User talk:Brainiac242

Revert of Duff Reform Deletion

I have reverted your deletion of content in Elections to the European Parliament :
1. Discuss such a deletion first on the talk page as per WP:REMOVAL#Consensus on removal
2. Don't delete, improve! Add information in order to make it up-to-date. What happened to the proposal of transnational lists? As per WP:IMPROVE ("try to fix it rather than delete it") and WP:PRESERVE
C-Kobold (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Is it possible to update the summary table or more precisely the obstacles part with the lasted obstacles of each country? I mean the sources are old and these countries have made reforms, either big or small ones. S.G ReDark (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S.G ReDark: I assume you're talking about this table, but I don't understand your question. Are you asking me if it's literally possible to update it? Are you asking me to update it? Perhaps you meant to post it here instead? Brainiac242 (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, yeah that table and yes I'm asking you :p S.G ReDark (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried there but no one responded https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Potential_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Summary_table_needs_to_be_updated S.G ReDark (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S.G ReDark: Honestly, I think that entire column should be deleted. I explain my opinion here. Brainiac242 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is very good! I think you should do it. S.G ReDark (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S.G ReDark: OK, I'm done. Brainiac242 (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I couldn't reply to you earlier due to my account being locked which was just resolved. S.G ReDark (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the capital punishment map

I saw that the map had been changed, and went back through the editing history of the Death Penalty article for six months and couldn't figure out when the change had occurred or how to find the old version of the map. Didn't appreciate that I should have been looking at the history of the map file on Wiki-commons. Thanks for explaining it to me. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your thoughts

Hi Brainiac242, Happy New Year! I have a question about a picture in the Commons that I think is mislabelled. Would appreciate your thoughts? File talk:Antoine-Charles Taschereau.png Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Your explanation makes sense to me, but I don’t know anything about 19th-century Quebec. I’m sorry I can’t be of any help. Perhaps you should discuss this with users who have edited Taschereau’s article. Brainiac242 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will try that. (The Taschereaux were a huge clan, very successful and very prolific: two chief justices of Canada and one third judge on the Supreme Court, plus a Premier of Quebec. Would not be surprised if there were some mixups in ident. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I poked around a bit on the Commons page, and found that inquiries like this get posted on the Village Pump there, so I started a post on it: Mislabelled photo: Antoine-Charles Taschereau. Will see if anyone responds. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

		Happy New Year!
		Hi Brainiac242, Looking backwards, looking forwards, best wishes for the New Year. Happy wikifying! (Regardless of UTC, it is still January 1 where I'm posting!) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Croatia in Template:Euro convergence criteria (2022)

I made a comment in Template talk:Euro convergence criteria (2022), that removing Croatia breaks some pages one-eyed pirate 07:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@One-eyed pirate: I agree with you and followed your suggestion. Brainiac242 (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kaja Kallas' third cabinet (April 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Kaja Kallas' third cabinet instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kaja Kallas' third cabinet and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brainiac242! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bkissin (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, List of members of the European Council

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of members of the European Council. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – European Council. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at European Council. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Tomas62 (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Spanish government formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Together for Catalonia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current events Sidebar

Your lifeline call/email to Carter00000 aside, there are still obvious problems with the edits you are pushing onto the Current events/Sidebar and your reasoning behind them.

First, as far as your comparison between Tom Jones (writer) and Michael Boyd (theatre director), the explanation for why disambiguation is not necessary for the latter is laid out in your own edit summary about it. There is, in fact, only one subject on WP who is identified as 'Michael Boyd'. In a list such as the Recent Deaths section of the Sidebar, those other examples which you cited would otherwise be properly differentiated from the theatre director - by either having a middle initial, or from their first name shortened as 'Mike'.

Also, have you already forgotten about the time last month when you added a couple instances of the resize template to the Sidebar? Why are you suddenly against using that same template now? Farolif (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Farolif: I replied to you in Portal talk:Current events/Sidebar. Brainiac242 (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here as my reply is not directly related to the original issue being discussed on Portal Talk.

I came across the dispute since I had the sidebar on my watchlist. I frequently edit Portal:Current Events, therefore I want to keep track of the changes on the sidebar as well. As previously stated, Brainiac242 did not contact me in any way. Canvassing and meatpuppertry accusations are serious and should not be made without evidence.

As I mentioned in my revert, my concern was with the uncivil tone of the replies by Farolif. Replies such as surely, at this point, you simply protest too much and maybe it's time to switch over to a device that's meant for displaying English text? are not acceptable when the other editor is making an attempt to discus the dispute civilly.

Carter00000 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament Diagram

Dear Braniac242,

indeed, the pie chart is only a temporary workaround because of the problems with the graph extension (see: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template_talk:Parliament_diagram). I like the dots better too, we should just be patient a little longer. It is simply much easier to keep a parliamentary article up to date with the template. Kind regards, Alektor89 (talk)

I'll answer here: The points you mention (essentially the possibility of visually representing the CSU) can also be seen differently. Here, the impression could very quickly arise that the CSU has something like an independent status in the Bundestag, which is simply not the case. Its deputies are fully part of the Union parliamentary group - the CSU has no right to its own vice-president, no committee representation, no separate speaking time, CDU and CSU act as one party in the Bundestag. And a diagram should reflect this fact (German Wikipedia does so too). I have always been of the opinion that the best possible solution is to show all Union MPs in black in the diagram (since they form a uniform block in parliamentary procedure) and to break this down in the political groups by indentation. By the way, that's how it was before the graph extension failed. So I would be in favour of returning to this - regardless of whether with dots or pie charts. If you see it differently, we should discuss it on the talk page of the article to involve other users. I have started a discussion about this there. Alektor89 (talk)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E II

Howdy. Your 'second version' is (visually) better. But I still don't see it as either an overall improvement or being neccesary. I wish you'd respect WP:BRD & bring your proposed changes to the talkpage. Anyways, we'll let others check over your latest change & see what they think. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Council

Hello, Brainiac242. Could you modify the political affiliation of Dimitar Glavchev from (EPP - Ind.) to (Ind. - Ind.)? It's also necessary to change the colour of the stripe from blue (EPP) to grey (Independent like Cyprus or Lithuania). I leave you the following link so you can verify what I say: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2024/608781/EPRS_ATA(2024)608781_EN.pdf I've tried to do it but I don't know how. Thanks a lot. Fernan860 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fernan860: I assume you are talking about Template:Members of the European Council. If so, done. Brainiac242 (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brainiac242 Yes, thank you. Fernan860 (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Composition of European Council by European political party

Hi @Brainiac242, I am taking the liberty to undo your undoing the addition of the table showing the composition of the European Council by European political party. Your reason for doing so was that the table was not supported by the source. This is my mistake, as I initially copy-pasted the table below (composition by political group) and forgot to change the source. In future instance, before entirely undoing a change, kindly check whether a better course of action is available (such as indicating that a source is needed for instance); it just feels more constructive. Of course, I am now updating the source. Thanks! Julius Schwarz (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius Schwarz: First of all, Wikipedia is not a source. You can’t just link another article to support unsourced information. But even if you could, that article doesn’t support the information on the chart. The article claims PES has 5 Council members and ALDE has 3; your chart says PES has 4 and ALDE 5. That’s not the only problem with the chart. ALDE’s bar is shorter than that of PES, even though it’s supposed to have more members. And the percentages don’t match the number of members either. The entire chart is a mess. I tried to fix it before removing it (that’s why I checked the source), but because you copy-pasted the source from the chart below and I could’t find a reliable source to replace it with, I decided to remove it. And I’m removing it again. You’re free to add the chart back once you’ve found a reliable source for it and you’ve corrected it accordingly. Brainiac242 (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me take a step back and review the chart to make sure it's correct before adding it again.

As for the source, what would work? Because I am assuming we should not add links to all the membership pages of the various European political parties represented in the European Council, should we? In the absence of a consolidated document (as the European Parliament drafted for political group affiliations), what would be the way to go about this? Julius Schwarz (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy not to lose momentum on this; any proposal for proper sourcing? Julius Schwarz (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your edit and I'm really not getting it. Firstly, why reinstate the less precise "political alliances"? Secondly, in the second paragraph, the source clearly states that European political parties organise gatherings ahead of Council meetings and not "These alliances" (which here includes political groups). Finally, for the charts, why place the one according to European party in between the two according to political group? Surely you have a reason, but it would be useful to explain. Julius Schwarz (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius Schwarz: The sources provided look good, though I did make a few changes to the chart. According to your source PES only has 4 members in the Council, not 5. I also split members of a national party unaffiliated at the European level and independent members, for consistency with the other charts and the rest of the article.

To answer your questions, Renew Europe is a political group and not a political party, but it still organizes meetings before the Council summits. Renew meetings have, in fact, largely replaced ALDE meetings since 2019. See for example this article from ALDE. Saying “political alliances” is just more concise than constantly repeating “political parties and political groups”. I just don’t think it’s necessary to write “European political parties and/or political groups frequently hold pre-meetings with their European Council members, prior to their meetings. However, the European Council represents the members states rather than political parties or groups […]”. Finally, I was going to move the chart about parties to the bottom, because the article focuses more on political groups (see the table above, the map), but having the chart about population between the other two looked weird to me. You are free to move it there, though.

PS: I was going to explain the edit here (hence my edit summary), but I had to step away for a moment that took longer than it should have. Sorry about that. Brainiac242 (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points all. Indeed, Romania is represented by its President, not Prime Minister (from PES). I hadn't seen that Renew had meetings as Renew instead of as ALDE. I personally would not have separated indep from unaffiliated (as there is no such distinction from the perspective of European party membership), but I see the consistency argument. I would also spell our European parties and political groups instead of "alliances", especially since people are not very often familiar with the nature of political alliances and it may be useful to spell them out more often than not, but I see that it is indeed in the first paragraph and that is probably just a personal preference. Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALDE -> ECR Group

Hi @Brainiac242, just saw your changes to the ECR Group. Can you tell me who from ALDE sits with the ECR Group? Didn't know that was the case. Thanks! Julius Schwarz (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius Schwarz: Jaak Madison. He was elected as EKRE’s only MEP, but left the party shortly after. He then moved from Identity and Democracy to ECR, before joining the Estonian Centre Party, a member of ALDE. Now the party has two MEPs, one in Renew and one in ECR. This is all reflected in European Conservatives and Reformists#10th European Parliament. Brainiac242 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I get that this is factually correct, but it does feel a bit misleading as it is, because the vast majority of MEPs of ECR Group come from ECR Party, then some from the ECPM, a few from the EFA, and one from ALDE. As it currently displays, all parties are shown equally. If we really are to list all parties, then we should probably list the respective numbers or something, don't you think? Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius Schwarz: I do think we should list all parties, but I see your point. I guess we could specify the number of MEPs belonging to each party, but it may be too detailed for the infobox. It might also be confusing because it wouldn’t include unaffiliated national parties and independents, so we’d be listing 58 MEPs right above the composition bar saying there are 78 MEPs in the group. How about something like this?:

Majority:
European Conservatives and Reformists Party
Minority:
European Free Alliance
European Christian Political Movement
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party

We’d be separating ECR from the rest, without the drawbacks of specifying numbers. And in every group (exept for The Left), there’s one European party the majority of MEPs belong to. Those in the minority would of course be sorted by their number of MEPs. I don’t know about The Left, though. Maybe we just leave it as it is. Brainiac242 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting because, instinctively, I read "majority" and "minority" differently. The point is less to say that "ALDE" or "ECPM" form a minority of the ECR Group, but more to say that a minority of ALDE MEPs actually sit with the ECR Group. Because it may not be obvious what the number of MEPs is for each European party (quite a few for ALDE, but not many for the ECPM, so bundling them together is not quite clear). If we were to do something like this, I would put ECPM in "majority" (or any other term if we rephrase) to indicate that most MEPs of that party sit with the ECR Group. EFA and ALDE remain in the minority, and ECR party in the majority. Does that make sense? Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius Schwarz: In that case, I think this way would be better:

European Conservatives and Reformists Party (majority)
European Free Alliance (minority)
European Christian Political Movement (majority)
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (minority)

But what would we count as a majority? An absolute majority or a simple one? I ask because if it’s absolute, then there’s not a majority of MEPs from ECPM (2/4). But if it’s simple, then there’s a majority of MEPs from EFA both in ECR and in Greens/EFA (3/8). Brainiac242 (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's already better, but I see your points. More specifically, as of 7 August, there are 7 MEPs from the EFA, so there should indeed be a majority, right? Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius Schwarz: Their website shows 8. But either way, 3/8 and 3/7 are both simple majorities, not absolute. Maybe we count a simple majority unless there’s a tie? I just think it’d be weird to say there’s a majority of MEPs from EFA in two different groups. Brainiac242 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. And I know this isn't a criteria in itself, but the ECPM structurally sits with the ECR Group, even if there are exceptions. Just like ALDE does not sit with the ECR Group, with that one exception. EFA is trickier because it ends up being a mixed bag, but one group is still called Greens/EFA. Julius Schwarz (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius Schwarz: I know, but if there are 3 MEPs in both groups, we can’t really say there’s a majority in one and a minority in the other. Anyway, if we’ve reached an agreement, I’ll add this in the article of every group. Brainiac242 (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius Schwarz: Done. And thank you for two successful collaborations. Brainiac242 (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, thanks for the good work. Final thing for the ECR will be to change the "ECR -> ECR Group" redirect to a disambiguation page. That would be more neutral. Julius Schwarz (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Membership of the Estonian Centre Party in ALDE

According to the ALDE Party website, the Estonian Centre Party is still a member of the ALDE Party. The ALDE Party logo is also clearly visible everywhere on the website of the Estonian Centre Party. The reference you provided indeed confirms that the party has decided to leave the ALDE Party, but it does not say that the party has left or which date it will leave. Since aforementioned sources state that they are still members, we would need a reference that actually confirms that they left if that is what you claim. Nablicus (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nablicus: It looks like you are right and the party has voted to leave ALDE, but hasn’t actually left yet. Listing the party as a full member of ALDE, like the Estonian Reform Party, seems misleading, though. I think we should at least add a note explaining the situation. Brainiac242 (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Nablicus (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]