User talk:B.Lameira/Archive 4

RE: Lithuania

Thank you for response. You know that system of government is regulated by constitution etc and we must keep to them because presidents still held some powers but practice changed strength of offices. In case of Poland since Komorowski presidency is change towards German model but there was no modification of law. Aight 2009 (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2015 (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) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

About Your edit

So please add sources, because most other indicators (excluding IMF) puts Poland into developed category. Don't You think it seems a little bit silly to call such countries like Slovakia, Portugal, Latvia and Lithuania developed economies and Poland doesn't? The most important thing is - this statement is completly true and lack of Poland in only one of theses lists doesn't mean that this country isn't a developed economy. So go on and find some official sources - You'll save a time of editors which not far than tommorrow change it back to where it belongs... thanks NeonFor (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Also thank You for answering. Please do not take it personally. I have no intention to making a such call "personal attack". If You're talking about 'GDP per capita' I always believe that the most accurate form of this indicator which realy shows strenght of an economy, is 'GDP (PPP) per capita' and I as far as remmeber, Poland and Portugal are nearrly equal when compare to each other. The other point is: there is no one accurate definition of a term "developed contry" or "developed economy" - it is some kind of 'casual' or 'loosely' term. That's why it is contoversial to call such countries like Czech Rep. Slovakia, Portugal or Lithuania a "developed" and such like Poland or Hungary "developing", beacue all of them are nearly identical in terms of quality of life, economy strenght, infrastructure development etc. And yes - I know that Wiki needs sourced materials. NeonFor (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I added sources and changed text a little. For me, now it looks as it should be. What do you think? NeonFor (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Tunisia does not fit in the semi-presidential system category

The parliament approves the government, can veto and dismiss it. The president chooses the head of the governement (prime minister) that has to be then approved by the parliament with a vote at the 2/3rds. The head of the government then chooses the government, which is then approved by the parliament the same way before entering into function. The only other role the president have stipulated by the constitution is to be the head of the armies and that's all. Also, the majority of parliamentary republics elect their president directly, the other way around is the rarest and is only true for some countries like south africa. Fumehime (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Tunisia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I see you reverted a message, saying in your edit summary that non-administrators weren't able to warn you. Well, I AM an administrator, and I'm telling you that anyone can warn you. It's good you're discussing the issue, but the next revert from either of you will have consequences. Work it out calmly. Katie^talk 20:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal on change to the article: Parliamentary system

Hi again, I was thinking of making a bigger change to the parliamentary system page and since you seem to have taken an interest in this article and broader topics of systems of governance and politics in general, I thought I'd ask what you think.

The current categories ("Westminster" vs “Western European”/” Consensus”) are not really that helpful as there are so inconsistent, like Ireland(where I'm from) is designated “Westminster” despite a long history of coalition and/or minority governments, even a grand coalition of the two largest parties in more recent times.

I think if we are going to split them into subtypes (though you could also argue not to split them at all and just merge everything), it would make more sense to split the parliamentary systems by voting system, either some form of majoritarian(winner-take all) voting or some form of proportional representation(multi-winner) system.

Have a look at my sandbox for a draft version.

Hi @Ranníocóir: While discussing another topic with B.Lameria I noticed this proposal. The best place to discuss this would be Talk:Parliamentary system. My first thoughts are the voting system used by a parliament and the outcome (majority/minority government) of elections should be characterised separately from the legal/constitutional model of the parliament (Westminster/Western-European model as described in the article). For example, the outcome of elections can change depending on the vote of the electorate and the voting system itself can be changed in a relatively straight-forward way (e.g. United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011). The legal/constitutional model of the parliament however arises from its history, the constitution in place and all the conventions that have developed, so is a separate, more fundamental, characteristic. Whizz40 (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Whizz40:, you mentioned the electoral system could be changed, I don't see how that's relevant as in most countries almost everything from the big and fundamental to the small and not-so-significant could also be changed by a referendum too.

Can you name one fundamental legal/constitutional difference (as in not a convention) common among all Westminster systems that differentiates a Westminster system from a consensus system?

Also with historical conventions, like more of an adversarial style, the only legal/constitutional difference this could be attributed to, again come from the way seats are allocated, so again comes back to the voting system.

Surely the single most fundamental legal/constitutional difference that will determine the parliamentary style and how a parliament operates is the way the seats are allocated.

Though I think you have a point that it should be mentioned as it could be misleading otherwise(the original version is misleading too, in the opposite way), but under a historical context instead as it seems the only common theme that unites countries designated as Westminster system is a historical one not a legal/constitutional one, therefore this should be moved to the history section.(When editing I've also decided that the history section might better be called "Conceptual and institutional development")

I've made a new draft in my sandbox, please have a look if you want.

Also, as per your suggestion I've created a new section in Talk:Parliamentary system, and I will link in this discussion, so if you’d like to reply again to this discussion, please do so there and thanks for your input. Ranníocóir (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Presidential vs Presidential vs Parliamentary Republics

Hi B.Lameira, I am LionsRule125, I have noticed that you have made changes to lots of pages of countries that regarding their system of government, which is good and I encourages you to do so. But we need to get some facts clear.

1) The way the head of state is elected does not determine the type of government. In most parliamentary systems the president, who is the head of state, is elected by the legislature, but this does not mean there are countries that elect their head of state with a popular vote. For example, countries like the Ireland, Turkey, Iceland and Finland are all parliamentary republics, that elect their President with a popular vote;

2) In presidential systems, the cabinet members cannot be a part of the legislature so the executive is separate from the legislature;

3) You can not really call a country that has a executive president and a ceremonial prime minister responsible to the legislature, a parliamentary republic, because a parliamentary system does not have space for both a executive president and a prime minister.

Hope these make sense to you? And can agree with these? - LionsRule125 (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@LionsRule125: I will try to answer you briefly. 1) Actually, while it does not determine, the lack of direct or indirect election (also includes leader of the winning party becoming president, like in Angola) for the head of the state disqualifies a system from being either presidential or semi-presidential. 2) While I agree this usually happens in presidential systems, the classification of systems of government is based on the power balance between the head of state and the legislature, and the checks and balances. 3) I have no objections to this point, there are prime ministers, that are weak and conduct government business in parliament. But the existence of a prime ministerial post by itself does not make the system semi-presidential either.

And they are not facts, they are your POV. My opinion does not matter, as also yours does not, either. Articles on Wikipedia aim to represent what is written by reliable sources and are not intended to represent your point of view. You have been previously warned that you should not edit in order to write your point of view, giving no (reliable) sources and interpreting primary sources, producing original research, which undermines its verifiability, as you did recently on the case of Mongolia. Thanks. --B.Lameira (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on "their"

Hi, I just want to inform you that their is not just a plural it is also used to mean belonging to or associated with a person of unspecified sex as english lacks a separate common-gender third person singular pronoun.

Example: "she heard someone blow their nose loudly"

I realise english may not be your first language, so I hope this clarifies it for you.

User:B.Lameira, what is your problem with this on the East-Timor article? I'm not saying is't wrong, although some consider it to be but I do say it's unusual and unclear for most (even native) users of the English language. Your initial revert has been challenged. Are you going to open a discussion on that talkpage about how best to use the English language? Remember that lots of people who may not be realizing this particular innovation in English (including native speakers) read these articles as well. Clear language is better. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry User:B.Lameira, but how should I understand that in the light of your most recent addition to my talkpage? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

References

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, B.Lameira. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

President of Portugal

Please find out when to use the revert function. Revert is to take it to the earlier version, which means it would be to take it to "representative", which is incorrect, which is why I removed it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi B.Lameira. Because I found it odd that you would revert my edit, which was in essence 1) correct and 2) to stop the constant change by other editors, I went to the logs and I see now that you did not 'technically' revert me, but in actual fact took the article a few revisions back, thus indirectly reveeting any edits in between. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I also see that you left a note at Talk:Executive (government). Please leave a note at President of Portugal and tag the relevant users and discuss it there. In specific inform Aflis to take part, he is a political scientist and is the one with whom you disagree, so perhaps the two of you should first thrash out the question on the that talk page, so that we don't have a continaution of the changes. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of João Corvelo

The article João Corvelo has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cahk (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Kyrgyz elections

If you're going to move articles like this, can you make sure (a) you move them all rather than just one or two (otherwise we end up with articles at different titles) and (b) that you also fix links on templates like {{Kyrgyzstani elections}}. Also, during the Soviet era, the demonym was "Kirghiz" as per Kirghiz SSR. Cheers, Number 57 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: I actually intend to do that, currently I am undecided whether to use the name "parliamentary" or "legislative" though, I would like some help to move the articles that are conflicting with redirects. Cheers! --B.Lameira (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me know which ones. Parliamentary is preferable IMO. Number 57 15:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: first thing I have done was to rename all presidential elections and, as of now, I am going to rename all referenda pages, leaving parliamentary elections as the last thing to change. --B.Lameira (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: I will opt for "Parliamentary" as the quick search I have done gave no significant results on being else. --B.Lameira (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I cannot move the following page: Kyrgyzstani parliamentary election, 2007, I will need to make a request to move. --B.Lameira (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have moved it. As I suggested above, I would have been happy to do it if you'd asked. Number 57 18:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion/s would be welcome here

[1] Reaper7 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Sophia Moestrup for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sophia Moestrup is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Moestrup until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, B.Lameira. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Poland's political system

Can you please revert all the changes you did on all these pages, saying that Poland is a semi-presidential system? It is not. While in theory the President appoints the Prime Minister, he is legally required to get parliamentary approval, and it is *always* the leader of the biggest party. The Presidential appointment is really just a formality. Afterwards, the President has around 0 executive power, with veto being his only actual prerogative, other than being a rubber stamp for all sorts of things and making some diplomatic or military appointments, the latter being actually handled by the Ministry. Even if they are from the same party, pretty much everything is handled by the Prime Minister, who is never a creature of the President. The President is usually lower in party hierarchy. MNasiadek (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@MNasiadek: Wikipedia does not aim to describe your point of view, just because you disagree with the government type classification, but to represent what is written by reliable sources, relying on what is verifiable by secondary and tertiary sources like, for example, academic papers. I have provided enough secondary sources that demonstrate Poland does not have a system like those of Germany or Italy (where the President's role is very limited). A Polish presidential veto is not a rubber stamp, especially when a three-fifth majority (of deputies in functions) is necessary to override it. I will not revert an edit made with a verifiable source to replace it with something which is unsourced and in popular belief. --B.Lameira (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You have provided a grand total of one source from a little known academic paper, and as you changed the status quo, the burden of proof rests with you. Most sources denote Poland as a parliamentary republic, including sources in Polish. Cipika (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There are several, Shugart's paper is just one, Elgie and Moestrup also describe Poland as such, what sources do you have without being news sources and not academic papers that describe Poland as being strictly parliamentary?. --B.Lameira (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have indicated 3 different sources from 4 websites in the article Politics of Poland. I would even say Veser's paper is widely known in academia. --B.Lameira (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation from Wikimedia Portugal

(english below)

Olá. A Wikimedia Portugal é uma associação sem fins lucrativos portuguesa reconhecida pela Wikimedia Foundation, como "chapter" em Portugal, e fundada em 2009. A nossa missão é contribuir para a disseminação generalizada do saber e da cultura através do incentivo à recolha e criação de conteúdos isentos de restrições de utilização, modificação e distribuição, e da difusão dos mesmos; promover e apoiar os projectos da Wikimedia Foundation, entre os quais a Wikipédia, com ênfase para os projectos em língua portuguesa e mirandesa.

Gostaríamos no entanto de contar com o apoio e reciprocamente apoiar actividades de todos os voluntários naturais, residentes ou simplesmente interessados em Portugal. Apesar de ter sido fundada em 2009, a associação teve um período largo de inactividade, que estamos a tentar ultrapassar. Vinha por isso convidar-vos, caso nisso tenham interesse, a inscrever-se como associados da associação, demonstrar o vosso apoio à existência de um "chapter" em Portugal e que se involvam nas discussões sobre actividades futuras inscrevendo-se na lista de distribuição de email. Recentemente, a Comissão de Afiliações da Wikimedia suspendeu o apoio à Wikimedia Portugal, pendendo, entre outras coisas, do apoio da comunidade de editores portugueses. [2]

Agradeço desde já!

Hi! Wikimedia Portugal is the Portuguese chapter of Wikimedia, founded in 2009 and recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation. Our mission is to contribute to the general dissemination of knowledge and culture through the incentive to the collection and creation of content without restrictions on use, modification and distribution, and promote their difusion; we promote and support the Wikimedia Foundation projects, among which Wikipedia, with emphasis on projects in Portuguese and Mirandese.

We would like however to count on the support and in turn ourselved support the activities of all volunteers that are citizens, resident, or simply interested in Portugal. Despite being funded in 2009, the chapter has gone through a long period of inactivity that we are trying to overcome. We have sent you this message to invite you, if you are interested, to enroll as associates to the chapter, demonstrate your support to the existence of a chapter in Portugal, and get involved in the discussion of future activities by registering in the mailing list. Recentely, the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee suspended support to Wikimedia Portugal pending, among other things, the support from the community of portuguese editors. [3] Alchimista ^{talk with me} 10:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)