So... you're denying that the modern Labour party is nothing more than a bunch of neo-Thatcherist morons without that woman's charisma and ability to win a war against a third world opponent? 135.196.169.198 (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for validating what I already knew about you and what your motivations where behind the edit. --Welshsocialist (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Welshsocialist, I've reverted one of your edits on the Labour Party's ideology to remove 'trade unionism' (I've left democratic socialism and social democracy). Leaving aside the extent to which New Labour can be said to represent the trade unions in politics - in comparison with the pre-1990's Labour Party - trade unionism is not an ideology: it simply means workers binding together to defend their interests, it does necessarily lead to any ideological position beyond that. The trade unions since their inception in the nineteenth century have at various times supported Tory, Liberal, Labour and other candidates. Haldraper (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--Welshsocialist (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Welshsocialist! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Daicaregos (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi Welshsocialist, I wasn't sure if you had my page on watch, so I copied my earlier response to you here.

Transcluded from User talk:Daicaregos

Hi. Today is traditionally your day, I believe. So: Happy May Day. That's quite a task you've set yourself. I hope I can be of help. Step one would be to create your own sandbox. That way you can play around without disrupting the real encyclopedia. When it's finished you can copy and paste onto the real page. click on this red link User:Welshsocialist/Sandbox. It will take you to an edit page. Enter some random text (i.e. test), enter something in the edit summary and click on Save page. Once you've done that you will have created your own sandbox. Daicaregos (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link should be blue now, as the page exists. For step 2, I recommend that you choose a political party's page that you admire (it doesn't have to be from the UK), copy the layout from "edit this page" and paste it into your sandbox. That way you get the correct formatting without having to reinvent the wheel. You could use parts of pages from various different articles, if you like. A form of continuous improvement. The most important thing in an article is that everything is referenced. You may not use your own point of view, or opinion (WP:POV), the article should be neutral and balanced politically. A tricky thing to do when writing on politics, but the finished article will be something to be proud of, if you get it right. Daicaregos (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Step 3, This is where you find your references. Do a few google searches on Welsh Liberal Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Welsh SDLP, SDLP, the Liberal Party etc etc, read them and keep a note of where each piece of information was referenced from. You can use a reference book for citations, if you have one, but it is easier for others to check your references if you use online resources. The welcome template on your talk page will be a mine of information, although I imagine it looks a bit overwhelming at the moment. The best way of finding out how things work (and how they don't) is to use it (the sandbox is perfect for this). I have some suggestions on my userpage, which you are welcome to copy, should you wish. Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Step 4.: References. I think it's fair to say that references are not that easy to provide in an article, even when you have them. They are, at best, bloody awkward. I have used this fairly recently: *Wikipedia:Citation templates. In reality though. I usually just copy a reference I've used before as a template. For example - a book reference:

<ref name="Gwynfor">
{{cite book
|last=Evans
|first=Gwynfor
|authorlink =Gwynfor Evans
|title=The Fight for Welsh Freedom
|publisher=Y Lolfa Cyf
|year=2000
|location=Talybont
|isbn=0-86243-515-3
|pages=7}}</ref>

appears in the article like this:^[1]

Or a web based reference:

 <ref name="Parc 1">{{cite web
|title=Parc-le-Breos  
|url=http://www.parc-le-breos.co.uk/index.htm
|accessdate=2008-11-06 
|publisher=Parc-le-Breos  
|year=2008
|work=Parc-le-Breos website 
}}</ref> 

appears in the article like this:^[2]

If you use a "ref name", once all the details are entered you only have to note the "ref name" for subsequent citations of the same work, you just have to remember to insert the / before the final >

<ref name="Parc 1"/>

like this.^[2]

If you are creating a new article you'll need to format the reference section like this:

== References ==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

which will show up at the bottom of the page, after all your other text. Daicaregos (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Step 5. Once you are happy with the article in your sandbox, enter the name you want the page to be called i.e. Welsh Liberal Democrats into the search space (on the left). It will tell you that the page doesn't exist (we hope) and ask if you want to create the page. Say yes, and then copy and paste your sandbox page into the new article, click on save page and your done, tidy. Daicaregos (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Step 6. Sit back and watch as your new article is nominated for WP:DYK, and for WP:FA (perhaps), or (more likely) as WP:SPAs edit your hard work and try to slant it in whatever direction their own political persuasions lie, or children using IP addresses vandalise it every hour, on the hour.

Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll help if I can. Best of luck. Daicaregos (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

A month or two back, I did a big cleanup of Category:Welsh socialists, removing those articles where there isn't a reference to a reliable source establishing the person as a socialist.

I see that you added several of those articles back to Category:Welsh socialists, so I have removed them again. You may be right that some of them are indeed socialists -- though I think that's unlikely in many cases -- but please don't add people to the category unless you have a reference to show that they belong there.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply below moved here from my talk to keep discussion in one place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Those people I added back are indeed socialists, 'reiable sources' are difficuolt to come by for backbenchers or Welsh Assembly members. However all that were there are socialists. --Welshsocialist (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you acted in good faith, but verifiability is a core principle of wikipedia, and neither you nor I are reliable sources. So it doesn't matter what either of us thinks or asserts: what matters is that you want to label someone as as a socialist you need a reference. If those references are difficult to come by, that doesn't justify ignoring the requirement for a reference -- the solution is to just leave it out until you have a reference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your recent edit on the Labour party, please refer to the following on it's talk page: ^[3] Sansonic (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The edit you have more recently made is fine. I hope it stays that way. Thanks Sansonic (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welshsocialist, you asked how it could be debateable to describe the current Labour Party as social democratic. I would argue that the postwar Labour government was social democratic: it introduced the welfare state, nationalised industries and public services, launched a programme of building council houses, the NHS etc. New Labour's has shifted away from this to a neoliberal agenda, privatising public services, selling off council houses, ending free higher education etc.Haldraper (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Welshsocialist, I have mixed feelings about the whole "Welsh Labour or Labour Party (UK)" link debate - strong arguments on both sides IMO - but I do think that you ought to pursue dispute resolution before making edits like this[1]. Other parties could simply revert you, and edit wars aren't productive. Cheers.--Pondle (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no concensus to change The Labour Party to The Labour Party on Welsh politician's pages. And it is inaccurate to describe Carwyn Jones (or any Labour Party politician) as representing Welsh Labour. You are edit warring - please stop. Any further edits on that theme will be considered disruptive which I will report to WP:AN/I. Daicaregos (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, under the three reverts rule three revert rule I am perfectly entitled to revert it, and attempt to get a consensus. Which you seem intent on not doing. If you want to get a consensus then please actually engage with trying to get a solution instead of edit warring yourself. --Welshsocialist (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a link to WP:3RR, although it is evident that you either haven't read it or haven't understood it. WP:3RR is not some special dispensation to edit warriors to wait untill 24 hours have expired so they can revert any number of other editors, to reinstate to their prefered choice. That would be gaming the system and is still considered to be edit warring. I provided a link to edit warring above (and have again). Please read it. It is ridiculous to imply that I am not engaging on Talk:Carwyn Jones#Welsh Labour, when you have not addressed a single point made in my last post. I note from your "contributions" though that you are intent on pushing your WP:POV over Wikipedia. We need to gain consensus from a wider participation than just those who edit at individual article level. I have requested participation from editors at Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board#Labour or Labour. You are welcome to advertise elsewhere. Daicaregos (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All my "contributions" have consensus, and most of the time it is never but tidying up either out of date information, or vandalism. If it is on a small number of pages, it is because I now more about those pages then anything else. I am also still relative new to Wiki, so if I have misunderstood the 3Rs rule, then I apologise. You also have no engaged in my points over the issue. Editting War, incidently, works both ways. --Welshsocialist (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, you do not have consensus on either Carwyn Jones or Rhodri Morgan articles to change The Labour Party to The Labour Party - look at their edit histories and talk pages. You are the only one seeking that change. Also, please re-read your last post at the Carwyn Jones talk page, which I found incomprehensible. Please specify which point(s) you have raised that I have failed to address. I would be happy to do the same. Daicaregos (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am starting to think you are now starting to attack the editor and not the issue at point. The post is perfectly comprehensible, so I don't see why are you struggling to understand it. You also accused me in your previous post before last, that I was "imposing my POV" on wikipedia. I haven't, all my edits have consensus, and this sitution will have one too, if you are willing to engage with the point and not with petty accusitions of "forcing my POV on wiki" and of a comprehensible post not being so. To restate what was said in it, Why not have Carwyn Jones is a member of Labour (Welsh Labour). I don't see what is incomprehensible about that.--Welshsocialist (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Welshsocialist, wonder if you could help me, could you do what you can to make clear that Patrick Byrne is not standing for the BNP in the forthcoming Assembly election, I happen to know him and he is definately not a BNP supporter, let alone member or candidate! It would appear that each of my edits removing him are being undone by someone - it looks like what possibly started off as a joke is being taken serious by some people who possibly want to discredit him! Gareth aethwy (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Welshsocialist,

I wonder if you are still interested in de-americanizing the page on "Campaign finance"? This is exactly what I have tried to do for quite a while. My impact may still be recognizable in the intro. However, finally I gave up and started my own page titled "Political finance". The consequence of it was that someone suggested that my (European) text and view should be merged under the U.S. heading. At that point I am signing-off and leave the jobe to others. You may be one of them. Enjoy the task ahead!

Best wishes,Khnassmacher (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	You recently passed your 1,000th edit to Wikipedia articles! Thank you for all your hard work over the years. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bethan Jenkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (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) 11:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Queen has been graciously pleased to signify her intention of conferring Peerages of the United Kingdom for Life upon...". (My emphasis.) Technically, I don't think she's a peer until she's sworn in - hence my use of "prospective" - but I won't revert you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought they had been sworn in today? My mistake. Feel free to revert. --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pikey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 12:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In England and Wales, whether a person has died (in a suspicious, unnatural or unexplained death) from suicide or not, is usually only formally and properly established, concluded or determined by someone called a coroner, in something called a Coroner's Inquest ... until the Inquest on the matter of the death of the late Carl Sargeant AM has been concluded, I would suggest that reports of suicide from even from such eminent and respectable journals as the Mirror, the Guardian, the Socialist Worker and the Morning Star should not be misused here in order to "jump the gun" before the coroner (and his jury, if there is to be one) has actually have the chance of finishing doing his (or their) job under the Coroners Act 1988 (1998 c. 13) [2] and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (2009 c. 25) [3]. "From an unconfirmed suspected suicide", not "from suicide". (Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (1981 c. 49) [4], which also covers the work of coroners and Coroners' Courts, the maximum penalty according to Section 14(1)(2) [5] is a fine not exceeding £2,500 or 2 years' imprisonment, or both. [6][7][8]: "Commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future criminal trial as the defendant may not be able to get a fair trial.") --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not response for the edit on Carl Sargeant's page. So I am not sure why you are telling me. --Welshsocialist (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarification I editted the page to change the Communities and Children Secretary box at the bottom of the page to clarify that the position was re-organised. On the Welsh Assebly page I simply mentioned that the seat was vaccanted followed his death. No metion of how he may or may not have died from me. --Welshsocialist (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the late Carl Sargeant's AM suffix letters should have been urgently restored as a matter of courtesy, in the same manner and courtesy as those normally afforded to e.g. the late MPs Jo Cox and Airey Neave. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit them away, but I agree. --Welshsocialist (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Welshsocialist. 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)[reply]

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Welshsocialist. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]