User talk:Muaddeeb/2006-2009 Merging articles

Merging articles from 2006-2009

Merging articles

Please make sure that you have consensus before making merges. In the case of Bananadine only three people had commented at the time that you decided to unilaterally merge the articles. Furthermore, you merged them in the opposite direction of the original tag. When a significant fraction of interested editors, in this case a third, make legitimate points and you don't give any response it is impossible for you to claim that you were following consensus. You might ask for broader participation in the discussion from those monitoring Talk:Banana. Being bold is good, but not when it tramples the views of others.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that you had never been properly welcomed, so this may be new to you. I have given you my welcome note —WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fourth International

I unsuccessfully sugested the same merger last year. if you want to win your proposal, you should make a longer comment at Talk:Fourth International.

--Duncan 08:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a crisis in the leadership of the 4th International between Trotsky's death and criticism of "Pabloism" but,

as it never has been dissolved, after partial reunification of the majority of members of the International, the new USec/USFI is the de facto and de jure Organizational continuity and rightful successor to ISFI which was established by the 4th International as its core instrument for global organization.

Of course, some groups remain outside of this partial reunification, as they believe that the "errors" that were the cause of their splitting remain unrectified, that's why I further move

that a template be created for a simplified "family tree" of Trotskyist groups stemming from the Fourth International to show the provenance of these groups, their scattering and later realignments and regroupments.

but for the purposes of continuity, in my opinion, the reunified 4th Int'l should be incorporated with the rest of the article with consolidated history of the 4th International

—-— .:مؤدّب • aḥmed-muʿaddib • أحمد:. (talk • contribs) 10:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PKP-1930 and CPP

Hi,

Please again take notice that PKP-1930 and CPP are two separate parties, both notable enough to have articles of their own. Creating a parallel article just creates confusion. If you would like to write an article concerning more general history of communist movements in the Philippine, I suggest you do that in say Communism in the Philippines. Also, perhaps Philippine Communist Party should be moved to another name. I followed the naming scheme at www.broadleft.org/ph.htm, but maybe 'Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas-1930' is a better name. --Soman 08:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pehaps that is the best solution, but I wanted to move Philippine Communist Party think Communist Party of the Philippines (1930) but that was not possible, how do I ask for assistance?

My original Thought was to have Communist Party of the Philippines (1930) and Communist Party of the Philippines (Maoist) to be completely neutral and also displaye the provenance of the offshoot party —-— .:مؤدّب • aḥmed-muʿaddib • أحمد:. (talk • contribs) 08:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Articles

Please see Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Proposing_a_merger WikiDon 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I need to be more specific:

"After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus or silence, proceed with the merger."