User talk:Zlad!

February 2018
Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

May 2024
Your edit to Georgian Dream has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the notice. I'm very new to wikipedia so I did not know the exact rules for editing. I knew that copyrighted material wasn't allowed, but I thought it did not apply to Britannica since it was an encyclopedia.
 * The reason I used that material is that because there were noticeable holes in the article. I don't know and remember what I took from Britannica. Is there any way to see what you removed so I can rewrite it with my own words? Also when rewriting can you tell me what I should keep in mind? Thanks once again in advance. Zlad! (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can send you the removed content via email but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first.General tips: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material (short properly attributed quotations are allowed, but cannot be used as a substitute for writing your own content). One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase, and don't try to include every single detail. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. It also helps to have more than one source to draw from. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.  — Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't see your message and edited the article with what I thought was missing. I tried my best, but after reading your response there may be 1 or 2 places where the wording is quite close. I liked Britannica as a source as it was very straightforward, objective, and chronological and perfect for wiki.
 * I'm planning to work on this article for the following week or so and may alter stuff in places. I'd appreciate feedback on how I used the Britannica article and I will keep your advice for the all my future edits. I think I activated my Wikipedia email and would appreciate you emailing me removed content. Zlad! (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have sent you the removed material via email. You can use our comparison tool to check your addition: here. There's still a 20% overlap with the source but it was not enough to trigger another CopyPatrol report. But you could do some further cleanup — Diannaa (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! What tools can I use to check for overlap? Zlad! (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ — Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Georgian Dream, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign secretary. 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) 06:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
Hello, I'm Vif12vf. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Democratic Movement – United Georgia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi. The articles for the Georgian political parties are incredibly lacking and the ideologies provided are already unsourced and wrong. If you are deleting me correcting the ideologies, then you should remove them all together. This is a giant double standard and helps spread misinformation. Zlad! (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at New Rights Party, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm working on Georgian political parties wikipedia pages. As for New Rights Party the ideology says "Liberal conservatism", which is a centre-right ideology. The party merged into Lelo, which is a centre to centre-right group. It is entirely correct to have centre-right there.
 * As for Democratic Movement – United Georgia the ideology again says Conservatism and Economic nationalism. Even if you did not know much about the party before hand, this spells out that the party is right-wing.
 * I can provide explanations for all the ideological changes I've made to the parties pages and in the following days weeks and maybe months I'll try to update those pages with sources, however, for the time being I think it is necessary to change ideologies / positions to more reflect reality rather than what the party may want you to think as was the case with the Alliance of Patriots when it was labeled Centre-right to Right-wing, when it is in actually far-right, but as with most far-right parties they try to project a moderate image, example: le pen. Zlad! (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Girchi
If you have time, could remove sections that refer to the party using its own website as a reference? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Global War Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page List of political parties in Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Girchi. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Kind of insane you accuse me of edit warring here lol. I reverted the edit just once and provided reasons, while the other editor is using literal party website for sources and sources that don't even back up what they state. Zlad! (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that I think their official website is a good source for objective information. The problem is that you write your subjective opinion, which is actually a lie, and in this case, the subjective opinion of their OWN party is more objective and closer to the truth than yours, because you don't know the issue. They know their party better than you do. You basically just made up some things on your own mind.
 * My claims are as follows.
 * That Girchi claims to be a right-wing party, yet supposedly supports MANY left-wing ideas is simply false. You apparently don't understand the principles on which this party stands. They believe that a man's body is his property, and therefore they are against taking a man into the army against his will, forbidding him to trade in his body, or forbidding him to use drugs. The left does NOT agree with this. They have public debates with leftists on this topic all the time. The left does not consider a person's body to be their property like their car for example. You know why? Because that's the RIGHT LIBERTARIAN idea. These Girchi positions come from their right-wing libertarian theory. If you don't know that, then don't mislead people. According to this logic, every libertarian party is social left-wing, for example La Libertad Avanza. That's nonsense
 * Another lie is that supposedly Girchi is a soft еurosceptic party.
 * Girchi positions itself as a pro-European party. Furthermore, they believe that they are the most pro-European party in Georgia. They had debates with pro-russian politicians where they defended that Georgia should join the European Union. In the EU as well as in the world there are disagreements on different issues and they are against leftist politicians in the world and in the EU as well. If you think that if they are against various regulation it means they are a soft eurosceptic party, you are wrong and that is a lie. In any case it is your opinion which is not the same as the party's position. You are not going to lie and mislead people, saying that a party that FULLY supports European integration is softly Eurosceptic
 * We may not bring back the text from their official site, you can keep almost everything you wrote except the following lies.
 * My demands:
 * Remove "soft euroscepticism". That's a lie.
 * Remove "center-left" from the political position, and the line from the main text about them supposedly supporting many leftist ideas. That's a lie. They hate leftist ideas. It's about this line - "Despite commonly being categorized as a right-wing party, it supports many left-wing social policies."
 * Bring back "minarchism", "fiscal conservatism" and "economic liberalism" in political positions.
 * That's it. That's all my humble demands. Just clean up the lies I've found. And Better fact-checking from now on. I realize you're lying unintentionally maybe. 213.200.31.125 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sadly you do not understand how the left-right political spectrum works. All of what you mentioned falls on the left-wing of the social axis. Also it’s not my opinion, check the sources that are provided. I think Fiscal: right-wing Social: Centre-left is completely factual, but I’m willing to change it to just Right-wing if you provide me a third-party analysis that supports it.
 * As for Soft Euroscepticism, I will once again reiterate that your comments do not make sense and the party falls perfectly in line with the categorization. I will not bring back all of those ideologies as it is simply just ideology bloat, however, I am willing to leave the ideology section to being just Libertarianism as the party’s Euroscepticism comes from that as well as does all the other ideologies that were listed.
 * As for leftism, party does hate it but that doesn’t change that Libertarianism is a socially left-wing fiscally right-wing ideology. Zlad! (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We may think these ideas are socially libertarian, they are, but they are not socially leftist. If we look at the political compass, libertarianism is in the lower right corner. It's the bottom right corner. You can just google "political compass with ideologies". The Girchi leader said they have both classical liberals, minarchists, and anarcho capitalists in their party. Either way, we can only keep libertarianism, and minarchism. Girchi directly states minimal government, it's a fundamental idea and we can't help but write minarchism into the ideology. It's nonsense if we hide this information.
 * As for Euroscepticism, I still believe that a party that openly advocates for European integration cannot be called Eurosceptic in any form.
 * And I won't repeat the arguments I made again btw.
 * In any case, I propose a fairly compromise solution, as I think we will both agree.
 * You may think that libertarianism may involve different kinds of ideas, but it can just be called libertarianism. It's libertarianism and that's it.
 * You may think that libertarian ideas are mildly Eurosceptic, but to write that the party is softly Eurosceptic is wrong, because they themselves have stated in debates with anti-Western politicians why they still strongly support European integration despite the fact that not all of their ideas are in line with EU policy. In their case it is definitely wrong. Then, again, we can leave out pro-Europeanism. It's libertarianism and that in itself implies that they are against those movements and politicians in the EU if they are leftist.
 * I'll make the changes now, which I think are compromise, since you shouldn't be able to say it's wrong and false. 213.200.31.125 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like I’m fine with the changes you propose (even if I find your reasoning flawed), but please for any further disagreements we have discuss it with me in the party talk page and not my personal talk page. Zlad! (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hostile undo on EU elections page
I see you went ahead and did some hostile personal attack undo on another article since you did not agree with my comments on a different Talk page. This is a nice WP:NOTBATTLE violation, but lets keep that aside. So, on topic:

"Undid revision 1233863160 by 185.5.68.137 (talk) Green deal agenda lol."

Please suggest then, how would you concisely describe the policy diaśagreement on the Green Deal sub-policies - in all their complexity - in more "neutral words". I switched it to "Green Deal agenda of the EU" to indicate the disagreement is *inside* and mainly on specific implementation policies. Not the high level objectives as the current text indicates.

We need a text there that would avoid conflating the desire to change the specific sub-policies of the GD agenda to the position on the GD general goals themselves. And this is important as this nuance is the defining characteristic fo the PfE group and specifically the reason of ANO leaving the ALDE/RE grouping.

Unfortunately, the current text you reverted to indicates a different position was on the GD as a whole. You are likely aware that Babiš was and still is one of the supporters of the overall Green Deal goals. But this the statement in the article is now very raw, to the point of stating it is to the contrary: "... due to "different positions" on the European Green Deal and the EU's migration policy" is at a minimum misleading.

It also does not align with the source used: “We went to the elections to fight illegal migration, to change the Green Deal, which is destroying our European industry and agriculture and is having a negative impact on our citizens,”

The source - unlike the WP text - makes it clear the disagreements are specific, not general: * about the internals of the GD sub-policies - aka the "Green Deal agenda" in the general meaning of the "agenda" word in English, not GD per se as the text now indicates /if you are a Czech speaker, you are excused, using such a term in Czech could indeed be seen as inappropriate due to the connotations it has, but this is the English WP, not a Czech one/

The other part is about the illegal migration policies - again, the word "illegal" is removed on WP, completely changing the meaning of the source cited. But you did not mention this, so I assume you are fine with that part of the fix.

If you have a better way to concisely describe what - I sincerely believe - is best described as "the Green Deal agenda of the EU" - without losing the meaning pleae suggest. The current text is not acceptable as it is overly-simplifying to the point of presenting a political position completely separate from the one it is to convey.185.5.68.137 (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I did not edit war with you. I one-time reverted what I thought (and still think) is a blatantly biased edit. Go on the talk page and try to reach consensus about your wording and if it exists then reinstate it. As for the details its either "European Green Deal" or the "green agenda", "green deal agenda" does not exist. policies on "EU's migration policy" completely covers illegal migration, but if you really want you could change it to "EU's policy on illegal migration." Zlad! (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alliance of Patriots of Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azerbaijani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)