User talk:Khnassmacher

Welcome

 * }

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Quick question--are you by any chance the anonymous user who has been editing campaign finance? I appreciate the work and have a quick question about it. Let me know on User talk:Meelar if you are. Cheers, Meelar (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My question relates to the broadness of the term, specifically the introduction. For instance, it currently says that campaign finance refers to "all funds that are raised and spent in order to promote candidates, parties or policies" (my emphasis) and mentions issue campaigns as one example of campaign finance.  How does the literature differentiate between, say, donating to the ACLU vs. giving to a political party or campaign? These seem to exist on a spectrum, but I'm not sure exactly how to draw the line.  It might be worth thinking about what title this article lives under, and if straight electoral financing should be treated in the same place as funding for issue campaigns.  Any thoughts? Best, Meelar (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Political party fundraising
Hi when I think of parties I would think of the term we have at Party and there is a disambiguation at Party (disambiguation) which includes political party. Any way it looks like a worthwhile topic that could have a lot more content. I looked around to see if it was already covered here. Take a look at Campaign finance and Category:Political funding to see how it fits in with other articles. It may need a merge or redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Graeme Bartlett, I agree that the term "party" in English (with the possible exception of Tea Party) has dominant connotations that are non-political, Unfortunately this is quite different in my mother tongue (German). Obviously that is why I was not aware of the problem which you (or someone else) solved by going from "party funding" to "political party funding". I appreciate this improvement and have fully accepted it in my further efforts. However, from that point on we start running into new problems: The heading which you have chosen for this note contains an extra-step (from "funding" to "fundraising") which I feel is no improvement. The same is true for the shortcut that takes you to "campaign finance". Probably we have hit upon another cultural difference there. I am fully aware of the page on "campaign finance". Actually my personal wiki history starts exactly from there. I saw the article, started to read it and felt urged to do something by the banner "give it a more worldwide view". I tried to do exactly that and the consequences of my travails are still in the "intro". Running into the typical U.S. term "the campaign" (for a unit that raises and spends political money) I finally quit this effort because I felt unable to alter a piece so strictly written from a U.S. viewpoint to a more globally comprehendable text. Now that we are three weeks later, the "global" piece on the subject matter (money raised and spent to influence politics) is there. Its title is "Political finance" and I have tried to crossreference my piece in all directions (following wiki's "no orphans" policy). My suggestion is that you have a brief look at my new text before we continue to argue about further procedure. Best, Khnassmacher (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ferdinand A. Hermens
Hello Khnassmacher, thank you for your message. I have just looked your article over and added a small contribution to help with your efforts. Much of my original contribution (today) was lost in an edit conflict with another user editing at the same time, but it looks as though User:Trunks ishida has indeed covered much of what I was was working on and had in mind. Your references and categories appear to be in good order. Please feel free to adjust the fields in persondata if I've made any errors while copying data from the article body. Best of luck with future developments, have yourself a great day, and happy editing! :) -- WikHead (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering both of you, but I wasn't sure who was the one whom I had to address because he had offered his help. Such duplication will not happen again, for sure! I appreciate both of your efforts because now the piece kooks great. Thanks again, Khnassmacher (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're most certainly welcome Khnassmacher, no reason to apologise. As Wikipedians, we are all here to help create a better encyclopedia together. Asking questions is how we get answers, and including others is how we achieve variety and greater overall accuracy. Team work is part of the foundation that makes this such a great project. Occasional edit-conflicts are to be expected, and in this case I don't mind at all, as User:Trunks ishida did a fine job... and together we produced satisfactory results. Never be shy to ask for help. Stay well, and edit happily! :) -- WikHead (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, WikHead, thank you very much for your encouragement. Working for the joint effort has been great fun and quite rewarding so far and I am sure it will stay that way! All the best, Khnassmacher (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Party finance in Sweden
Hi, I've removed the tags. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   14:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bill, thanks a lot! I will continue to work on the article as soon as possible. Best, Khnassmacher (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Stub markings and comments in article text
Dear Khnassmacher, you can always remove stub markers yourself, if you feel that it is justified to do so. In this case it is the template you should remove, or the assessment on the talk page you should modify. However, in my opinion Political party funding in its current state is a stub article (due to the relatively short body text), see Stub. Possibly, reading your comments, you may have misunderstood the meaning of the stub template. It's definitely not a negative judgment of you as the editor who has started the article, it's just a marking to show that it is so short that it could deserve expanding - by any editor. Since Wikipedia is not based on ownership of articles, that also means that we all sort of share the "blame" for not having expanded short articles that have been around for a while. :-) If you were to make really bad edits (e.g. removing references, adding false statements or adding articles that are nominated for deletions), you will usually get personal messages on your talk page; templates on article pages are simply about the current state of the article, irrespective of who was behind the edits. I'd also like to point out that you should definitely not add comments to an article text, as you did in this case. You may add comments to the talk page, Talk:Political party funding, if they are related to improving the article. See Help:Using talk pages in case of questions. Hopes that this helps. Tomas e (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Tomas e, you are absolutely right about my comments put to the article text. This was not a good idea. I'm sorry that we cannot agree on a view about the function of the article. The subject is covered in detail in the article titled "Political finance". Thus there should be no need to dublicate text. My point was not about "ownership" but about a useful way of working on subjects. But let's wait and see how other wikipedeans go about it. As far as I am aware nobody has edited the page for about a year. Best, Khnassmacher (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is duplication of content, and the subject doesn't "stand on its own legs", there is always the possibility to redirect the article to the main article, after any non-duplicated content has been merged to that article. Tomas e (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally we are getting closer: This article is designed as a combination of redirect (which would lead to exactly one other article) and forking, which offers multiple options to go where users want to go by linking the "stub" to many other articles that may be of interest to the user!Khnassmacher (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ushau97
Ushau97 talk 12:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 6 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Political funding in Ireland page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=632715235 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F632715235%7CPolitical funding in Ireland%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Political funding in Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party. 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) 17:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Error had been fixed by someone else already. Khnassmacher (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)