the article).2)Do you remember the former Italian party of The Democrats?This party inspired to U.S. Democratic Party and it adhered to ELDR from 1999 to 2002 (when it merged into Daisy).3)To a lesser extent social liberal parties promote fair trade too.I've found in the Liberal International website a poll,which stated if promoting fair trade was more important than many other things.In conclusion,as you told me some weeks ago,the only democratic socialist is Bernie Sanders.Thank you for your corrections! Itanesco (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

• Image:Logo MR.gif
• Image:Logo spirit.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo-cdenv.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment. This is exactly what I meant to say to Itanesco and I strongly agree with you on social liberals and social democrats. --Checco (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nvalogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, C mon, thank you for your *GREAT* work on list of agrarian parties. I notice that you always control my edits... anyway, that's fine! It's always good to work with you.

One question about the list. Why writing all these times "Nordic Agrarian party": I think it is not useful. For that there is still Nordic Agrarian parties. It could be an idea to put the link at the bottom of the article and to simply put an asterisk after the name of those parties. What do you think? --Checco (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like also to inform you that Valois bourbon continues to re-insert the section about Peronism in the article about fascism. --Checco (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer at least to the second question I asked in Talk:List of agrarian parties#Two questions? Thanks. --Checco (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway! I finally found something you don't know, my friend... you're great! --Checco (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your message and glad you approve of the overhaul. My understanding, from the ((caution)) templates appearing beside the templates, is that the content in the "sidebar expanded" versions should mirror that in the sidebar and navbox versions. Now that ((... sidebar |expanded=all)) produces the "sidebar expanded" result, there should be no need for separate "sidebar expanded" templates..? I'm responding before reading User:C mon/template (which I'll do next) so apologies if I'm missing the point. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Okay, I've just read through User:C mon/template and I don't think there should be a problem if ((... sidebar |expanded=all)) is used instead of ((... sidebar expanded)). I might still be missing something, though..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've now added this to your template page, as you suggested, in case anyone has concerns or sees a problem. Hope you think it suffices. I won't propose any more sidebar-expanded templates for deletion (at least until it looks like no one would rue their deletion) and, if you wish, I could suspend those already up for deletion, although past experience suggests they wouldn't be deleted until well after the seven-day waiting period anyway. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vlaams belang logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo-cdh.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Soman (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SDAP-1.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with this and this? Soman says that NGL does not exist as a tendency and in fact there are no sources about it, even if I don't think that a disambiguation needs sources. Do you have any source supporting the contrary? --Checco (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Spalogo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is going on Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_November_4 to nominate articles to appear on WP:DYK. One of the nominated articles is Political foundation at European level, which I have just written. Given that you have expressed an interest in this subject or related ones (Europarties/Eurogroups) over the past year, I thought you might wish to go there and comment, either for or against. This is a neutrally worded message falling under the "Friendly notice" clause of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C mon! I am thinking of updating the Template:Nazism (and Sidebar:Nazism) by adding many of the minor organizations' of the Nazis articles that are in Wikipedia (NSBO, NSKOV, Reichskolonialbund, etc.). My suggestion would be to add a new division or section called "secondary organizations" and put all of them there. But maybe you have a better idea. Please tell me what you think. - Xufanc (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with not overloading the existing template. Regarding the new {Nazi Organisations)) one would you divide it into "Main" and "Secondary" or "Major" and "Minor"? Would you include the foreign Nazi organizations? - Xufanc (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the template,

I have not included the main organizations SS and SA. I noticed that the SS has its own template. In red are articles that I intend to translate from the German shortly. You may edit the template to make the improvements needed. Once you finish with it, please tell me and I will put it in the corresponding articles. - Xufanc (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Groenlinks logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During the last decade Dutch politics has almost always been in turmoil. I remember an article from The Economist in 2001 which foresaw that VVD would have become the largest party in the country at expense of CDA and PvdA. Dutch politics seemed quite stable at that time, but what happened was quite different. Snap elections, new parties, surprises of every kind for a foreigner... First the rise and fall of LPF, then the bad results and splits suffered by VVD, third the surprising result of SP in 2006... How was all that possible? What do you foresee for the next election in 2010? What will be the fate of big parties, notably VVD, as several new and old parties are rising? What about Verdonk's party and the SP? Where can I find opinion polls for the next Dutch election? Thank you for your help. --Checco (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive answers, links and references, but (sorry) I have more questions for you.

1) I am particularily startled by how the VVD has shrinked in the last decade (why was the VVD so weak and suffered all these splits, differently from the CDA and the PvdA?) and by the resurgence of the D66 (why weren't the Greens to benefit from the immigration issue?).

2) What kind of party the SP is? Would it be a reliable government partner for the CDA and the PvdA?

3) Why the CDA and the PvdA get along so well together? This is a little bit different to what happens in many other European countries, including Germany and Austria where grand coalitions seem to be less successful...

4) Why wasn't Verdonk able to strenghten the position of its party (falling from 25 to 5 seats in opinion polls), differently from Wilders?

5) Are changes to the electoral law being discussed or likely?

--Checco (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your answers are always precise and comprehensive: many thanks! As of today I've no more questions for you, but I will defintely ask you when I will. Actually, there one lasta question about the SP... In what sense and why is it conservative about migration and integration? Does this depend on the fact that immigrants may "steal" jobs to Dutch workers or does the party oppose migration and multiculturalism at all? --Checco (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the party program of Lega Nord about immigration... Many thanks, again, and good night. --Checco (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marijuana parties, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you explain these polls to me? How did ToN go from 5 to 21, and D66 from 17 to 6, in only a week? Thanks... —Nightstallion 16:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mh... Why is PVV at 23 seats now? —Nightstallion 11:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:720s BC births, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:720s BC births has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:720s BC births, please affix the template ((hangon)) to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my categorisation of People's Radical Party, Serbian Radical Party, and Serbian People's Radical Party into Category:Radical parties, saying "unrelated to this radicalism". Unrelated, eh? Tell me, what is this radicalism? If the "radical" in "People's Radical Party" does not refer to political radicalism then what kind of radicalism does it refer to?Farkas János (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  08:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check European Elections 2009 discussion page BasBr1 (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey C Mon, ik zag dat jij destijds alle Europese verkiezingen artikelen voor Nederland hebt aangemaakt. Ik heb er flink aan gewerkt de afgelopen dagen, maar er moet nog heel wat gebeuren. Als je wat tijd hebt, wat hulp is welkom :) BasBr1 (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning op the Dutch elections 2009 for me. Keeps me sharp. Don't forget to look at the other years of Dutch European Electoins, like 1979, 1984, 1989, exc...

I disagree with you that that guy from PVV should not be taken up in the list, because if someone does not claim his seat on a list, the next one will get the seat. If someone leaves the European parlemaint, the next one is still decided by the election result. What brings up a intresting discussion, are we not going to show all the dutch MEP as a result of this electoin and only the direct elected? BasBr1 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.46.130 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey C Mon. i saw you did some work again on the Dutch European elections. But i got a few questions.

1. 1 Where EFGP and EGC European party's? I found them also, but did not consider them real European party's
2. 2 Where did you find that D66 where not yet members of the European Liberal Democrats in 1979 and 1984?BasBr1 (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just checking. Btw, your sortable does not work...so by party would be nice......(and the edit or talk does not work anywhere else as on the Template page) I guess your working on it. I did not use the sortable template, because i could not get it to work.BasBr1 (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The West Wing presidential election, 1998. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The West Wing presidential election, 1998 (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just returned to a merge suggestion I made here and realised that I commented on a point that you made, but that you didn't reply. Perhaps we could revist the issue with a view to deciding whether to go ahead with the merge(s)? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my dear old friend. I was away from Wikipedia for a week or two and in the meantime National liberalism was transformed into a redirect by a user, as no-one opposed to such a proposal by that user. I restored the article. What do you think about it? May you improve the article? See you at Talk:National liberalism. --Checco (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Centre-left. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre-left. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear C mon, it has been a really long time since we talked the last time. How are you doing? I have to issues to put under your attention:

• First, there is a debate on conservative liberalism, an article with a chronic lack of sources. One user deleted a long unsourced section of the article. At first I opposed his edit, but I acknowledge that the section included very controversial statements. Anyway some of characters of conservative liberalism that were described there were correct, despite the lack of sources. I re-inserted a small version of the section, but we need to expand and improve it with sources. Who better than you can do that? I hope to see you working on the article some day.
• Second, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties#Belgian political parties there is an ongoing debate over the naming of the articles about Belgian parties. Since some edits by User:Fram in June all of them have Flemish or French titles now, inconsistently with the general en.Wiki rule under which normally all political parties have English-titled articles. You may be interested in telling your opinion and also help us with translations.

--Checco (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C mon! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 15 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,700 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the list:

1. Bram van Ojik - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Peter Lankhorst - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Corrie Hermann - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Ina Brouwer - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Arie van den Brand - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Ineke van Gent - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Mariko Peters - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
8. Ank Bijleveld-Schouten - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
9. Cees van der Knaap - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
10. Frank Heemskerk - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you are always so much involved in Dutch politics article, I would like to let you know I just created a stub/outline for the upcoming Dutch general election, 2010 now that elections are coming up after Balkenende IV collapsed last night. Cheers. Arnoutf (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NVV-1.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CPN-1933.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CPN-1946.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CPN-1963.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:EVP-electionposter.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hans van Mierlo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 09:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, C mon,

I noticed that you reverted the changes by User:SpeakFree whereby he added the group Nationalism. I actually thought that made a lot of sense, as this is now such an important trend in Dutch politics. Any particular reason why you reverted this? Whaledad (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:KVP-1946.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) 23:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:KVP-1956.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) 23:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:KVP-1967.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) 23:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PSP3.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) 01:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PSP2.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) 01:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GreenLeft-2002.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Yoenit (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SDAP-4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SDAP-1.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. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SDAP-2.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. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ARP-1925.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ARP-1946.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ARP-1959.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ARP-1971.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green Party (United States), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.--JayJasper (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logosgp.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. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 20:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi C mon! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesse Klaver, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages TED, OCW and Indonesians. 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) 09:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mokken scale 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:

• analysis is a confirmatory method, meant to test whether a number of items form a coherent scale (like [[Confirmatory factor analysis]], an Automatic Item Selection Procedure has been developed to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Buitenweg1.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 13:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:E01-217.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) 18:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SDAP-1.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) 18:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SDAP-2.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) 18:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:JobCohen.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AmsterdamB&W.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:C mon, you might be interested in this RfC. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Centre (politics). Since you had some involvement with the Centre (politics) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Joost Lagendijk.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. (t) Josve05a (c) 11:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, C mon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, C mon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greenleft-electionresults has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agrarian politics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are a major contributor to the Mokken Scale page along with me - I wondered if you wanted to propose this as an article for review in a WikiJournal? my email is rwatson1955@gmail.com Rwatson1955 (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Duo-raadslid 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/Duo-raadslid until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dwars-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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PPR1.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) 17:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Foto99.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused personal photo. Out of scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scientific institutes in the Netherlands has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green thinkers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Life in the Netherlands has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GL members of the Senate of the Netherlands has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dajasj (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic German cabinets has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]