Jump to content

User talk:ElTres

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advisory panel

[edit]

From its inception, DiEM25 has attracted some well-known, influential personalities from across the globe. They have been helping ‘curate’ DiEM25’s thinking, events and campaigns from the very beginning. These people gave rise to our Advisory Panel, which advises DiEM25 and facilitates the implementation of its aims.

Members of DiEM25's Advisory Panel do not necessarily share all of DiEM25's objectives and political positions, and vice versa. They were invited to act as advisors, and have accepted DiEM25's invitation, because of their remarkable contributions to areas and campaigns dear to DiEM25 members and because DiEM25 represents a political movement that they look at with interest and sympathy.

This is from their own website. That is not what is understood by support. I look at the MPs who have split from Labour Party over the European /Brexit question 'with interest and sympathy', but I do not support them. If you can't discriminate about this I suggest you at least argue this on the talk page and don't just act like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 78.144.81.175 (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EFA

[edit]

Sorry, I got confused between the two, my bad! Akerbeltz (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of European Alliance of Peoples and Nations

[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from European Alliance of Peoples and Nations, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Phil Bridger (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fidesz in the ECR

[edit]

Hello! I've seen the ECR Party page, that you reverted my edits. I have the source, that the Fidesz is joined to the European Conservatives, but only in Hungarian language. I know, that you don't speak Hungarian language, but i only speak English and Hungarian language. The Fidesz is leaved the EPP's Party and the European People's Party in March, 2021, and now it is two months for now. The Fidesz is joined to the European Conservatives in April, 2021, said by Zsolt Németh. So, the ECR is gained 12 seats in the European Parliament, and it is now 74 seats, before the Fidesz joined to this group, the ECR's seat is 62, but for now it is now 74 seats, because of the Fidesz. Excepct for the KDNP, which this party is still the member of the EPP and the EPP Group. That's all! Have nice day! --TomFZ67 (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TomFZ67, thanks for stopping by. I think you referring to this article. I don't speak Hungarian, but with help of Google Translate I found that the article refers to "Európa Tanács Parlamenti Közgyűlésének", which is the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where Fidesz joined the European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance, a group with ECR Party, ID Party and independent members. At the end of the article there are some comments about possible membership of Fidesz in European Parliament, but no conclusion. There is also no statement by either ECR Group in the EP or the ECR Party about Fidesz joining. European Parliament also lists 62 seats for ECR and Fidesz MEPs still as unattached. Best regards --ElTres (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transnational party

[edit]

Hi @ElTres, As you saw, I made a few changes to the descriptions of European political parties and alliances in order to both detail and harmonise them. I saw that you just reverted some of those changes. Let's discuss!

Basically, my idea was as follows: 1/ add the political positioning first to give a better sense of what each entity is, 2/ every registered European political party is described as "European political party", 3/ every entity that previous was a European party (regardless of APPF registration) is "Former European political party", and 3/ entities that are close to European parties but never were are "European political alliance".

The basis for the term is "political alliance" is Regulation 1141/2014, which I believe to be a useful basis since we are talking about entities active at EU level. Someone had previously made the case that a distinction (that I had attempted) between "European political organisation" and "European political alliance" was confusing because a political organisation could mean something very different. Point taken and I think "European political alliance" is better.

By contrast, what is the basis for "transnational party"? A party should be registered somewhere, whether at national or EU level (or at the regional level in other contexts, but that's not relevant here). But then, why not call them a national or a European party? And if there is a transnational dimension, what's wrong with alliance?

As for the two specific cases where you reversed the changes. Unless I am mistaken, Volt Europa is not a party, it's an AISBL registered in Belgium. It has a party in Belgium and in many other member states, but Volt Europa itself is not a party, so "transnational party" does not apply. As for the European Federalist Party, after reading more closely, it seems like the European alliance merged with another group to form Stand Up for Europe, and that the French section took on the name. I therefore agree that this is not a "European political alliance", but it is also not a "transnational party"; it is a French political party and should then also be removed from European political party.

So I think we should go back to "European political alliance" for Volt and change the description to "French national party" (maybe with "federalist") for the European Federalist Party. Anyway, as always, happy to discuss.

PS: I am also writing separately about the page on European parties and about European political foundations (on wikidata). Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A party should be registered somewhere" - that is where you are wrong. The fact that party register exist does not mean that parties need to be registered "somewhere" everywhere. A political alliance on European level is composed by independent national parties. This is not the case for transnational parties like Volt or EFP.
Again, I like to point oout that we shoudn't invent terms we use in Wikipedia, but we should use the terms which are used in scientific literature, or in the press. "which I believe" is not "a useful basis".
Sorry for the short answer. My time is limited right know.--ElTres (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ: I did not mention a party register and, while perhaps "register somewhere" might have been the wrong phrasing, political parties are still tied to a jurisdiction. What is a "transnational party" tied to? What makes a "transnational party" a "transnational party"? How is a "transnational party" different from a "transnational alliance"? These are questions you leave unanswered.
By contrast, Regulation 1141/2014, which is extremely relevant when discussing European political parties, defines "political alliance" as a "structured cooperation between political parties and/or citizens". That's something concrete we can use and that is not invented.
So while it is clearly attested that Volt is a European political alliance, the burden falls on you to prove that it is a "transnational party", which it is not. Volt does call itself a European party, but that doesn't make it so. Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ElTres (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but, once again, words have meaning, especially when talking about legal entities, and just because people like to refer to Volt as a European party does not make it one. Many entities call themselves European parties and yet they are not. Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it's better that one person - you - invents words, instead of words that are already used? Please read WP:FORUM! ElTres (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the tone? Have I done something to offend you? Is it so hard to just discuss without accusations?
Anyway, you made your point, you do not want to have this conversation here and there is no point in persisting. I therefore suggest we take this to the relevant pages. Julius Schwarz (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElTres&oldid=1258275597"