The category is meant for parties that meet the criteria set in the text of the category:

"Radicalism doesn't refer here to the American English sense of the term as a left or right-wing "radical", but to the contrary to the political tradition of Radicalism. This form of Radicalism, on the whole, has been absorbed by the liberal tradition, although it was during the 19th century a proponent of Republicanism and universal suffrage, and thus often opposed to liberal parties, whom mostly upheld constitutional monarchy and census suffrage. The most important common feature of these parties is their support of secularism, the defense of the separation of church and state and the promotion of civil rights such as divorce, abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, etc. In the last few years radical parties in the Netherlands and in Italy came out in support of direct democracy institutions such as the referendum, first-past-the-post electoral system and direct election of prime ministers and mayors. Therefore, this category includes old (often defunct) Radical parties or parties maintaining a close relationship with Radicalism. See Radicalism and Left-wing politics for further information."

Summaried: The category does not refer to political radicalism, but radicalism (historical).

The parties you categorized do not belong to this party family, they are nationalist parties, not radical ones, in the sense in which the category uses.

Not that having a particular term in one's party name does not make one a party of this family, for instance the National Socialist German Workers' Party is not a socialist party. C mon (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well OK it was a misunderstanding then. Also, the National Socialist German Workers' Party was a socialist party of sorts (but not in the leftist sense), more specifically it was a national socialist party, or at least they would claim so, but I understand that it would go in Category:Nazi parties instead of Category:Socialist parties. Farkas János (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that the misunderstanding was cleared up. C mon (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for sorting the stub templates in Finnish municipality articles. Please note that, according to the guideline, the stub template is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last. Best regards, --Apalsola ^{t • c} 09:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It was my preference that templates go at after the category tags, but it seems some people wanted them to go before the navigation boxes to make the page length shorter in some cases. I'll put them after the category tags from now on. Farkas János (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm so pleased that someone took notice of my effort. Farkas János (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Trotskyism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my intention to vandalize the articles for no reason. The encyclopedia is filled with statements of "some argue" this and "some argue" that, without saying who. I decided to say who: Friends of Katja Kassin. Farkas János (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Marxism, you will be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't think it was funny then I guess you can blow it out your arse. I've been here too long. When I make a constructive edit nobody notices, but when I vandalise, well, instant recognition, as you have shown. Farkas János (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truism that applies to most types of activity - as long as you don't piss people off, no one will notice you. Start to, and you'll get all the attention you ever wanted in a hurry. Avruch ^T 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you design logos? If yes, please answer me in my profile (User talk:Alakbaroff)

Hi, I just noticed that back in February, you somehow copied the text from Wikipedia talk:Vital articles onto the FAQ page(see dif). I have reverted your change. Let me know if you have any questions. -RunningOnBrains 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, on the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Information and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Arbitrary break in discussion we have a bitter debate about the use of minority languages in articles about places in Croatia. Because I noticed that you are also interested in human rights (of national minorities in this case) I'd appreciated if you found time to share your opinion on this subject with us. Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]