User talk:Anameofmyveryown

Those of you who follow my edits (presumably a very small number) may have noted my tendency to whine about my limited internet access. Well, the whining has gotten a lot louder because my laptop has done what it threatened to do for the last two years: given up the ghost. Even sticking it in the cooler has failed to work, and I can barely get email access.

Whine, whine, whine...

Of course I'm going to get it repaired 'n' stuff, but realistically that's not going to happen until October or (more probably) November. Until then, I'm de facto retired. Any emergency enquiries slap them below and I'll try to help as best I can, but my ability to do so is severely compromised.

See y'all in November, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Libertas Austria and others

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Libertas Austria, 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application. 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 the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertas Austria for Libertas Austria, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application for 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application. 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) 01:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Libertas article

I supported a selective merge. The level of detail gone into was simply too much for an encyclopedia article and some of the use of sources was highly questionable - the article was too reliant on primary sources. It also read like a news report. Some information on the party's attempts to gain European Parliament recognition would be fine in the main article, but not the blow-by-blow account (WP:UNDUE) and not using questionable primary sources. If you want a copy of the article restored to your userspace, just ask. Fences&Windows 13:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You already did ask! Your wish is my command: User:Anameofmyveryown/2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application. Fences&Windows 13:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply: I appreciate the promptness. To demonstrate my bona fides, I'll blank the article page on my userpage: since I just need the sources for other articles that'll still work for me because I can get them from the page history, and it'll hopefully settle your mind on partisanship. Once again, thank you. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologise about WP:SOAP if you were not in fact acting out of promotional intent for Libertas.eu, but you must understand it looks like that when a vast flood of articles appears all at once from a single author about a not-obviously-all-that-notable subject. As far as WP:WEIGHT goes, I am unrepentant. I doubt that even old-established governing parties like the US Democratic party and the British Labour party have as many different articles as you were trying to create all at once for Libertas.eu, which does not even seem to have got itself accepted as a party. In fact, I was disappointed with the result of the other AfD, and thought seriously of challenging the close: it seems to me ludicrous that, e.g., Libertas (Austria) should have even a redirect, when close inspection reveals that no such thing exists, the article content saying, in effect, "Libertas said they would like to find a candidate in Austria but they didn't". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply: I appreciate the promptness. Dealing with your points as follows:

POINT 1: US DEMOCRATIC PARTY

In your reply, you said "...I doubt that even old-established governing parties like the US Democratic party and the British Labour party have as many different articles as you were trying to create all at once for Libertas.eu...". Er, we do have that number of articles (more in fact) for the US Democratic Party. They are as follows:

• Continental umbrella body: Democratic Party (United States)
• Grouping in House of the People (United States House of Representatives): Democratic Caucus of the United States House of Representatives
• Grouping in House of the States (United States Senate):Democratic Caucus of the United States Senate
• State-level parties: Alabama Democratic Party, Alaska Democratic Party , Arizona Democratic Party , Democratic Party of Arkansas , California Democratic Party , Colorado Democratic Party , Democratic State Central Committee of Connecticut , Delaware Democratic Party , District of Columbia Democratic State Committee , Florida Democratic Party , Democratic Party of Georgia , Democratic Party of Hawaii , Idaho Democratic Party , Democratic Party of Illinois , Indiana Democratic Party , Iowa Democratic Party , Kansas Democratic Party , Kentucky Democratic Party , Louisiana Democratic Party , Maine Democratic Party , Maryland Democratic Party, Massachusetts Democratic Party , Michigan Democratic Party , Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party , Democratic Party of the State of Mississippi , Missouri Democratic Party , Montana Democratic Party , Nebraska Democratic Party , Nevada Democratic Party , New Hampshire Democratic Party , New Jersey Democratic State Committee , Democratic Party of New Mexico , New York State Democratic Committee , North Carolina Democratic Party , North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party , Ohio Democratic Party , Oklahoma Democratic Party , Democratic Party of Oregon , Pennsylvania Democratic Party , Puerto Rico Democratic Party , Rhode Island Democratic Committee , South Carolina Democratic Party , South Dakota Democratic Party , Tennessee Democratic Party , Texas Democratic Party , Utah Democratic Party , Vermont Democratic Party , Democratic Party of Virginia , Washington State Democratic Party , West Virginia Democratic Party , Democratic Party of Wisconsin , Wyoming Democratic Party

That's not a joke, by the way: what you understand as the US Democratic Party is not a homogeneous party, but a collection of smaller parties grouped together under an umbrella party: each state-level party has its own legal identity.

POINT 2: UK LABOUR PARTY

Similarly, we do have that number of articles for the Party of European Socialists, the political party at European level of which the UK Labour party is a part. They are as follows:

• Continental umbrella body: Party of European Socialists
• Grouping in House of the People (European Parliament): Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats
• Grouping in House of the States (European Council): no exact analogy
• Member state-level parties: Partia Socialiste e Shqipërisë,Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, Socialistische Partij Anders, Parti Socialiste, Българска социалистическа партия, Κίνημα Σοσιαλδημοκρατών, Česká strana sociálně demokratická, Socialdemokraterne, Sotsiaaldemokraatlik Erakond, Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen Puolue, Parti Socialiste, Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Πανελλήνιο Σοσιαλιστικό Κίνημα, Magyar Szocialista Párt, Magyarországi Szociáldemokrata Párt, Páirtí an Lucht Oibre / Labour Party, Partito Socialista Italiano, Latvijas Sociāldemokrātiskā Strādnieku Partija, Lietuvos Socialdemokratų Partija, Lëtzebuerger Sozialistesch Arbechterpartei, Partit Laburista, Demokratska Partija Socijalista Crne Gore, Socijaldemokratska Partija Crne Gore, Partij van de Arbeid, Det norske Arbeiderparti, Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej, Unia Pracy, Partido Socialista, Partidul Social Democrat, Smer – sociálna demokracia, Socialni demokrati, Partido Socialista Obrero Español, Sveriges socialdemokratiska arbetareparti, UK Labour Party, Páirtí Sóisialta Daonlathach an Lucht Oibre

My point being that Libertas was trying to create a political party at European level (Libertas.eu) and the member-state level parties (Libertas Austria, .... Libertas Slovenia, etc), all at once. Since political parties at European level (Europarties) and Political groups of the European Parliament are my areas of interest on Wikipedia, I found myself horrifyingly having to evolve a structure to cope with this (to be polite) quixotic attempt. Once it was over, we had a structure that could cope with Europarties. Yay!

POINT 3: NOTABILITY OF MEMBER-STATE LEVEL PARTIES

I take your point that given the lack of electoral success, most of the state-level parties no longer justify their own article. Your point is correct. However, some of them are notable because of the notability of the issues they raised (Libertas Poland raised issues about funding of Polish parties by non-Poles and government media interference, Libertas Bulgaria raised issues about whether non-party-affiliated candidates can stand in Bulgarian elections - they can't, btw - and so on). Since these are state-level notability issues, I can rely on the sense of Wikieditors to judge them accordingly. Please note that some postcommunist central European countries do not have a party tradition and have electoral committees (ad-hoc groups set up at election time gathering like-minded individuals) instead, which muddies the waters.

I hope that helps, regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents, no one could have been more balanced than User:Anameofmyveryown I was interested in writing many of these articles but as Anameofmyveryown excelled in organizational skills I left them at it and provided some sources from time to time. Plus the quality and presentation of fact in those articles and all his/her others are a standard rarely reached on this site. I think you should all get of his/her back and sit at the feet of a master for a while. I bet if we had a competition to produce a first rate article on an EU topic in under two hours that was completely readable and presented fact in an easily usable way the Anameofmyveryown would win hands down against anyone on this site. Anameofmyveryown contributions to complex articles on the EU and its institutions would be the type of material that consultancy firms would charge thousands to produce and yet he/she post it here for free, just look at the pages he/she has wither created or made major contribs to. re primary sources: articles on institutions/political parties must refer to e.g party charters , laws, protocols and agreements which though primary documents are all very much encyclopedical and Anameofmyveryown helped simplify these unwieldy documents for the "common man". If you examine the partisan editing around Libertas main article you will see that Anameofmyveryown did not engage in any activities unbecoming of a user here.

Break out the medal boxCatapla (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

May 6, 2010

Oh yes, the fight is on. Here goes the editing frenzy...doktorb _words^deeds 07:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Link

You know me very well ;) Thanks for that, I will have a look at that link, see what will come from it.... doktorb _words^deeds 11:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick question on opt out protocol

Quick question. I was wondering if you know anything about the Lisbon opt-outs (Irish guarantees and the Czech charter opt out) protocol which we were told would be attached to the next treaty amendment? No one has mentioned it and we've had the transitional provisions protocol which is almost ratified, the EFSM/EFSF things, the ESM amendment, the ESM treaty itself and now Croatia's treaty but no sign of the protocols. Did they forget about it? - _J.Logan`^t: 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)