User talk:Mr A

Military Aircraft insginia
Please do not alter the page or remove roundels. I have worked tirelessly on it, and it is now correct. There is no reason to shorten the article. Fry1989 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tajikistan Roundel
Hey Mr. A Thanks for your speedy response to the cite tag, if you get a chance can you list some of the other sources. Unfortunately, "Roundels of the World" is an outdated source as of Apr. 11, 2006. Even the author refers to the magazine "Air Zone" which ceased publication back on 2003. If I may also suggest photos, one like founded in "Airlines.net". the you'll have irrefutable evidence. And this is by means to impugn on your work. In fact its excellent work. I'm still fumbling around Inkscape, trying to get it wired. (heads up a BOT may again tag and/or delete such unsourced imagaes) regarda E Bilko (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser
Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 19:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

source?
Curiosity compels: The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been to Berlin and been told the context of what happened in 1953, relating to the strike which was the original catalyst for the demonstrations and the subsequent put-down by Soviet troops. This is a song that has enormous political and social meaning, and many thousands of people do not spontaneously decide to sing it "ironically"; this is also an argument I have heard relating to the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989, and is entirely false for the same reason. In short, in Berlin in 1953, as in Hungary in 1956, as in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and in Beijing in 1989, people were not arguing for less Socialism but for more Socialism. Mr A (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Re "What's changing the layout about?" at Lebanese Civil War
Re your edit summary at ; The issue is that you are reintroducing non-free content in violation of WP:NFCC policy. Specifically, using such images as File:Lebanesearmyofficialflag.png as icons violates WP:NFCC #8, and in all cases that you added images there is no associated rationale, which is a direct requirement of WP:NFCC #10c. Please revert yourself, and add whatever content you'd like to add without re-adding the NFCC violating non-free content, specifically do not use the following images as icons: Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Lebanesearmyofficialflag.png
 * File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg
 * File:Goclogo.png
 * File:Logo of Lebanese Forces.png
 * File:Noumour.jpg

Apologies, it was not my intention to violate policy of use for images, but rather reverting a particularly puzzling vandalism by a previous editor, thank you for the advice. Mr A (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

List of socialist states
I see you reverted my edits on list of socialist states. I admit that the last IP was also me, using another IP adress (not to make the illusion to be another person, but because I was at another PC).

But I see that I am anyway not the only to have reverted your edits on that article. For me, it seems like you just wrote it because of your own opinion. Where can you find anything in Indonesia's constitution under the Suharto dictatorship, can you find a place where it's described "socialist"? ANd Barrientos, the dictator of Bolivia, called himself anti-socialist. And the Spanish Republic was a parliamentary republic, as was pre-1962 Burma (Burma had a socialist government before 1962 too, but they weren't single-party, and had no constitutional references, as you need for the term "socialist state". You have just said that they were "pretty left-leaning". But how long it isn't SELF-DESCRIBED under the title socialist state, you shall not write it either. And why have you changed the flag of Afghanistan back to that flag that was used in only 11 months from october 1978 to april 1980 in the earlier part of Afghanistan's revolutionary era? And why have you mentioned Czechoslovakia two times? They just changed their official names. OK, understand Derg, because it's a difference between military junta and civilian rule (with "civilian rule", I not necessarily mean democratic), but why CZECHOSLOVAKIA?

You call it vandalism? This was the verson that stood before you started editing the article. And you have no explanation or any references for Indonesia, Bolivia and these. How long it was you that added content, you can't call it "vandalism" to remove it when I only brought back the verson that stood before, you are the only person to mean this (see, no others have expressed agreement in your edit), you have no references AND they are highly dubious because the countries that were under party rule - Bolivia, North Yemen and them - had parties described in other ideologies than socialist ideologies. You mean "left-leaning reforms"? Then America should be added too, because Obama have also did reforms that are left-leaning.

--188.113.91.110 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The CSSR was only in existence from 1960, it is Sukarno not Suharto who ruled Indonesia during this period, and he was a socialist. The same goes for Bolivia, it was under the rule of Ovanda and Torres during this time. Despite Saleh being a moderate islamist of sorts the military had used socialist rhetoric and imagery from its creation in 1962, other leaders like Sallal and Al-Hamdi were more surely socialist. As for the flag of Afghanstan, after the soviet invasion the country ceased to be a truly independent state, with a soviet puppet government, during its first year, the democratic republic was far more representative, and socialist. There are other mistakes in your information too, like putting Egypt under constitutional references and referring to Burkina Faso as a republic. I would welcome constructive discussion about this page, and I will accept the removal of the Spanish Republic for example, but please don't simply wipe out most of the information I have put into the page without discussing it first.


 * YOU mean that Afghanistan weren't independent after dec. 1979. But, again, as I said, it was NOT YOUR opinion that tells. You see it as a puppet government, but unless it have said itself: "We are a puppet state", it can't be called that. But that not very important. I was interressed when you said that Burkina Faso wasn't a republic. But why did you changed Iraq? I may also accept that about Czechoslovakia. And for North Yemen, even if it could be called "left wing" at some places in history, you can't say it is socialist unless you find a reference for it being so. I have NO REFERENCE saying that the North Yemen was socialist here. Also, North KOREA haven't been communist since 1992. And Egypt have been one-party (and now military junta) under socialism since the revolution in 1953. I'm not trying to be aggressive now. Because I saw you were not aggressive at your talk page, though you were in the edit symmary. But I'm only using a friendly tone over something I don't agree in. --153.110.194.139 (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC) (same person, on a job PC).

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Hiep Hoa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NLF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DRA
Don't remove that it was an Islamic state from the infobox, officially it was - it was never officially a socialist state... Even so, a question, why don't you support the Communist Party of the Russian Federation? You support all the other communist parties (and socialist parties) + the Socialist Left Party is more of a social democratic party than socialist (I know, I'm Norwegian - I used to be a member).... --TIAYN (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello TIAYN. I was under the impression that even under Najibullah, Afghanistan was never officially an Islamic state per se, it just put an end to the secularism of the Taraki-Amin-Karmal period. In answer to your question about the CPRF, from what I know of it, it is simply focused on nostalgia for Stalin and the deformed workers' state that he created. The party espousing what sound to me like sensible leftist policies is A Just Russia. As for the Socialist Left Party, well, they're part of the Nordic Green Left aren't they?
 * Thats partially wrong, the CPRF do praise Stalin, but they do not want to revert to the old Soviet economic system - they support a mixed economy. The Socialist Left is a member of the Nordic Green Left Alliance, not of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left (Norway is not a member of the EU) - the Left Alliance (Finland) and the Left Party (Sweden) are the only real left parties which remain of the old order, however, Denmark does have the Red-Green Alliance.. But back to Afghanistan: the DRA officially became an Islamic state in 1987, in the 1990 constitution all socialist/communist terminology was removed, and the PDPA was transformed into the Watan Party... You could say that from 1990-1992 Afghanistan was not a socialist state, however, it wasn't an Islamic state either in practice. --TIAYN (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited List of socialist countries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist Party of Armenia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

List of socialist countries
Just because Iraq was ruled by a nationalist-communist politician does not mean that Iraq was a socialist state.. To be a socialist state, it has to be so officially, and Iraq was not proclaimed a socialist state under Qasim or the Arifs, but under the Ba'athists.. The same goes to North Korea, they removed all references of Marxism-Leninism from their constitution in 1992 and all references to communism in 2007 from their constitution... North Korea officially follows Juche, but there are many scholars who state that Juche has nothing to with Marxism-Leninism or communism... Remember, just because they are ruled by a socialist party, or leader, doesn't make the state socialist - it has to be socialist officially too.... --TIAYN (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Qasim ran a socialist junta, Arif ran a one-party socialist state, the Ba'athists ran a different one-party state. They were all self declared socialist, but were different in practical terms. This is why there needs to be a separate entry for all of them. Mr A (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between being led by a socialist dictatorship, and being a socialist state.... A socialist state is officially proclaimed to be a socialist state; before 1968 Iraq was ruled by 4 separate dictatorships which were all socialists, but never proclaimed Iraq to be socialists... For instance, Portugal is a socialist republic, because officially, it is one - even if its ruled by a centre-right government now.... For a state to be included in the list, it has officially proclaim itself socialist (not ruled by socialist dictatorship...) --TIAYN (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The article defines the only common feature of all the states on the list as using the label "socialist" to describe themselves. Under a military junta, it (the junta) functions as both the state and the government. Qasim's junta was committed to socialism, and Iraqi nationalism. If a state is a one-party system (with the party ingrained in the state) and the only party is a socialist one, then that makes a socialist state. These different incarnations are far too different to be grouped together as one entry. Qasim's policies were in many ways far more socialist, in terms of improving the lives of ordinary people and respecting the rights of all people, than any of the subsequent regimes. You can't pick and choose which socialist regimes you put on the list. Mr A (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that Singapore is a socialist state??? - its ruled since 1963 (by making it increasingly hard for opposition parties to win support - many refer to the country as a dictatorship, but no one claims it to be socialist...) The country needs to be a socialist state officially - if we include all countries that are led by socialist dictatorships, this article would have been longer - its needs to be socialist officially.... Calling countries socialist without the country officially claiming to be one is absurd; it doesn't make sense either.. Iraq was socialist from 1968 to 2003 because the constitution said so - not because the party said so... For instance Serbia and Montenegro is not considered to be a socialist state, but i was certainly ruled by a Socialist Party - if its not official, its not a socialist state. --TIAYN (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * + note what the lead says "This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions." --TIAYN (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What has Singapore got to do with this discussion? I don't think you're appreciating what I'm saying. Socialist one-party states and Socialist military juntas are Socialist states. The article includes countless examples of the former: Ghana, Algeria, pre-1977 Libya, Seychelles, etc; and of the latter: Peru, Bolivia, etc. I fail to see why Iraq should be treated to differently to the other entries. The purpose of the article is to record any socialist states, whether Communist one-party states, non-Communist one party states (including military juntas in which the military effectively functions as a party), and states with constitutional references to Socialism. Please do not remove my work from the page again. Mr A (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Algeria and pre-1977 Libya were officially socialists states; look at the constitution.. I don't know about Peru, Bolivia, Seychelles or Ghana, but if they are not officially socialist states, they should be removed..... --TIAYN (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Singapore is led by a socialist party..... Second, if its so darned important to you for having a list of socialist dictatorships, why don't you create an article, like List of socialist dictatorship, List of dictatorships led by socialist leaders or so on... The list of socialist countries should not be confused which such a list. --TIAYN (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate rudeness, it's not going to get you anywhere. I am simply pointing out that one-party states provide constitutional roles for their ruling parties, and the article specifies any state that has constitutional ties to socialism is a socialist state, so if they (the only legal party) are socialist so is the state. In the same way that under a military junta, the military is the constitution and is the state, therefore a state ruled by the military in which the military commits itself to socialism is also a socialist state. Mr A (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, thats just a theory; for instance, in China, the Communist Party doesn't exist in any legal sense of the word.... And no, Singapore is not socialist because the ruling party is so; a state is socialist when the state itself proclaims itself to be so... A military regime which is socialist would probably alter the constitution; as in Libya and Egypt, they changed the constitution, and proclaimed their respective countries to be socialist... Qasim never proclaimed his country socialist, in contrast to his counterparts in Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Syria and so on... For instance, North Korea is not a Marxist-Leninist state anymore.... Another example, the Soviet Union was officially socialist until its dissolution, but the one-party system ended in mid-1990.. The party and state can be separate... +, as I said, the lead says specifically "This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions" (and no, I did not write the lead...) --TIAYN (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * + the lead also says "There are many countries that have been ruled by socialist political parties for extended periods of time without ever adopting socialism as an official ideology in their names or constitutions. Such countries are not listed here" --TIAYN (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but I think you're failing to acknowledge mine. That is that a legal one-party state, not like Singapore or Mexico for most of the 20th century in which one party dominated but others existed, that specifies a constitutional role for its party, so the party's ideology is party of the constitution, can therefore be socialist state because the party's socialism will be embedded in the state. Similarly, there is no constitution or state per se under a military junta, the military performs these functions itself. So if the junta declares itself committed to socialism or socialist principles, as Velasco did in Peru, Torres did in Bolivia and as the Iraqi Free Officers did, then that also means a de facto constitutional commitment to socialism and a socialist state. Do you understand where I'm coming from? Mr A (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One-party systems are often socialist; but Iraq wasn't under either Qasim or the Arifs a one-party system... But I see you're point, but as said; Gaddafi and Nasser are the example of the opposite + Qasim is controversial, he later initiated a campaign against both socialist and communist elements...... For cases which you are talking about I really believe that it would be better if you created a separate article; for instance, I created the List of communist and anti-capitalist parties with parliamentary representation, maybe you should create an article about socialist military juntas, or short-lived socialist states or something else; but a list of socialist countries should be about countries which have proclaimed themselves socialist, by adding regimes which never officially proclaimed their countries socialist you are just making it harder to turn this list into a decent one... But I see you're problem, but I believe it would be best to create a separate article, considering that what you are talking about is a different topic; you are not talking about socialist countries, but socialist dictatorships.. --TIAYN (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the case of egypt take a look at this source: it states that the "Arab Republic of Egypt is a democratic, socialist state based on the alliance of the working forces of the people" (this was prior to 26 March 2007). --TIAYN (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Eruthu Paar Kodi
Hello, Mr A,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Eruthu Paar Kodi should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Eruthu Paar Kodi.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Staglit (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

May 2016
Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Canada, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''You elected to add an image where the hidden comment stated not to. You did so without discussion or explanation. Feel free to go to the article's talk page to see previous discussions or to start a new discussion.'' Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Anarchism
Hi Mr A,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 04:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Mr A/User Malvinas
User:Mr A/User Malvinas, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mr A/User Malvinas and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Mr A/User Malvinas during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)