User talk:Number 57
|
Click here to leave a new message. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
The Signpost: 24 June 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Happy 7 millionth!
- In the media: Playing professor pong with prosecutorial discretion
- Disinformation report: Pardon me, Mr. President, have you seen my socks?
- Recent research: Wikipedia's political bias; "Ethical" LLMs accede to copyright owners' demands but ignore those of Wikipedians
- Traffic report: All Sinners, a future, all Saints, a past
- Debriefing: EggRoll97's RfA2 debriefing
- Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 3)
- Comix: Hamburgers
6 July 2025
[edit]@Number 57: Hello, I would like to ask you why you have to reverse my amendment. Even though political parties have returned to a multi-party system after 2019, in practice only 5-6 parties have a prominent role. Please give a better reason. The reversal must be done through public hearings. You can't just think of reversing it and then reversing it. Preime TH (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- I restored the previous versions because Thailand has a multi-party system where many parties enter parliament. IMO it is better to include all the parties than attempt to make a judgement on which ones are 'prominent', as that would be subjective and possibly not NPOV. Where would one draw a line in this election for example? And as far as I can see, you did not start a discussion before you changed the articles, so I'm not sure why I would need to, particularly as I was restoring the stable version of the articles in question. Number 57 01:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- You're not actually holding a referendum, so we should hold a referendum to see what kind of Infobox people want to have in order to be fair. The UK also has a multi-party system, although in practice it's a two-party system, which seems contradictory. Preime TH (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)