Hi Brat Forelli! I noticed your contributions to Marxism and religion and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I appreciate it! Brat Forelli (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brat Forelli! Your additions to Acts of Union 1707 have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also found copyright problems in West Ukrainian People's Republic. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Polish–Ukrainian War

added a link pointing to Bug

West Ukrainian People's Republic

added a link pointing to Bug

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Radomiro Tomic, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Croatian and Calama.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Saint's Star Award
		I hereby grant you this Saintly Barnstar in recognition of your hard work on Catholic Church and politics and many other articles. On complicated topics, you have produced unbiased and comprehensive work. Keep up the good work! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, it's an honour! <3 Brat Forelli (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why, in your revision of 14:13, 11 May 2023, you changed the publication year for Kennedy's biography of Saint Francis from 2005 to 2004? Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yes, I expanded the "Religion" section of this page, and initially wrote 2005. However, in the "Selected works" section, I saw that 2004 was given as the publication year of this biography, so I changed it to be consistent with that. Brat Forelli (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brat Forelli. Not sure if you remember me but I gave you the Saints barnstar a little while ago.

As it seems you've got something of an interest in the interplay between religion (particularly Catholicism) and politics/society, I thought I'd bring another article to your attention that you might like to work on. Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence has major WP:Tone concerns, and I think it fails to be a cohesive whole, rather than just a stream of information.

I've done a bit of work on it (and plan to do some more), but any help would be appreciated. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I do remember you! Thank you for the suggestion, I'm currently expanding Relations between the Catholic Church and the state as it only had rather very questionable claims about the church, but it also had no sources. Unfortunately, the relations between the Church and historical regimes are a very expansive topic and I keep finding tons of books about it. But I'll get there eventually, I already wrote a lot.

I worked a bit on the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, just as you asked me to - not sure if this helps though. If my edit was unhelpful or you believe I need to do better, let me know! Brat Forelli (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the response.

Yes, I've seen your work on Relations between the Catholic Church and the state, that's awesome. I've actually raised the idea of merging that article into Catholic Church and politics here [1]. I'd love to get your thoughts on that, but no stress.

Edits on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were great, thank you so much. I'll just keep an eye on that page going forwards, so I can try and keep it NPOV. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. MichalZim (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brat Forelli! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Slavic Union that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 17:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the information! I will be taking this into account from now on! <3 Brat Forelli (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brat Forelli. Thank you for your work on Civic Initiative (Poland). User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn:

Thank you so much, I really appreciate it! I'm glad to have met you <3

Brat Forelli (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brat Forelli. Thank you for your work on Polish Party of Animal Protection. User:FuzzyMagma, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

please try to avoid using Facebook (generally not a reliable source) and primary sources

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|FuzzyMagma}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma:

Hello there! Thank you so much for reviewing my page, I appreciate it! Keep the great work, I can imagine that the backlog must be huge for a page curator.

Thank you for your comment regarding Facebook sources. I agree, it is definitely awkward to use it a source; I will try to avoid it!

~~~~ Brat Forelli (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Polish Politics Barnstar
	great work on articles about political parties in Poland FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connections, although I would love to make some friends here. Have you joined the Wikipedia WP:DISCORD server yet? It's much more informal and off topic than onwiki and is a good spot to make friends, if you're interested. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you for your advice! I appreciate it <3 Brat Forelli🦊 22:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi, sorry for the hassle. This is about the RfA on 0xDeadbeef, and I'm pinging you because you were involved in the talk page discussion. You're not in trouble (I think). Regards Fermiboson (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that scared me for a moment, but then I thought "did I do anything bold recently? Naw" - thank you for letting me know! <3 Brat Forelli🦊 10:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Peronism - Relation to Catholicism Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I greatly appreciate it! <3 Brat Forelli🦊 22:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been restoring edits representing the other side of the argument you deleted, because the article is currently clearly weighted toward one perspective and requires further balancing. The quotation I reinstated was appropriate, as it balances quotations from other side, also it is taken directly from the source, Professor’s own words, rather than retelling by someone else, or a comment made by a random person, it is not different than quoting a Professor speaking publicly recorded on video. As for the descriptions added by the previous editor, it can be argued that including terms such as “opposed to nationalism and chauvinism” and can be deleted. I also want to clarify that the edit was not highlighting only one side, but rather adding further relevant details to an article that is currently heavily weighted in one direction. The intention is to improve balance, not to promote a particular viewpoint, which now this page is doing. The article will need a lot of new sources of the other side to become balanced.

Hello @Jeanie0945:, it appears something went wrong with your message. You are supposed to click the "new section" button, and you should also make sure that your talk page post is signed by writing ~~~~. Unfortunately, you ended up writing an unsigned message in the middle of my talk page that I could barely find. But hey, this is Wikipedia, you will get the hang of it.

Claiming that the article is currently clearly weighted toward one perspective and requires further balancing is quite a serious statement and I would ask you to try and get a WP:CONSENSUS for this, which is preferably done via the article's talk page. I do not share your view that the article needs "balancing", so it will be you against me and other editors. You also need to keep in mind how we judge what is a WP:RS or not. A YouTube comment is never reliable/usable, especially since there is no way to verify the identity of the account. If the author you want to cite has any relevance in the debate, then I am sure you can find an academic text from him. But so far you've been posting articles related to political laws/elections rather than linguistic academic journals. And lastly again, weasel words like many prominent, well-respected scholars have no place in Wikipedia. IF they are prominent and well-respected then you need to find a source for that and attribute that (i.e. "According to X, Y is a "prominent, well-respected scholar"). That you consider anyone so is irrelevant given WP:YANARS. Brat Forelli🦊 00:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the draft of the upcoming cabinet of Donald Tusk and hope that anyone should improve it. PaulGorduiz106 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking Robertsky the question "What is your opinion on abortion as it relates to the intersection of gun control, race relations, your own personal religious beliefs, and true ownership of the Senkaku Islands?" This question is the most pressing question of our generation so I think you should get some wiklove (and thanks being brave enough to seriously ask him that question). ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awwww, you're welcome! <3 Brat Forelli🦊 05:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Europeans United for Democracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I gift you this barnstar because your presence has been an absolute blessing to Wikipedia. By creating several new articles and providing both content and sources where this has been lacking, you have had a major impact in a relatively short time. Thank you and keep up the good work! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tusen takk! I appreciate it - thank you so much for being here and for making Wikipedia a better place! Your presence is a part of what motivates me <3 Brat Forelli🦊 02:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Re your addition of more detailed Senate results, did you get them by collating the figures in the NEC report to get the numbers you just added to the results table, or did you copy the numbers from the pl.wiki article assuming they were from the NEC? Election Passport has a tabularised version of the NEC report, and the numbers it has (which I am collating at the moment) are different to those on pl.wiki. For example, it has a total of 2,683,085 for Solidarity, which matches the Nohlen & Stöver total.

I was also really confused by how you got the numbers you added previously (e.g. 2,578,885 votes for the SLD), as they are not in the NEC source cited. Where did they come from? Cheers, Number 57 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I am sorry for the confusion caused, I have been writing/expanding articles for 1990s Polish political parties recently and thought it might have been a mistake.

I will leave it then, maybe add a text in the future that explains the situation that took place in the Senate election, should I find a reliable source.

The numbers I previously added were my attempt at tallying up the votes from the NEP thing, with the assumption that if it says "Głosów ważnych oddano 13 985 535" then I would need to get exactly that amount of votes.

Thank you for your help and sorry for any trouble! Brat Forelli🦊 14:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I managed to collate the details from the NEC source (which was reproduced in copyable format elsewhere) and added it to the article. Cheers, Number 57 16:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dom Ojczysty logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Minorax,

Thank you so much for your message. You've been patrolling and doing service work on my uploads for some time already, and I really appreciate having you!

Feel free to delete this one, because it seems someone already uplodaded a better, superior version as a separate file. Brat Forelli🦊 17:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United Beyond Boundaries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Movement.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, bot! Fixed. Brat Forelli🦊 10:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Centre Agreement Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good bot! Looks like someone uploaded a better, SVG version. Can be deleted now. Brat Forelli🦊 02:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In the article First Self-Governance League, you've added that it ran as "Pszczyńskie Porozumienie Samorządowe", however that doesn't seem correct as Ryszard Ziobro ran from "Liga Samorządowa Ziemi Pszczyńskiej". Could you verify this? Thanks, CrimsonCube (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a mistake on my part, I will verify this and edit the article appropiately. Thank you! Brat Forelli🦊 17:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the Senate results table, but could you provide a source? If someone checks the only source listed, they won't find some of the parties in it, and may assume the figures are made-up. Cheers, Number 57 21:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I did the rookie thing of changing the content without changing the source - thank you so much for pointing that out! Brat Forelli🦊 22:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brat Forelli. Thank you for your work on Polish Reason of State. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn:

Thank you SunDawn! I appreciate your work and might God give you a blessed day as well! Brat Forelli🦊 05:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Organisation of the Polish Nation - Polish League 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/Organisation of the Polish Nation - Polish League until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I created the article so I will take responsibility for it and try to add more sources to address the concerns! Brat Forelli🦊 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't let me reply in the Worker's Front discussion page. Anyways, the thing I want to say is short: All sources citing the Worker's Front as communist are mostly opponents of it, in fact, if you look at their newspaper or its chairman's videos, they never proclaim themselves communist, and even explicitly reject that denomination. While the founder is communist, the coalition FO is isn't. WillyElSalami (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for message and I am sorry to hear that you were unable to respond in the talk page anymore. Not sure what happened.

To address your points, I understand them, but we also have to follow the Wikipedia policy. You mentioned that the Frente Obrero does not self-identify as communist, although the party's leader is a communist, and the party is heavily associated with the Marxist–Leninist Party (Communist Reconstruction). Well, this is the issue of WP:PRIMARY - basically, what the party says about itself is a primary source. And primary sources are not considered reliable. They can be used if there is no other way, but in the case where they are contradicted by secondary and tertiary sources (think media reports and political journals), then we trust the tertiary sources.

The case on point are populist parties in general. Course of Freedom claims that it looks "neither right nor left but forward". Yet it is commonly described as a left-wing populist party. Hence the left moniker. An almost identical situation occured in the case of the Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland. The party once claimed - "We are neither the left, nor the right, nor the centre, we represent healthy Polish patriotism".^[1] Yet this claim is contradicted by a giant amount of sources that describe the party as left-wing, far-left and socialist. Heck, even the party itself called for socialism,^[2] and opposed capitalism.^[3]

In case of Frente Obrero, they are already associated with a Marxist-Leninist party and have a Marxist-Leninist as their party leader. But we know that. Their manifesto does not mention Marxism nor communism, that is indeed true, though it does call for a revolution and socialism:

Este documento no es un programa electoral, es el programa político de un movimiento revolucionario, cuyo objetivo es acabar con el régimen actual, tras lo cual promoverá un nuevo proceso constituyente en el cual abogará por la República Popular y Federal, encaminada al socialismo.^[4]

As for sources, it is described as communist,^[5] and Marxist-Leninist.^[6] In case of the second source, it is from ABC, which the Wikipedia describes as "one of Spain's three newspapers of record." In fact, El Mundo, another newspaper of record, also described the party as "un partido comunista, republicano, antioligarquico".^[7] I suppose that while La Razón can be considered an enemy (though Frente Obrero has rather socially conservative stances), then in case of ABC and El Mundo we are speaking of reliable, mainstream sources. I found a political journal describing the party as Marxist-Leninist, too.^[8] So all in all, we have plenty of sources describing them as communist or Marxist-Leninist, which we consider more reliable to the party's self-identification. Brat Forelli🦊 00:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, no worries, I'll see if any source outside their own classifies them as anything else than communist, but I doubt it.

By the way, ABC is VERY conservative while El Mundo is center-right, while I don't doubt they may be of record, that should be noted. (mostly just a personal clarification, as the source's ideology doesn't really matter on Wikipedia, right?)

And yeah, while Frente Obrero is rather conservative, that doesn't save them from the classic right's attack.

Thanks for your reply and general clarification, good day/night! (It's 3 AM here) WillyElSalami (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Non-aligned Coalition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radicalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good bot! Brat Forelli🦊 08:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I just want to give more context to this dispute.

To begin with, the Estado Novo regime has been labeled as fascist on Wikipedia since 2008: [2]

Regarding the Estado Novo article itself, the disputed category (which was created in 2016) was present in the article since November 2017, and it was present in the article too, when JPratas made his first attempt to remove the label on 6 April 2019: [3]

For the National Union article, the label was on the infobox since December 2018: [4]

The last one might be a bit more controversial, since it was not long before the dispute began, but it is worth noting that the status quo was defined (in JPratas's talk page) as the last older version before JPratas made his first changes, it was also agreed that the result of the RfC would be applied to all articles related to the Estado Novo regime.

I would like to add that JPratas has quite a history of disruptive editing, to begin with, when he first initiated this dispute, he edit warred several times and ended up being blocked for two weeks (though this was later reduced to 3 days). He also tries to bludgeon discussions and often ignores what his own sources say if they don't support his point, as some users pointed out here: [5]

In February 2022 an RfC was held over whether Franco's regime should be labeled "fascist", this time around there was a much clearer consensus for the "fascist" label, a few weeks later it was closed, yet JPratas went to the closer's talk page in order to get it reopened, for the sole reason he didn't like the result, and succeeded, it was closed again in March, and once again he tried to pressure the closer into reopening it, but this time around he failed: [6]

He even went to the Administrators' Noticeboard to challenge the closure, even though all rules were followed, again, this was simply because he didn't like the result: [7]

And even after that, he still tried to make POV edits using unreliable sources, which were promptly reverted by other users.

Sorry for bothering you with this, but I just wanted to give some context to this dispute which I believe is important. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:9C58:D768:C91D:AC6E (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToBeFree#Curious_edits about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.242.87.239 188.4.249.112 (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, so the IP pushing the far-right label on Reform UK is a sockpuppet. This is a very important piece of information. This MUST be taken to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Brat Forelli🦊 04:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Catholic Church and politics into Catholicism and socialism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thank you for pointing this out, I had no idea.

That being said, the content I copied over from Catholic Church and politics was written by me. It can be checked on the article's history. Brat Forelli🦊 14:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, attribution is technically not required. — Diannaa (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bringing this up again, but I would like to see your response to my comment above regarding the Estado Novo. You can see there that the "fascist" label is the status quo for the regime, JPratas's claim that it wasn't is a distortion of things. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:BC99:44AD:DDE7:376F (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to know your current discord username to discuss some of the topics within the Peronism article, thank you!☺ Rax9000 (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Rax, nice to hear from you! You should be able to find me under Discord ID foxite. - just make sure to include the dot! Brat Forelli🦊 10:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey comrade, you may want to check out the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Housing and Tenant Rights. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You commie should embrace capitalism, the only working economic model. Liberalism, free trade, no protectionism, free market - they will bring prosperity! 79.190.7.114 (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Brat Forelli🦊 11:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Better Poland logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 02:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. For your information, I have found the relevant passage you wanted, namely here:

Podkreślenia wymaga, iż funkcjonując w życiu publicznym (tzw. przestrzeni publicznej) partie polityczne wykorzystują znaki graficzne (loga), które ułatwiają odróżnianie danej partii od innych. Logo partii, jako element rozpoznawczy, jest wykorzystywane w materiałach wyborczych (plakatach, ulotkach), eksponowane na konferencjach prasowych, folderach reklamowych, itp. Znak graficzny partii politycznej niewątpliwie należy do domeny publicznej. Jest wykorzystywany powszechnie, posługiwanie się nim stanowi przejaw aktywności partii na zewnątrz, a środki finansowe wydatkowane na jego pozyskanie nie są tylko sprawą wewnętrzną partii politycznej.

This should clarify any doubts regarding the legal status of political party logos in Poland. Brat Forelli🦊 03:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be difficult for you to replace {{PD-because}} with {{PD-PolishGov}} in the logos you uploaded? — Ирука¹³ 13:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a question, the word "terrorist group" is best avoided unless it is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, I think that in the article Shining Path mentions it several times by reliable sources, so I don't understand the reversal. Hastengeims (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - sure, I will explain it to you. I advice you to check out the talk page of ETA, including the archive of it, since the problem of the word "terrorist" appears there basically every month, and yet their description remains the same.

Let me show you MOS:TERRORIST on this again - are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

What this means in practice, that it's "Euskadi Ta Askatasuna was an armed Basque nationalist and far-left separatist organization in the Basque Country between 1959 and 2018, with its goal being independence for the region." Any addition of "terrorist" to this will be reverted and keeps getting reverted. A bit lower we have this: ETA was classified as a terrorist group by France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and the European Union. THIS is the in-text attribution.

If we look at the page of Shining Path, the in-text attribution is already present there as well: The Shining Path is regarded as a terrorist organization by the government of Peru, along with Japan, the United States, the European Union, and Canada. This is as far as we can go.

In other words, as you can see, we as Wikipedians have no right to present "terrorist" as an undisputed fact, as a label that someone simply meets. We can say that X countries or organizations consider someone or something terrorist, and attribute it to them. But we cannot present it as undisputable truth. Cheers. Brat Forelli🦊 22:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palestinian Liberation Front, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Islamic Jihad and Nidal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - good bot! Brat Forelli🦊 15:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I first opened the RfC, I was expecting a more in-depth discussion of the regime, like we had in the original one, or like in the Franco one. I wasn't expecting for editors to just drop a vote and then not engage in discussion again. Regardless of the outcome, I would like to have a more in-depth discussion before it ends.

I sent notices to the relevant WikiProjects, but so far, nothing. I was wanting to contact some of the editors who took part in the Franco RfC, not all of them, just the ones who actually discussed the subject in-depth, and didn't just vote Yes or No: [8]

Would this be an appropriate notification? -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:9C11:9205:F89D:B20F (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Polish Party of Animal Protection logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 20:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For the work you did at Aldona Skirgiełło, I am proud of you for being both a collaborator and a well-cultured Wikipedian. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate it and I'm happy that our paths crossed! Stay awesome! Brat Forelli🦊 15:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Alliance of Democrats logo (-1990).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Re these edits, % then seats is the logical way to present the information. If it is seats then %, there is a risk that readers think the % is the % of seats, not votes. Would you mind changing it back? Cheers, Number 57 17:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I can revert them of course, I was seeking to standardize this as some Polish elections had seats first then PV, and others did the opposite. I saw the seats then PV model be used in the Spanish and United Kingdom elections. If you believe it's confusing, we can also try 56 s, 11.4% v. Brat Forelli🦊 18:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the abbr templates are necessary (and I think they are not usable on mobile view?). Cheers, Number 57 21:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed not usable on mobile. Anyway, I have reverted it back on all the Polish elections to % and then seats. Sorry for taking some time. Thanks! Brat Forelli🦊 10:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

As per the latest discussions, I'm sorry if I made a too harsh response. I was ashamed by it with your kind answer.

Probably since two pages are too interrelated, someone is trying to agenda-push it, and I was too unlucky to write a new page just in time.

I'm grateful for your efforts to find the truth, and I apologize for my prior aggressive comments.

With my much respect and thanks! Mavreju (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Thank you for the honest and considerate message. I do not think it was wrong of you and you have a right to be upset. On a human level, it is perfectly understandable. You wanted to make a positive, well-intentioned contribution with the Balkan Spring article, and here I came with AfD, which you would understandably see as destructive, and something that disregards both your work and intentions. And when you were notified about the ANI, you could obviously think - "first he's trying to delete my article, and now he's accusing me of sockpuppetry?!"

And so, I perfectly understand. You can see the AfD as hostile, let alone requesting a usercheck on you in regards to the IPs. The fact that I completely forgot about the ANI notice also adds up to that. So I apologize and I do regret both the AfD and ANI. After all, I could have just talked to you and tell you why the article is too problematic as of now, and ask you to draftify for now. I also could have tried to save it instead of trying to delete it. Instead I acted in a "lawful evil" way, just trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines, and I can't help but understand why it would be seen as almost passive-aggressive. There are many ways in which I could've acted better, and I didn't, and I take responsibility for that.

Good luck with your contributions in the future! I really appreciate the message! Brat Forelli🦊 19:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I really appreciate your kind words!

Lots of love! <3 Mavreju (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

❤️ Brat Forelli🦊 19:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sultanate of Bale, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultanate of Bale until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_and_Peace_Movement&diff=1291618455&oldid=1291614992 Thanks for sources and explaining. 83.26.92.24 (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You were correct to revert me: my edits did meet resistance. Good work, and I won't complain. I tried being bold, and it did not work out! TheUzbek (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Borgenland (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reaction. Brat Forelli🦊 15:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nonpartisan Bloc for Support of Reforms Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone found a higher res version, that's great! Brat Forelli🦊 12:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Civic Platform. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my bad - thank you for pointing it out, I should have checked. Brat Forelli🦊 21:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:United Right (Poland) logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brat Forelli,

Thank you for creating National Coalition for Justice and Democracy.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Per talk page comments - I am not sure there is really enough standalone coverage of this topic that is outside of Eyad al-Sarrj pieces? thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Aszx5000 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Coalition for Justice and Democracy 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/National Coalition for Justice and Democracy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for the notification! Brat Forelli🦊 07:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far-left trolls are tring to censor what they don't like 2001:8A0:6A3C:C401:6E63:5279:3BC6:3543 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please take a look at Front for Victory when you have a moment... there's some weirdness going on with a citation not getting along with some nested formatting. I'd fix it if I knew how. Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, this was a mess. Thank you so much for letting me know, it should work properly now! Brat Forelli🦊 05:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brat Forelli. Can you please help me with the person constantly re-adding Russophilia to the Portuguese Communist Party page? More info here. Helper201 (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you are the "far-left troll" that the IP editor talked about. I have to say, Helper, I never expected this from you! Well, what far-left organization are you working for?

On a serious note, alright, I also saw the IP editor's message to me before, but I just checked the contents of the page, said "looks alright to me" and assumed the situation sorted itself out. But it looks like we have a dispute. I'll try my best. Brat Forelli🦊 15:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Communist Party of Argentina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solidarity Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I'll have a look. Good bot! Brat Forelli🦊 08:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brat Forelli! I apologise to bother you but I wanted to share my thoughts regarding the Citizens of Lower Silesia (the article you created). The ODŚ is no longer active; the New PL hasn’t been active for almost 2 years, too. Both of their regional councilors were representatives of the Modern, and thus we shouldn’t consider them ODŚ councilors nor should we include the ODŚ in the Civic Coalition alliance’s composition. The association is effectively defunct. Could you update it, please? Thanks very much in advance! Ponglish (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, thanks for letting me know. Brat Forelli🦊 16:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tagesschau.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you bot, I will fix that! Brat Forelli🦊 12:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Civic Coalition (Poland), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Schuman Foundation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Brat Forelli🦊 20:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the first sentence in the top is still not very clear, and the grammar is not good.

I'm telling you this, because you changed the wording, but it seemed like the edit was incomplete. I don't know what you wanted the text to look like. It looks like this:

Silesian,^[a] occasionally called Upper Silesian, considered either a dialect of Polish or language which originated from Old Polish, of the West Slavic group, spoken by people in Upper Silesia.

Issues I find are:

1. There is no verb.
2. "of the West Slavic group" and "spoken by people in Upper Silesia" look to me like dangling modifiers.

Just edit it, to make the sentence better.

If you want to see, my two ideas are (WARNING: I'm not a native English speaker):

①: Silesian,^[b] occasionally called Upper Silesian, is considered either a dialect of Polish or a West Slavic language which originated from Old Polish, and it is spoken by people in Upper Silesia.

②: Silesian,^[c] occasionally called Upper Silesian, considered either a dialect of Polish or a West Slavic language which originated from Old Polish, is spoken by people in Upper Silesia.

KoroRush (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KoroRush, thank you so much for noticing that. I've decided to restore the wording that was used before other editors had a conflict over the lede which simply calls it an ethnolect, which I find good enough because an ethnolect can be either a language or a dialect, and so it is the perfect neutral wording on it. Brat Forelli🦊 07:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Animals' Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Animal transport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, good bot. Brat Forelli🦊 08:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Better Poland logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 08:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Selbstverteidigung logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 08:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Samoobrona Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej logo grey.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 14:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

…makes me want to heavily edit the political positions section. As you note, some sources don’t refer to the party or are unreliable; the way others are framed, e.g. who the opinion is attributed to, means work. Do you think I should wait until we’ve concluded the discussion you initiated? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bobfrombrockley, I really appreciate your willingness to work on the article! I also appreciate the message.

The article is indeed in bad shape in that if one closely inspects the sources and inspects Wikipedia guidelines, a lot of claims made fall apart. This is a result of some factors:

- the article itself was previously created and deleted twice as it was not considered notable enough for Wikipedia - it was eventually deemed notable by mid-2025;

- because of the need to prove its notability, the users who wrote it adopted an "anything-goes" approach that threw blogs, opinions, and even tweets and videos (though I took care of most of those), creating a mishmash;

- the subject is polarizing and so the editors that work on it tend to have diverse goals in minds, contributing to the mishmash above;

- there used to be a separate article for "MAGA Communism" (IMO there should be since it actually has more coverage than ACP itself), and when it got deleted over non-notability, its contents were salvaged and moved to this one.

I also bear guilt because I follow the rule of not deleting content unless it is seriously problematic, and instead adding it. After all I can understand why emotionally someone would be attached to their work. That being said, yeah, the political position here is porous, a user moved (and added) sources and put it into three paragraphs, for "syncretic", left, and right takes subsequently. Problem becomes that the cases made are paper-thin, either describing Hinkle, Haz Al-Din instead of ACP (and I showed, the precedent is that leader's views =/= party views), speak of "MAGA Communism" instead of the party, or the WP:OR problems (most notably regarding "syncretism", which solely depends on personal interpretations of what the sources meant because no source uses that word).

But anyway, the best course of action would be to wait until the discussion concludes. This could happen if either we get a strong enough agreement for/against, or if there's inactivity (minimum for a week). I hope my case is strong enough since I deal with "exotic" political parties and their coverage in academic sources daily, and I've seen communist parties of similar profiles to ACP like the Workers' Front, Black Hammer Party, Polish Communist Party and the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (which is pro-Trump),^[1] all of them being considered left-wing, but life has its ways. I think this can be an emotional topic for some because I've noticed that there's a tendency to see "the left" and "the right" as moral judgements instead of neutral descriptors, thus one could feel a need to deny the "left-wing" label to ACP. On a personal level I can understand that, but we are supposed to be more neutral - and accept that "the left" itself is a broad spectrum, one exemplary absurdity of it being the fact that "the left" encompasses both Marxist and anti-Marxist political movements.

Take care! Brat Forelli🦊 14:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I’ll add it to my list. Good analysis here. I hadn’t realised the MAGA communism article had gone; If I’d noticed I would’ve !voted against. That explains a lot and makes me more sympathetic to some of the content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page American Communist Party (2024), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brat Forelli, you did a great job in the article Senate Pact 2023, thank you so much! But if you don't mind, I have a few suggestions: firstly, Poland 2050 has 5 senators and the Polish Coalition 7 senators (including Józef Zając) but perhaps we should just keep number of seats for the Third Way, because despite being generally dissolved there is still the parliamentary group for the TD with 12 senators? Secondly, we should probably enlist the Polish Coalition members in the infobox, similarly to the Composition section, namely its more "formal" members are the PSL, the UED, the Centre for Poland, and the Young Poland, while the remaining parties support the KP; it should be done just like with the KO and The Left, I think. Lastly, the ŚPR (Silesian Regional Party) was deregistered, and decided to dissolve in December 2025 (its remnants registered a new party Regionaliści); should we include "(defunct)", or "(deregistered)"? Could you update it, please? Thanks once again! TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TaurenMoonlighting, thank you or your message. I really appreciate it!

firstly, Poland 2050 has 5 senators and the Polish Coalition 7 senators (including Józef Zając) but perhaps we should just keep number of seats for the Third Way, because despite being generally dissolved there is still the parliamentary group for the TD with 12 senators?

Oh yeah, damn, the TD Senate group does still exist, so I should bring back the Third Way seats and possibly make a note explaining the situation. Thank you!

Secondly, we should probably enlist the Polish Coalition members in the infobox, similarly to the Composition section, namely its more "formal" members are the PSL, the UED, the Centre for Poland, and the Young Poland, while the remaining parties support the KP; it should be done just like with the KO and The Left, I think.

Great suggestion - thank you! Yes, I should do that.

Lastly, the ŚPR (Silesian Regional Party) was deregistered, and decided to dissolve in December 2025 (its remnants registered a new party Regionaliści)

Their Wikipage does note that they've dissolved and then re-registered themselves as Regionaliści. I will make a footnote for them.

Thank you so much for your suggestions! Brat Forelli🦊 01:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all your efforts! From what I've seen, you've been doing a great job not only on articles about Polish political parties, but across many other topics as well. One small thing caught my attention, though: there appears to be a minor mistake in the infobox regarding the Polish Coalition, namely, the "supported by" field is now duplicated. One possible solution would be to format it in the same way as for the KO or The Left, i.e. by making a bulleted list of its members (let's say, numbered 1–4), while keeping the supporters below (btw, I couldn't get bullets to display for supporters for some reason; I tried when experimenting with the KO infobox section but failed). If you have time to do so, I'd appreciate it a lot, since I can't myself right now (I hate mobile edits, lol). If not, no worries; I'll come back to it later anyway. PS. It seems another update may be needed fairly soon: Hołownia's successor as leader of Poland 2050 is expected to be elected no later than 31 January. Once again, thanks for everything! TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, it means a world to me that you appreciate my work! You made my day. I did just fix the Polish Coalition infobox list, sorry for not noticing it earlier. As for Poland 2050, yeah, I'm observing the 2026 Poland 2050 leadership election closely and will update it once the new leader is announced. Brat Forelli🦊 19:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Brat Forelli.

I'm really glad to hear my previous message meant something to you.

It looks like the party election results have finally been clarified after a prolonged period of uncertainty, so we should update the table in the Composition section. I was also wondering whether it might be worth mentioning in the article that there were two by-elections, both won by Pact-backed candidates: Stanisław Pawlak from The Left and Monika Piątkowska from the Civic Coalition (with Poland 2050 being the only party not supporting her). This could help improve the article's overall completeness. What do you think?

Best regards, and thanks for your contribution! TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I will get to update the leadership now. Honestly I had no idea if PL2050 would even recover from this, since given Hołownia's declarations I fully expected there to be some kind of split. I suppose this still could happen, but the leadership has been settled now.

As for the Senate by-elections, you're right, that should be included as well. Will get to it! Brat Forelli🦊 16:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You did a really great job – I appreciate it, my friend. If you don't mind, I wanted to ask about a few minor things that have been on my mind for a while. Do you think it's worth clarifying (e.g., in brief footnotes) that at the time the Senate Pact was formed: what is now the Civic Coalition party (not to be confused with the broader electoral coalition of the same name) hadn't existed yet, as PO, .N and iPL were still separate entities, which later merged into KO; Jacek Karnowski was the leader of Yes! For Poland; and The Left was co-led by Włodzimierz Czarzasty and Robert Biedroń? Also, is it relevant that senators from the Pact officially endorsed Rafał Trzaskowski during a press conference (with the Pact logo visible on their placards) in the presidential election? These are fairly small details, but I thought I'd ask for your opinion. Once again, thanks for your help – it means a lot to me. Regards, TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, TaurenMoonlighting! I hope you're doing well, friend. I appreciate your suggestions! Of course I'm willing to hear your suggestions.

You know, I think it's a good idea and would be consistent with what I've done so far. I'll do it later today. Thank you! Brat Forelli🦊 14:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, looks good, I think! Brat Forelli🦊 21:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks really good. Thank you so much! TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Brat Forelli, I hope you've been doing well. Your prediction has proven accurate: today, several Poland 2050 MPs announced they're leaving the party to form a separate parliamentary group, while remaining part of the governing coalition. During a press conference, Piotr Masłowski confirmed four senators left the Third Way Senate Group (three of them joined the newly established one, while Mirosław Różański will remain independent for now); importantly, he explicitly stressed they were all elected as Senate Pact candidates. Thus, Poland 2050 will now have only one representative in the upper house. Given that this move involves senators, we should probably update the Pact composition table and infobox to reflect the change; i.e., if I understand the situation correctly, this would mean reducing Third Way's total by four seats (three transferring to the new group and one listed as independent). PS. We could also consider wikilinking the word 'merged' to the article on their unification congress in the footnote regarding KO and perhaps mentioning the Marshal and four Deputy Marshals from the Senate Pact (including a Poland 2050 member). I hope you don't mind me bringing this up, and that you'll find the suggestions reasonable. What are your thoughts? Many thanks in advance for your help, my friend. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Important correction! It turns out the senators of the new parliamentary group and Gen. Różański will remain members of the Third Way Senate Group (see https://x.com/piotr_maslowski/status/2024112700507177309); therefore, I suggest listing Centre as a separate entry in the infobox (Mirosław Suchoń has announced that an association will also be established soon), while placing it within Third Way in the Composition section. What do you think? TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Centre to the article. Let me know if it works! Brat Forelli🦊 03:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Works perfectly, thank you! TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When changing the source of the Silesian Our Father that was on the Silesian Language page approximately 3 months ago, make sure to actually keep to the request given and add a "better source (needed)", the source you input was not better, as It was from Ukraine and had no stated mention of where they'd get the information from - Also, not a single Silesian source will ever show you the word "Uojtrze" and "Nan" to exist - If I understand correctly, it's meant to be "Uojcze nosz", however "Uojciec" is still the less common version compared to "fater" - which is both in the Gliwice dialect and the Opole dialect - the 2 that are claimed to be "Silesian" - If you want to add the Our Father you have been adding, find the dialect it's written in, and add it on the dialect's page, not on the overall Silesian, as neither Gliwice or Opole use "Uojcze" more commonly than "Fater", or any other speaking forms when praying to God that doesn't include "Trojenie". The Ukrainian source you gave was most likely translated directly word for word from Ukrainian, which is why there's so much errors. TruthfulSpeech (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the source you input was not better, as It was from Ukraine

@TruthfulSpeech What does the location have to do with anything? Non-English sources are allowed on Wikipedia per WP:NONENG. If you claim that source for Silesian must be from Silesia, this has no reflection in Wikipedia guidelines, sorry.

had no stated mention of where they'd get the information from

They don't have to. Look at WP:SOURCE:

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones
• Reputable newspapers

The source cited IS a university-level textbook.

If I understand correctly, it's meant to be "Uojcze nosz", however "Uojciec" is still the less common version compared to "fater"

The guidelines we're supposed to follow is that we have to reflect what the sources say. Showing knowledge of Silesian as proof would be WP:YANARS.

The Ukrainian source you gave was most likely translated directly word for word from Ukrainian, which is why there's so much errors.

The thing is, anyone here, as per our guidelines, WILL believe the university-level textbook over claims of a Wikipedia user. If you have something against Ukraine then I can understand it given the war and so on, but it does not matter - what it does matter is that it is a reliable source that we can use, and one that does demonstrate differences between Polish and Silesian. Brat Forelli🦊 16:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Law and Justice 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 Wikipedia: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—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 Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, stop adding footnotes to the infoboxes, its against visual guideline about simplicity of the infoboxes. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes are not prohibited anywhere in MOS:INFOBOX. If you think they should be, consider discussing it in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Otherwise I cannot really care about personal interpretations of simplicity since it will be impossible to please everyone anyway. Brat Forelli🦊 00:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the point about avoiding long footnotes, though... I will work on removing the one from Justicialist Party. Brat Forelli🦊 00:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Read thoroughly. Footnotes are here for short clarification in most ambiguous or exceptional cases. There is no place for anything about ideology in item for political position. That is in space for ideology entry. Article body is a place for all information that gives broad perspective and connects multiple descriptions of political and academic concepts. ThecentreCZ (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did read thoroughly, footnotes are mentioned once in MOS:INFOBOX, where they are subjected to the same guidelines as references in the infoboxes. I continue to regard it as a personal interpretation.

I appreciate your interpretation, although I do not feel binded by it. Keep in mind that you did break WP:TALKHEADPOV to attack me, as you did through Talk:Stačilo!#Absolute nonsensical content by Brat Forelli, which will force me to report it should a further incident occur. Brat Forelli🦊 03:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we change the name to "center"? IgnacyPL (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Centre for Poland and Centre Agreement. Brat Forelli🦊 14:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Party, too... Brat Forelli🦊 14:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But why "Centre" instead of "Center"? What's the reason? IgnacyPL (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brat Forelli. Thank you for your work on Jacek Trela. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from pl:Ewa Szymanowska to Ewa Szymanowska. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Josey Wales ^Parley 12:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know! Brat Forelli🦊 12:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).