Talk:Money Free movement

The party expects to stand at least one candidate in the 2014 NZ election (confirmation on Nomination day, 27 August 2014). All NZ parties which stand candidates are notable.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@IdiotSavant: can you point me to guidelines that confirm this? I don't necessarily disagree, but I can't find the notability guideline you're talking about. — HTGS (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

According to his talk page on Commons, User:Jodian007 is

"Jodian Rodgers registered Leader(there are no leaders, my role is spokesperson) Of the Money Free Party UK".

Mr. Rodgers should read WP:COI and stop making edits on this article. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

hi im new and have just made truth edits, to keep the page up to date, yes I am The leader of Money Free Party UK, but all i added was the logo for Money Free Party and added a section to clarify the parties description and added the system we use, im here to answer questions and to make sure no false information is posted, as the leader i will know if its a lie or not because i will have of approved it, also why was the logo of my party removed surely only party members can confirm the validity of a descriptions of a pollitical party because we can change are description whenever we want

i am currently looking to see how to declare coi--Jodian007 (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Two anonymous users (or possibly the same person twice?) have tried to add the full text of the UK party's constitution to the article. This has been removed both times on grounds of copyright. Copyright automatically exists on any written work. As noted by the Wikipedia copyright guidelines, "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia."

Even if the issue of copyright was resolved, I would still question why making about 3/4 of the article text copied directly from a website. It's unclear how it supports an encyclopedic understanding of the Money Free Parties. That said, it's possible it's appropriate to include so I invite the user or users who wish to see it added to discuss what they feel the full text of the constitution adds to the article.HenryCrun15 (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@HenryCrun15: You could use small sections of the constitution to prove a point that can not otherwise be stated in your own words. Including the entire thing will always be a violation of copyright and will always be reverted and the additions will have to be revision deleted. --Majora (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

This page should be either moved to Money Free movement or split into a page for the party in each of the two countries. It is very clearly not about a single party, and seems written already as though it is the page for the movement itself. I personally think that it makes more sense to structure an article around the movement than around a party for the movement, but I am open to discussion. — HTGS (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

It would make sense to move it to Money Free movement. It is unclear if the Money Free Party in the UK would be considered the same "party" as the one in NZ, or if they interact much or coordinate political activity. But they do seem to be part of the same movement. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Seems sensible --IdiotSavant (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply