User talk:Phalbertt

Massive color template change

You should seek consensus for such a massive change. These colors have been used for years in the English wikipedia, most of them are based on actual officially used colors, so you can't just change them unilaterally at will. This is not the Spanish wikipedia for you to come and cause such a massive disruption. As such I have reverted all of your changes. Cheers. Impru20^talk 04:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Do I have to go one by one commenting on the colors? Look, I told you once in some reversals you did. When a party is represented, it has to be with all its characteristics: logo, coalitions, party information, leaders ... That includes color. The color of a match is included in a graphic identity manual, which is official and says the characteristics that represent it. If you change the color for another, the one that is altering reality is you. That for years it is being done does not mean that it is well done, but that it has been going wrong for years. All the changes I have made in the templates, ALL, have been after checking one by one the colors of each of the political parties, analyzing the color of the logos or going to their official manual. If you alter the colors of Compromís, for example, and you put an invented color instead of its orange color, the one that commits an irregularity, I repeat, it's you. I have only limited myself to correct those that were not correct. Some were slightly different and others were absolutely randomized, unilaterally by someone who is skipping the official protocol. Correcting them would be precisely an act of rigor. What is the effort to maintain information that is false? Why not, instead of reversing directly, do you check for changes? Regards. --Alberto el93 (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Do I have to go one by one commenting on the colors? Huh well, yes. You don't have any right to change a lot of colors unilaterally and without any reason given that these involve a massive number of articles in which those templates are used. If you want to change them, yes, you'll have to go one by one explaining how and why do you want the change, then wait for a favorable consensus for your changes. What you can't do is to come here and, in your first edits in the English wikipedia (not in Wikipedia or the Commons overall, since you are not a new user to the projects), conduct massive changes of content affecting a massive number of articles and expect to go with it uncontested.

Actually, what you say is not true. Many parties use not only one color, but several ones. And indeed, they even use at times several different shades of the same color, so I dunno how could you have discovered what the "true" color is (specially considering most of these do use colors that have been used by the parties at some point). In many cases there is simply no "correct" color, yet you seemingly have unilaterally reached that conclusion yourself on your own volition and went on a massive effort to change well-established colors in the English wikipedia, you as some time ago you unilaterally attempted to overwrite Commons files used in this very same wiki just because you didn't like them, instead of uploading your own (which I had to require you to do).

You also speak of "official protocol", despite you being new to the English wikipedia and your edits in the Commons and in the Spanish wikipedia typically being frequently reverted by others (I'd say it is you the one skipping "official protocol" as well as the WP:CONSENSUS policy, but hey, we can all have dreams).

Sincerely, looking at your edits and at your response here I'm concerned at your ablities to comprehend how Wikipedia work, specially when you accuse others of the Wiki not being theirs despite you yourself acknowledging you are the one acting as if you owned Wikipedia and you seemingly had the obligation to "correct" Wikipedia to shape it your own way. Impru20^talk 06:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, to say that many parties do not have one color but several seem to me a sign of absolute ignorance. All matches have a main color and one or several secondary colors. The "true color" is not a color that is of my will, but, as I said before, it is included in the corporate identity manuals, in the main color of the party logo or in the electoral posters. As you say, it is true that it is not always clear but they are the minority of cases and can be resolved without discussion.

The thing about overwriting your Commons file was justifying you that the colors you used were not the official colors and I thought it was more efficient to overwrite one, and see if the change convinced people, that having to upload the same files in duplicate, such and as specified by Wikipedia regulations. On the other hand, it is precisely the official protocol that I have used to make the changes in the colors, based on the main color of each match and its graphic manual, if available. About your statement that my editions are "frequently reversed by others", I see that you have no idea what you are saying, since what you say is not true and, if you had investigated a bit, you would see that my most controversial reversals of Wikipedia in Spanish has always been referred to a single user who has many complaints about the same on your user page and that required report to administrators.

Finally, I don't know where you read that I say that I am the owner of Wikipedia or that I have an obligation to do something. You invented that. What I have said is that the corrections that I have made have been because they were not true information, because they were arbitrary colors without documentary support and that the way to justify the reversals with the excuse of "taking years doing so" has no argumentative weight. Regarding consensus, I can understand your position but, seeing that it was not an edition for vandalism or distortion purposes, it would have been more constructive to put a message than to make direct reversals without stopping to think about the arguments of these changes. I will put a section in the discussion of the color templates to discuss it. Regards.--Alberto el93 (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, accusing others of "ignorance" in your opening statement can be reasonably seen as a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

Yes, it is good that you have just learnt that there is no "true color". Firstly, because there is no requirement in the English wikipedia (or any other, btw) that party templates must use the colors "in the corporate identity manuals". Second, because most parties do not even have such a "corporate identity manual"; instead, many party color templates across Wikipedia use the colors typically used in the party logos, propaganda and the such. Those are not arbitrary, yet your changes were (indeed, in some cases you have changed colors from the corporate manuals by others of your own volition, so this excuse of yours is not credible).

Yes, it is also good for you to know that you do not own any page in Wikipedia and that we are not required to do things here your way. Your changes imply massive consensus breaches across the English wikipedia by replacing well-established colors by those of your own volition. And yes, as per WP:BRD, you can be bold in your edits but you have no right to stop anyone else from reverting you. If you are reverted, accept it, do not complain that you shouldn't have been reverted because that shows a very worrying ownership behaviour.

Worth noting is that it was frequent for you to overwrite massive numbers of files in the Commons with those having your preferred colors, and you were frequently reverted under the reasoning that those were not the colors used in the English wikipedia, so I wouldn't wish to think that your sudden changes in the en.wiki come as a result of that in order to impose your will at a cross-wiki level. A pity that you bring so many issues and excuses to WP:CONSENSUS, but this is how things work around here. Cheers. Impru20^talk 08:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'm seeing you've engaged in the same disruptive behaviour at the Spanish wiki, changing A LOT of party colors unilaterally at your leisure there as well. If you do not seek consensus for such massive changes in all wikis you participate in, you could end up having trouble with other users. This is not the way to do things. Impru20^talk 04:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been participating in Spanish Wikipedia policy pages for many years. The changes I have made have been maintained and, when there has been something to change and that was necessary, it has been made. I repeat the same as before. You cannot come and invent aspects of a party, an association, a federation or whatever. They have image standards, they have logos, they have an organization and that must be accepted, whether you like it or not. If the color of the Socialist Party is red # FF0000 and you put another color, you are putting false information and manipulating. If you talk about a match, you have to assume everything you have and, if not, don't talk about it. It's simple. I tell you again that the only one who reverts directly without assessing the change is you. A consensus would be necessary to talk about how the article is organized, if something is not neutral, if there is information that is debatable ... but it seems to me excessive to have to be discussing, match by match, something that does not admit such disparate changes. Cheers! --Alberto el93 (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I should note you that you are not seeking consensus for your changes neither here nor in the Spanish wikipedia. Funny that you speak about "Wiki not being mine"-etc when it's you who have come here unilaterally changing massive amounts of content across Wikipedia, which has been established over years, without any reason nor consensus. I don't know if you'll also get reverted in the Spanish wikipedia, that is not of my concern, but again, this is not the way to do things. You have been acting like this for much time in the Commons as well and this is not appropiate. Cheers. Impru20^talk 05:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It is impossible to ask for consensus for each and every one of the changes made on the pages. It would be very slow and very inefficient. Several administrators commented that, when a change is made and the rest of the users continue editing on it, it is an implicit acceptance of the change you have made. Of course, I talk about normal and informed changes, not about vandalism changes to distort the pages. However, my only purpose is to help improve Wikipedia in the area I understand, which is politics, especially in my country, which I know the most. When I make changes, at no time do I intend to belittle anyone's previous work and, as you can see on Wikipedia pages in Spanish, when there have been important changes I have had no problem in reflecting it in the discussion and reaching agreements. What I want to come to is to ask you to reflect, just as I will, if it is practical to "ask for consensus" to correct the colors of the parties and be able to put the correct ones. Regards.--Alberto el93 (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you find yourself unable to ask for consensus for conducting your changes to well-established versions of pages, then the problem is yours, not everyone else's. WP:CONSENSUS is a centerpiece policy of Wikipedia. If you find it impossible to handle, then you may lack the required competence to edit Wikipedia. Other issues you mention here I've already replied to in the above comment so I won't be repeating myself. Cheers. Impru20^talk 06:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)