Revision as of 14:05, 8 October 2011 editDirector (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers58,714 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:10, 8 October 2011 edit undoTimbouctou (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers71,674 edits →InfoboxNext edit → | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:::Tim, you cannot push your personal opinions by edit-warring. Discuss. I refuse to have a conversation while you're trying to do so. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | :::Tim, you cannot push your personal opinions by edit-warring. Discuss. I refuse to have a conversation while you're trying to do so. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
::::1. Stop patronizing me. 2. Do you have any scintilla of smething remotely ''resembling'' an argument for keeping a bunch of pointless information in the infobox or do you think random rants will suffice? 3. You accusing someone of a "long history" of edit-warring is truly laughable. 4. Please report whatever you feel needs reporting here. Pleas do it now if you think you have anything other than rants to offer to a interested audience. 5. You reverted my edits first, ''before'' even attempting to raise the subject here (notice who started this fucking thread). 6. You offered no argument whatsoever. 7. You offered no argument whatsoever. 8. You offered no argument whatsoever. 9. You offered no argument whatsoever. 10. You offered no argument whatsoever. ] (]) 15:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:10, 8 October 2011
Socialism Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Croatia Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Template:WikiProject Political Parties
Fair use rationale for Image:Sdp-logo.gif
Image:Sdp-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Sdp-logo.gif
Image:Sdp-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Infobox
Regarding this edit by DIREKTOR - the infobox doesn't really need to state that the party has sections for pensioners, women, students and youth, especially since none of them have a separate article. It also does not need to mention its spokesperson since Ivana Grljak is barely notable even for Croatian standards. Also, while the party stems from the former SKH, it is regarded as being founded in 1990 and is for that reason still in the Category:Political parties established in 1990, and the League of Communists of Croatia article states SKH was founded in 1937 and dissolved in 1990. Timbouctou (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- That is not for you to pass judgement on. The infobox has those parameters, and they were filled out. Please do not edit-war. As for the SKH thing, nobody disputes that this party was founded in 1990 in its current organization, but I see no harm whatsoever in mentioning when the institution was originally founded. --DIREKTOR 09:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah I expected you to play the "infobox has those parameters so they must be filled out" card. No they don't have to be filled out, especially when nothing valuable is added to the article by it. And that is a judgment editors are allowed to make. Also, {{Infobox political party}} does not contain parameters for students', pensioners' and women's wings (only the youth wing param is standardized but SDP's youth wing doesn't have its own article either). The same goes for "Predecessor" parameter which you seem to have invented all by yourself. As for the foundation date - why do we need two? Is there any source stating that SDP was founded in 1937? Timbouctou (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- You do not get to remove infobox parameters simply because you yourself judge "they add nothing valuable to the article". This is not a factual dispute. You either achieve consensus for your changes, or you stop edit-warring in the article. That is basic Wikiquette that you still do not seem to acknowledge. Now, I say again, you have a long history of this sort of edit-war instigating and I will be filing a report should you revert once more. And do not think you can WP:GAME THE SYSTEM by misusing WP:3RR.
- Yeah I expected you to play the "infobox has those parameters so they must be filled out" card. No they don't have to be filled out, especially when nothing valuable is added to the article by it. And that is a judgment editors are allowed to make. Also, {{Infobox political party}} does not contain parameters for students', pensioners' and women's wings (only the youth wing param is standardized but SDP's youth wing doesn't have its own article either). The same goes for "Predecessor" parameter which you seem to have invented all by yourself. As for the foundation date - why do we need two? Is there any source stating that SDP was founded in 1937? Timbouctou (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Tim, you cannot push your personal opinions by edit-warring. Discuss. I refuse to have a conversation while you're trying to do so. --DIREKTOR 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Stop patronizing me. 2. Do you have any scintilla of smething remotely resembling an argument for keeping a bunch of pointless information in the infobox or do you think random rants will suffice? 3. You accusing someone of a "long history" of edit-warring is truly laughable. 4. Please report whatever you feel needs reporting here. Pleas do it now if you think you have anything other than rants to offer to a interested audience. 5. You reverted my edits first, before even attempting to raise the subject here (notice who started this fucking thread). 6. You offered no argument whatsoever. 7. You offered no argument whatsoever. 8. You offered no argument whatsoever. 9. You offered no argument whatsoever. 10. You offered no argument whatsoever. Timbouctou (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)