User talk:Davide King/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Unblock request (14 October 2019)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Davide King (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have read other unblock requests and understood that simply stating that I understand, etc. isn't enough and I would like to clarify that I really did understand that I should always leave an edit summary; that I will make my edits visually understandable by not editing blank spaces, whether adding or removing them, etc., or similar cosmetic edits; that I will edit pages in small steps to make it easier to understand and revert bad editings while retaning good ones rather than edit it all in one single, big edit like I did; that I will be a responsive user by replying to talk pages and my own; and that I won't edit while logged out.--Davide King (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've spoke to the blocking admin and they do not object. Let's hope for smooth sailing from here on out. Good luck! El_C 02:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To add on this, I would like to state what I would edit if unblocked. If you believe there's no need to ban me from certain topics, I would edit any page I find or search for. I actually enjoy reading pages on Wikipedia and make minor edits like fixing wording, typos, copy editing, etc. in pages I read but don't feel knowledgable enough to actually add information. Topics I believe I can add sourced informations are politics (including economics, biographies and political parties) and professional wrestling (anything related to it), so I would mainly edits pages related to that, but I'm open to anything I can help contribuite.--Davide King (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• I think it's worth unblocking user Davide King. Enough time has passed since the blocking and he writes that he realized his mistakes. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you @Гармонический Мир: for your support, but it's going nowhere. How come no one replied here anymore and still not leaving a comment, not even to my responses, for clarifications, ask me questions, or anything else? I believe I've done my request correctly (I already added my specifications of my understanding in the request above before it was closed, but no reply there too), so did I miss or forget something, anything, that you believe I didn't understand in relation to my block and how it's no longer necessary? Should I ping you if you missed anything?--Davide King (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for pinging you, but please @Czar: @Graham87: @Mark Schierbecker: @Yamla: if there's any news or want to ask me any question, let me know here. I'm more than forthcoming for any help, clarification, or anything else. I don't know why it's taking so long again, I believe to have been clearer in my understanding and request reason.--Davide King (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Voice of Clam, JBW, and Cyphoidbomb: I apologize for the concern. Can you consider this unblock request? Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Czar and Graham87: I would also like to add my support for unblocking Davide_King. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Per the above, I also endorse the unblock. (I'd do it myself but better to have a third party look it over.) I'm really surprised that this has sat in the queue for so long. I'll take a look later about the hold-up and apologize for the delay. czar 14:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Edit/FYI: I requested a reviewer czar 14:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Although several editors have engaged with you below, I strongly suggest you stop participating in that discussion. Generally, while blocked you should only really be using your talk page for stuff related to your block (or ban if that's what it is), e.g. to seek clarification on it, to try better understand what you need to do to avoid being blocked, and of course to appeal it. Some limited other discussion may be tolerated but you shouldn't normally be using it to discuss article content in detail. Even more since you are indefinitely blocked, so we have no idea when, if ever, you will be welcome to participate in content development. To be clear, I have no personal opinion on whether you should be blocked, simply pointing out that you cannot assume you will be unblocked anytime soon. Nil Einne (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would like to thank @Czar, Pfhorrest, and Гармонический Мир: and all other users for their help and support here.
• @Nil Einne: Thanks for the comment and clarifications. I also would like to clarify that I started this only because JLMadrgal stated "this discussion has been in process for nearly 3 months, which has given you plenty of time to solicit objections. You can't stall for time any longer. I say we give you until 11/13 to bring an official objection from a Wikipedia authority. Otherwise we go ahead as planned." and I wanted to ask them "if they can wait for my unblock request's result so that I may participate to the discussion since I was involved into it". I would also like to thank @Pfhorrest: for clarifying how the discussion process actually works because I believe that proposal would have been a mistake and against Wikipedia guidelines, not seeing yet a clear consensus.
• I never assumed I would be "unblocked anytime soon". I actually only wanted to write somewhere on my PC my propoals and post them here only if and when I would be unblocked, but JLMadrgal's comment convinced me I had to post here to ask if they could wait for a decsion on my unblock request; and I also hoped it could have been seen as a good faith sign and to show I could make good contributions and so the blocking would be no longer necessary. Indeed, I'm only concerned why there hasn't been any development, not even a comment of someone telling me, "Okay, listen, you need to first wait six months without editing with IPs" before a final decision, or something like that; nor any question or comment on whether it's believed I won't do what I was blocked for and that the block is no longer necessary for the reasons stated here.
• @Nil Einne: Could you please create or help me create an Archive Talk and put the first 43 discussions in Archive 1 and maintain the rest here? Thanks again! Anyway, I will stop replying to the discussions not related to my block and prepare them on my PC for when and if I'm unblocked, without posting them here until then. That discussion has been going on for many months, so I hope it's possible to wait a bit more so I can partecipate it when and if I'm unblocked.--Davide King (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nice—we're good. Welcome back! We discussed this a while back but I recommend sticking to a rule of not reverting more than once while you get acclimated. Since you'll be editing in politics topics, which are sometimes contentious, much better to walk through changes on a talk page for consensus. I'm always around if you want to run anything past another set of eyes. I'll move the below section back to the article talk page (where it belongs) and I set this user talk page to auto-archive per your request but feel free to change its settings. czar 02:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• My congratulations on unblocking you. I think this is the right decision. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'm glad to see you're back too. :) --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: @Nil Einne: @Гармонический Мир: @Graham87: @Pfhorrest: @Mark Schierbecker: @Yamla: Thank you all for the comments, I hope I'm doing good. Please, let me know and feel free to leave any comment. To further show I have learned, just please this time send me a template/warning if I may get blocked and I will reply back. If I will have problem to reply, at least this time I would also stop editinng too. But I hope all of this won't ever be necessary. :-)--Davide King (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Everything I've seen you doing has looked good to me so far. :-) --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Left-libertarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Class (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ryk72 ^talk 04:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Lets talk about the dispute on the demsoc article

Davide, i heard your objections, and i am ready to talk. The last thing we need is to further escalate this edit war, and i do want to find a common ground with you. But we cant do that if we simply swap between our respective versions with almost zero inclusion from the opposing sides. I do have some ideas over how can we resolve the six things i did wrong on the article. First of all, the short description of the article that appears on mobile devices. Would you be alright with it being changed to "A variant of socialism that advocates for a democratic political system alongside a socially owned economy"? That way, we can resolve your objection about me including "parliamentarism" (As democratic socialism is not just limited to representative democracy) there without removing a potential good edit. Next, we have your objection about me changing the first sentence to "Democratic socialism is a political philosophy and ideology". I did that because democratic socialism is a political ideology, not just a philosophical school of thought, and reliable sources overwhelmingly describe democratic socialism as a political ideology. This is to prevent possible confusion by readers about the nature of democratic socialism, since to call it only a philosophy would be incorrect. Next, we have your concerns about me inserting potential bias and material not included in the source into the article. I already addressed your third concern that you posted earlier onto my talk page by removing the "by the working class" part from the definition section of the demsoc article when I did my edit again, so the problem should be resolved now. As for the fourth concern, I stated that Blair's New Labour falsely/incorrectly conflates democratic socialism with the Third Way precisely because the ideology of the Third Way is most definitely not anywhere close to socialism, nor did Blair himself pass any policies which suggest a turn towards the far left, nor is New Labour's definition of democratic socialism consistent with scholarly consensus. I should have phrased it in a more neutral manner though, so I suggest something like this:

"As an example, the new version of Clause IV of the New Labour Constitution redefines democratic socialism to describe the centrist Third Way form of social democracy"

Next, we have your objection to my "Partly because of this overlap, some political commentators erroneously use the terms interchangeably" edit, which upon closer inspection does sound biased. This is why i suggest we change it to: "Partly because of this overlap, some political commentators occasionally use the terms interchangeably", which completely removes the word "erroneously" from it, and by extension, the biased segment, thus maintaining a neutral point of view. Finally, we have your objection to my "Tony Benn, a prominent leftwing populist and a Labour Party politician" edit, where I referred to Tony as a left-wing populist even though he isnt described as such in reliable sources. I admit that was a gaffe on my part, and i have already corrected it to "Tony Benn, a prominent leftwing Labour Party politician" in my last edit before it was reverted, so we can keep it like that in a hypothetical consensus. Would you be alright with the solutions i suggested, or do you have other concerns you forgot to tell me on my talkpage? I will be waiting here for your review of my proposals. Izuru Kamukura (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Izuru Kamukura: First of all, thank you so much for writing me here. I will reply you here as soon as possible. Please, don't edit the article until we got an agreement or reached a consensus, so as to avoid any other issue or edit warring.--Davide King (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Izuru Kamukura, it's funny you said that with almost zero inclusion from the opposing sides when I actually incorporated some of your better wording and edits that were helpful or improving while you simply reverted to your version. Some the wording was just fine; as you said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There was already an user who made pretty much the same wording edits and not all of them were good or helpful. And I admit to have thought you were the same user because of this; and not much after, a new user appears, make very similair edits with errors, edit a similair article, etc.; but I'm assuming good faith and I hope not to regret it. As with the other user, it's not just these six things; the issue as I clearly wrote you that I can't tell you why each one of it was wrong. [Here are] [j]ust a few examples. I have already incorporated some of your better wording and strucuring that was actually good and helpful, so I hope you won't edit back to that version with your wording. I will incorporate both of our edits. But now let's discuss these six things:

1. A variant of socialism that advocates for a democratic political system alongside a socially owned economy It's too long and it's a copy of the first phrasing. Why not just Type of socialism that advocates for democracy and social ownership? Or even just Form of socialism opposed to authoritarian socialism [or Marxism–Leninism] since the first one makes it look like it's the only form of socialism that advocates both democracy and social ownership.
2. There's simply no need to add ideology. Political philosophy already does that and compare with Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism et all; and no, don't try add ideology to them.
3. As for the working class, I didn't see whether you removed it or not; I reverted for the same reason I reverted other of your edits; too much unelpful wording change; I already incorporated the good ones.
4. That's still POV, even if I may personally agree with that wording; that's what critics say about it and there're already several paragraphs that discuss that. A more neutral wording would be As an example, the new version of Clause IV of the New Labour constitution uses the term democratic socialism to describe a modernised form of social democracy. That's exactly the way the term is used in that case.
5. I'm fine with Partly because of this overlap, some political commentators occasionally use the terms interchangeably.
6. I'm also fine with simply using left-wing (it should be left-wing, not leftwing) for Tony Benn. That's the same mistake the other users did too; so please, if you're the same user, you should notify to Ivanvector. I was blocked too for making similair edits and being too naive; and it was hard for me not to edit anymore, but at the end I was unblocked and everything's good. If it's not you, then please ignore this part.

For now, I will incorporate the few things we agreed (5 and 6).--Davide King (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Davide. I will reply to you point by point so we can resolve this as soon as possible. Without further ado, lets begin:

Number 1:

"It's too long and it's a copy of the first phrasing. Why not just Type of socialism that advocates for democracy and social ownership? Or even just Form of socialism opposed to authoritarian socialism [or Marxism–Leninism] since the first one makes it look like it's the only form of socialism that advocates both democracy and social ownership."

We have to summarize the entire point of the article in a nutshell, and that includes democratic socialism s emphasis on a democratic political system and a socially (or publicly) owned economy, especially as its also geared towards readers who dont want to spend time reading the article, but are instead looking for a clear and simple definition. It doesnt look excessively long at all, and it perfectly summarizes what democratic socialism is without delving into its history or intricacies that may only interest a particular audience. Hence i recommend keeping this edit.

Number 2:

"There's simply no need to add ideology. Political philosophy already does that and compare with Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism et all; and no, don't try add ideology to them."

As i said before, i added "ideology" in order to clarify that democratic socialism is not merely a school of philosophy, and because reliable sources overwhelmingly describe democratic socialism as a political ideology. And in Wikipedia s case, reliable sources trump the opinions of individual editors, as original research is not allowed here.

Number 3:

"As for the working class, I didn't see whether you removed it or not; I reverted for the same reason I reverted other of your edits; too much unelpful wording change; I already incorporated the good ones."

Its alright, Davide. I removed "working class" because thats not what the source stated, and you even reminded me of this, which is what made me remove it in the first place. Thank you for your dilligence.

Number 4:

"That's still POV, even if I may personally agree with that wording; that's what critics say about it and there're already several paragraphs that discuss that. A more neutral wording would be As an example, the new version of Clause IV of the New Labour constitution uses the term democratic socialism to describe a modernised form of social democracy. That's exactly the way the term is used in that case."

We include what reliable sources state to Wikipedia, and the consensus by scholars and analysts is that New Labour did indeed redefine democratic socialism to legitimize their centrist Third Way policies. Plus, even biased sources can be allowed on Wikipedia, as long as their factual accuracy and credibility is not damaged by said bias, and Wikipedia itself is inherently biased against fringe subjects such as pseudoscience for example, because the consensus of reliable sources is that pseudoscience, by definition, is not equivalent to real science.

Now, unless you have any further objections to the proposed edits, i shall go reinstate them on the demsoc article in a moment, exactly as proposed here, so that we can resolve the remaining disputes about NPOV and wording. Please do not revert them unless you have a new reason to do so, in which case we shall continue our discussion here.Izuru Kamukura (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Izuru Kamukura:

1. Then Type of socialism that advocates for democracy and social ownership is perfectly fine and that advocates for political democracy alongside a socially owned economy is literally in the first phrase; democracy and social ownership just makes it more concise.
2. Well, show me these reliable sources then. There's nothing wrong with just political philosophy, which is consistent with all other political articles.
3. It's funny you said that when I simply reverted to the stable version and actually incorporated some of your good edits. It's yours that is too much unhelpful change. Don't fix it if it ain't broke actually supports my position rather than yours.
4. Show me these reliable sources then. But as I said, we already discuss the critique of the Third Way, so there's nothing wrong in that phrase stating what their proponents actually see it.

This isn't how it work. The discussion isn't over and there's no consensus for adding your wording changes. The article should remain to the more recent stable version. I repeat that I already incorporate some of your edits and the ones for which there was consensus. You also literally ignored me saying [not to] edit back to that version with your wording.--Davide King (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• This content discussion belongs on the article's talk page where others can see, participate, and reference in the future. czar 19:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Keeping to your promise

Hi, Davide. Per this discussion, you appear to be slipping back to old habits, which you need to refrain from. Remember your promise to edit pages in small steps to make it easier to understand. Also, what "missing dot" are you claiming to have "added"? Because I don't see it. Anyway, I hope this reminder will be enough and that you are able to self-correct without additional intervention. Thank you in advance for your close attention. El_C 10:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, El_C. Thanks for your comment and warning about that. I'm sorry about it, it's just that sometimes I was told that I made too many small edits in many edits to the same page and other times I was told it was too much of a big edit and that I should have separeted edits in smaller ones, so I'm still trying to improve and strike a balance at that. This happens because I actually enjoy so much reading articles, so it happens that I may find an error or typo and immediately correct it, but then I find another one and so on; or I'm so into the reading and editing that I either don't realise I'm changing too much for a single edit or I simply forget to copy and past so as to divide it into smaller edits. As for the missing dot, I actually added it. Compare as well as by the magazine CounterPunch Trew notes that [...] with as well as by the magazine CounterPunch. Trew notes that [...]. I only wanted to add that, but then I also changed Trew notes that both Justin Trudeau and his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, are optimists, moderate redistributionists, internationalists, feminists, and good listeners. "Consultation, for radical centrists, is key", Trew concludes to Trew notes that both Justin Trudeau and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron are optimists, moderate redistributionists, internationalists, feminists and good listeners. According to Trew, consultation is key. Either way, I put ce because I think that's what most my edits were about (I didn't add new information and hopefully I didn't change the actual meaning) and be bold to say that my edits are being in good faith and that I will follow the BRD rule in case of revert. The main issue in the past was that I wouldn't have replied to this message (in my defense, I had several personal issues and I simply wanted to edit without drama; I didn't know yet about the BRD rule, but I don't remember abusing that more than once, if at all; I would have also usually changed part of my edits to try to understand my errors and if it was improved enough to be accepted). So I hope this is no big issue and I apologise in advance if I caused any problem for this. You're free to revert them; I won't edit warring about it, although I hope you can also keep some of the good bits, if any.--Davide King (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Davide, that's fair enough. I appreciate you being receptive toward the suggestion of undertaking further self-correction, in general. Please don't hesitate to contact me if issues arise, or if you just need advise. Regards, El_C 14:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks to you, so much! Just another thing, since we're here. I don't know if you take responsabilty about such things too, but could please check this out? It's my first time doing that, so forgive me if I didn't do it right, but I hope my comments were helpful.--Davide King (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, Davide. In answer to your question: at a glance, it isn't a clear SPI report and the behavioral evidence does not seem especially strong. But perhaps a checkuser will evaluate different (this isn't really an area with which I am especially familiar). El_C 14:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, thanks anyway. Since I've been heavily involved with the user, I clearly saw striking similar edits and behavior. As also stated by BiologicalMe, there's also the same tendency to put the onus on the other editor and to cite essays. I hope I put enough evidence that, to a closer look, it at least justify a discussion or check. I think Ivanvector could really help since it's the one who blocked it in the first place.--Davide King (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volksstaat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Free-market anarchism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Race

Left-wing market anarchism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Race

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

DPL bot, fixed it. Good bot.--Davide King (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Davide King

Thank you for creating Free-market socialist.

User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I'm starting to get the impression that anarchism and libertarian-socialist articles may benefit from having a series of disambiguation pages, because inasmuch as the targets for this and other such redirects are justified, there are several other targets that a reader could plausibly be looking for.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Rosguill: and thanks to you for your comment. I agree with what you wrote and this was a good start and example of what we could do to clarify things. Do you already have any idea or proposal on how to do that? How would you organise an Anarchism (disambiguation) and/or Libertarian socialism (disambiguation) page?--Davide King (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

At the moment I don't have a concrete proposal but will give it some thought in the next few days. Brainstorming a bit, it seems like a lot of the redirects pointed at Social anarchism could plausibly point to Libertarian socialism or Anarchocommunism (and vice versa). A few edge cases could also refer to other leftist ideological concepts (eg, Stateless communism and Communism). It could be that the best solution may be some sort of overview or glossary article that differentiates between tendencies without diving into detailed accounts of any of them in particular. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, that's exactly what I wanted to do, for it's also misleading to redirect them to Social anarchism because that isn't the only branch of anarchism that is actually socialist and many strands of individualist anarchism can be and have been described as libertarian socialist. So that's why I just redirected them to Libertarian socialism and put this hatnote: "Socialist anarchism" redirects here. For the branch of anarchism emphasizing mutual aid and sometimes referred to in similar terms, see Social anarchism. I redirected Stateless communism to Anarcho-communism because Communism has also been associated statist ideologies like Marxism–Leninism. I was also thinking of creating a Libertarian communism page. Since we're talking about it, could you please delete Modern conservatism in different countries.? I accidentally put a dot at the end and I already got the correct redirect at Modern conservatism in different countries.--Davide King (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

re Modern conservatism, done. In the future you can just put a WP:G7 CSD tag on it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, thank you!--Davide King (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

MLM

okay im curious before I get into another pointless dick swinging match, do you have any actual interest ideologically in keeping the things I removed from the marxism-leninism-maoism article, or are you just mad I didnt write 5 paragraphs on why everything I removed was obviously incorrect. PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"Socialist confederalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Socialist confederalism. Since you had some involvement with the Socialist confederalism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Socialism into Communism. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Workers' Barnstar
		Comrade, I present to you this barnstar for your contributions to Wikipedia disambiguating various terms related to anarchism, socialism, and communism. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosguill.--Davide King (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic socialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Party of Democratic Socialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Please

A blank line after every paragraph? Not necessarily, e.g. the final one. Between paragraphs? Again not absolutely, e.g. fewer than two. Think before.--Brogo13 (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, Brogo13? What does this have to do to me?--Davide King (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

this--Brogo13 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Brogo13, I agree with Koavf's comment that I can't understand why this would be helpful or why there is a dispute here and I thought, or it seems to be, it was a matter of personal preference on whether leave a blank line or not.--Davide King (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Traditionalist conservatism in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Religious right (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

your userbox

it makes so much sense now why you constantly are on stalin pages after looking at your user. please take your leftcom hands away from the keyboard, step out of your armchair, and do things in real life please PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

PresidenteGonzalo, personal attacks aren't the way to go. Firstly, my userboxes haven't been updated in years now. Secondly, several of your edits have been reverted by other users too. Thirdly, just because you may personally think something as a fact, it doesn't justify you in changing that without providing any source; or worse yet, simply changing the phrase to fit your thoughts or opinion on the matter while keeping the source like you have done here isn't good. If you have problems, you need to take it to the talk page and get consensus there, not edit warring or attacking other users; you also need reliable sources.--Davide King (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

lmao what, thats probably the most justified edit I have ever made on this website, no matter what your opinion is of it, "stalinism" is not a non-marxist ideology, its inclusion among nationalism is completely unfounded. Stalin wrote the book on leninism and im not sure anyone disagrees that the soviet union was a socialist state PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This made it easier for the JCP to fall under nationalist and Stalinist influences in the 1920s is literally what the given source says, PresidenteGonzalo. Ironically, it's mostly capitalists and Marxist–Leninists that agree the Soviet Union and other states were socialist, albeit for vastly different reasons. As correctly stated and pointed out by The Four Deuces here, [t]he same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only Marxist-Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way and there's a debate about it, whether you agree with it or not. Just like there're reliable sources that describe Stalinism as a deviation of Marxism, etc. whilst right-wingers argue it was the natural evolution of Marxism in practice, etc.--Davide King (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh okay so thats how this is. you're a clown with no understanding of marxism (if you did then you'd of read "on authority" and would shut your fucking mouth) and you're now trying to exert authority over all marxist pages. I know exactly how this goes because its the same with all power users on this god forsaken website, the sources that support your position are "reliable sources" and the sources that support mine will be considered biased and unreliable and if I challenge you then you'll accuse me of edit-warring and use your likely multiple admin friends to beat me into a pulp for daring to do so.

you're not left wing, PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You made a strawman out of my commemt and bascally insulted me ingenerously. Where did I ever write that the sources that support your position are "reliable sources" and the sources that support mine will be considered biased and unreliable? I'm open minded and have no problem admitting in being wrong and changing my mind, etc. Maybe you should try doing the same. As I said, ever thought you may be the one who is biased or wrong about this? I always think about the possibility of being biased or wrong, hence why I remain open minded and willing to change my mind and apologise or recognise my mistake, etc. From your comments, it doesn't look to be the same for you. I could tell the same thing about you and write that you act like you're the God authority of Marxism. What did I say that was wrong? Isn't true that it's mainly anti-communists and Marxist–Leninists that the Soviet Union et all were socialist? The issue between Marxist–Leninists and other socialists is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way and I'm interested in this debate. When I defend real progress and good things in the Soviet Union, I may get called a Stalinist; when I give good faith criticism, I become a bourgeois, or a clown with no understanding of marxism in your case and opinion.

What does "On Authority" has to do with all this anyway? I've read it and agree with it. Where does it come from there that I have to support the claim the Soviet Union et all were socialist and all its left-wing criticism was just bourgeois, even when there're debates on whether the working class was in actual control?

As for this, you misunderstood it. Neither the text does say that Stalinism is non-Marxist, but it does mention Stalinism, which you removed without any explanation. Furthermore, it's simply not true that the mention of stalinism as non-marxist is incorrect according to every known dictionary definition of marxism, for many Marxists are critcial of Stalinism and Marxism–Leninism, whether you like it or not. You're clearly biased in favor of Marxism–Leninism or Maoism; and yet I'm the one who is? [T]he edit was only removed due to the editor's personal quarrel with myself is an outright lie (ever thought you're the one who may be actually biased in the opposite direction?). I simply reverted that because the sources does mention Stalinism and you misunderstood both the source and text to mean that Stalinism isn't Marxist; neither the text or source say that.--Davide King (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hope you are safe

Hey Davide, I just realized I kinda know someone (you) in an area heavily affected by COVID-19 (as I hear all of Italy is quarantined now), and I just wanted to extend my well-wishes to you and hope that you are and remain safe from it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hope all is well and goes well for you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Right-libertarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Doherty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Minjung Party

I want to invite you to the discussion about Minjung Party. There has been a dispute about party's ideology and political spectrum. Can you join the talk and reveal your opinion of the issue? Jeff6045 (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

doi and isbn to cite book template

• Have you ever used Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books or DOI Wikipedia reference generator? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• I also suggest you read User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. The page has 11 Harv errors, plus various other types of errors of varying degrees of importance. But Harv errors are important. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• ... and maybe WP:CITEBOMB. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

pls stop editing for a while

Pls stop editing for a while. I am trying to remove all the unused sources but am doing it programmatically. If you alter the line count of the sources, it all becomes wrong. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

pls fix the final seven (7) by hand. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the US

I'm starting by just mentioning it briefly here without making the full argument. The usage of the Right-Libertarian term is in dispute and headed for an RFC. In the midst of that you make a major injection of the term into an additional article where it is even more out of place. When your addition was reverted (and the change certainly has no consensus) you edit warred to force it in. I'm not implying that you violated the bright-line 3RR rule. This certainly can't stand this way. You should self-revert. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, see this. It looks like you're never happy. In that case, I actually treated it exactly as a term! I even started it by writing Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism is a categorization used by some political analysts, academics and media sources in the United States to contrast related yet distinct approaches to libertarian philosophy because in that case is about terminology. You were also simply wrong in arguing that the terms are not used in the US; and you're wrong about the 3RR rule, for I did revert it twice and Pfhorrest was the one to revert it to my version. You're making this issue much bigger than it really is, if at all.--Davide King (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you (mis)read what I wrote including the only bolded word in the post? "I wrote "I'm not implying that you violated the bright-line 3RR rule" and you are writing as if I said the opposite. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't like how you wrote that I edit warred to force it in (and yes, it sounded like you implied I violated some rule) when Pfhorrest supported my additions and reverted it. Either way, your reasoning made no sense, for it's especially in the United States where the terminology is used and relevant. That discussion has been going on for almost a year now, there was no consensus for your proposals, or that it was such a big issue to require massive changes (I believe much of the issue itself has been addressed with better wording and other edits which gave more weight to the term and came closer to address your position) and I think it's about time it ends. Either way, I didn't see anything wrong with my edit (so unless you're implying Right-libertarianism should be deleted, I don't get where you're coming from) exactly because it treated them as terms (do you deny even the terms themselves now?) and I believe that section was even closer to you; and it shouldn't be reverted because it's not relevant to Right-libertarianism (again, unless you're implying it should be deleted or that the terms aren't real) as argued by Pfhorrest (the dispute elsewhere is not about whether left and right libertarianism are things at all) and it's actually used and very relevant to libertarianism in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Davide, I mentioned at the beginning that I was keeping it brief and do not want to replicate/ make the whole discussion here. My post was about process. You added it at this article while it being under dispute at another article. There's not only no consensus to re-add the insertion, there is not even any discussion. It is currently in the article because you and Pfhorrest just re-inserted the material 3 times in one day. The article currently in in the damaged state with the disputed addition because y'all hammered it back in three times in one day. From a process point, this is not right and can't stand. Can you self-revert? My next step would be to put all of this at the article and identify that it as temporarily being in the damaged/disputed state because of that aggressive re-insertion process for the disputed change. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I honestly find all this baffling and absurd, for I properly cited the whole section. I could understand if I just added it as an unreferenced section, but I actually did reference it. The whole dispute right now is literally whether the first two phrases at Right-libertarianism should be inverted. Now do you even dispute left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are real things, even just as terms?--Davide King (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

My comments here are limited to the Wikipedia process side. I don't think it would be good to start / duplicate the main discussion here. But one quick note....what you are describing as the argument/goal (phrases inverted) of one side isn't that, it is merely the significant pragmatic compromise offered to put this to bed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better to discuss it here, if we're going to repeat the same things and argument, going in circle on that talk page. If that's the case, then I agree with Aquillon's argument that if you concede the article should exist, most of your arguments fall apart and there isn't much to discuss at such lengths. That compromise simply isn't going to work, for the main body backed by sources describes a philosophy/theory/type and the term itself refers to that; and the term issue is addressed in the second sentence and it can't get more pertinent than that.--Davide King (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

For those who know me here, I'm really only vehement about the proper wiki-process side. And so for me the process issue brought up above is most urgent and important. I also have some mild concerns about some of your conversational wiki-tactics which is a bit of a process issue which stokes things a bit, but that is only that. What I care zero about here is real-world advocacy-type POV. Fortunately I don't think that the dispute here is fueled by any such issues. I think it's mostly a matter of everybody simply wanting to make the best possible coverage and there are disagreements on how to do that.North8000 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Where were you, then, when JLMadrigal literally did the same thing, edit-warred with your changes at Right-libertarianism? At least I sourced my own section; JLMadrigal didn't provide any source to support those changes; and in that case it was even worse since we were literally discussing that at length and did it multiple times (you actually did the same too); it was the main dispute.--Davide King (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. My so-called controversial “wiki-tactics” merely means following the guidelines (not making up processes as you did for months) and what reliable sources say about the topic. I certainly wasn't the one writing that another user should be “blocked”; arguing that only “libertarians” should discuss this; showing a lack of understanding about the topic and writing outright falsehood; etc.--Davide King (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

???? I never said anything like that about anybody. BTW, if you want an example, it's what you just did. Vaguely implying that those that disagree with you are violating guidelines. But again, for me the big current issue is just the process issue at libertarianism in the US. Could you self-revert on that? North8000 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't write you did any of that; it was JLMadrigal who did all that. I didn't imply that and I certainly didn't do that merely because you disagree with me, but rather because I believe your lead proposal doesn't satisfy the requisite as the main body is much more than just a term and so we should first establish what the main topic is. So the discussion is going nowhere as it doesn't change the main body which supports the current lead.--Davide King (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

My next step would be to get into this at the article. I thought this would be a nice way to skip that. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I did just that. Briefly, noting that the current temporary damaged state of the article is based on edit-warring in disputed and un-discussed material. This explains how the article got to its current temporary damaged state because I declined to pursue any further reversions of insertion of the disputed material. It is NOT saying that you violated the bright line 3RRR rule, and is not raising or pursuing any sanctions related to wiki-behavior. That is not my dance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help copy edit for Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you. Vomli (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't edit war

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please work collaboratively to improve the article rather than delete massive amounts of cited material. I'm happy to have the article change significantly and willing to work with you to improve it. Address specifics don't just delete most of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liberal socialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amoral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Economics of fascism into Criticism of capitalism. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your changes to social democracy

Social democracy is not socialism, while historically it was true that social democracy was a socialist movement i.e under Berstein and the early German social democrats, this is not true in modern times. Your change to social democracy contradicts socialism as defined in socialism's article and in communism's article, as social democracy is an intrinsically capitalist system (this being acknowledged in the article itself) . It is now inaccurate to categories social democracy as "within" socialism for various reasons, such as numerous philosophies including but not limited to schools of liberalism (John Rawls and Lib Dems UK) and christian democracy, have adopted social democracy as an aim and goal, and both of these philosophies are explicitly anti socialist/communist in both principle, praxis, and in their respective political science. Christian democracy having emerged in partial opposition to socialism in the first place. As well as most social democratic parties abandoning socialism or outright condemning it, this happening during the emergence and ascendancy of neoliberalism. Your citation regarding the defining of social democracy as being "within socialism" does not appear to be from any philosopher, or political scientist though please correct me if I am wrong here. The social democracy page is currently protected due to a recent edit war and vandalism, and id prefer discussing these changes with you directly before potentially winding starting up another one. --Arctictothpast (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We need to define the topic. Social democracy can be used as a synonym for socialist ideology, or to refer, usually disparagingly, to the right-wing within socialism or to the comprehensive welfare state established by socialist and non-socialist governments in Europe. By conflating the three, we come up with the misleading implication that the goal of social democratic ideology is the establishment of a welfare state or that people who advocate them are necessarily social democrats. It's accidental that the welfare state is called social democracy, because conservatives advocated and implemented the welfare state when most social democrats opposed it. TFD (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Social democracy is indeed socialism (ironically, it's mainly more left-wing socialists that say it's not socialism; this isn't much different from far-left politics, which unlike the far-right, doesn't have a clear definition and is basically more left-wing than you), otherwise what would be the difference from social liberalism? John Rawls (whom some describe as a liberal socialist, by the way) and the Liberal Democrats, just like the American Democrats, are (social) liberals, not social(ist) democrats. That's one problem I've seen in many users and which The Four Deuces, whom I personally thank for the prompt and clear comment, clarified many times. Even if today many social democrats are mainly concerned about the humanisaton of capitalism, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have abandoned socialism; in practice, its humanisation must in the end result in some form of socialism, economically or ethically, for capitalism to be truly and fully humanised would be much different from modern capitalism (obviously, more left-wing socialist argue that it's impossible, that capitalism can never be truly, full humanised, as discussed in sources, but I digress). Many users confuse the social liberal paradigm (1940s–1970s) for social democracy. However, social democrats adopted it for largely different reasons (again, The Four Deuces made several interesting points in the Archive which I have incorporated in the article). Even then, post-war social democracy was considered by those socialist a compromise between capitalism and socialism, believing that it would avert capitalist's crisis et all (indeed, social democrats like Crosland thought this was irreversible), but this has been replaced by the neoliberal paradigm.

As argued by The Four Deuces elsewhere, it makes no sense to make social democracy what social democratic parties do; do we now say that social democracy supports neoliberalism, privatisation, deregulation, Rogernomics, (everything post-war social democracy stood against), etc. because some social democratic parties did that? It also doesn't make it clear the difference between why some socialists, liberals and conservatives adopted social democracy as a policy regime. Socialists such as the Swedish Social Democrats adopted the social liberal paradigm because they believed it was fundamental for the development of socialism (people need to be healthy, secure, etc.), which is fundamentally different from the reasons argued by liberals and conservatives. All three also have their own critics who reject it as a policy regime. I think I have been more than inclusive in discussing social democracy as both an ideology/political movement and a policy regime (although the policy regime thing should be about the one adopted by social democrats, i.e. they adopted as a compromise between capitalism and socialism, saw it as a development towards socialism like the Swedish socialists, etc., not conservatives and liberals; for that, we have Welfare state). The given source (Eatwell & Wright 1999) clearly discusses social democracy as one of the many traditions of socialism. Democratic socialism is about modern socialism (while maintaining the social ownership of all previous socialisms, it adds democracy as a fundamental part of it, hence democratic socialism) and originated in the 18th and 19th centuries while social democracy is one strand of it, originating in the 1860s as contrasted and opposed to liberal democracy.

It's not social democracy that has abandoned its socialist goal (whether a full socialist economy, or a socialism in ethical terms which doesn't discuss the economic system, which may range from an actual socialist system to humanised capitalism), some social democrats did; but by doing so, they stopped being social democrats and became social liberals. This doesn't mean that social democracy did too, otherwise it would stop being social democracy and would be no different from social liberalism.--Davide King (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay...

No problem Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You Thanked me! Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Social democracy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Left

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit.--Davide King (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your views (satire)

I was reading through your views and I came across it completely disgusted. I can't understand how a moral person could put Nirvana as their favorite band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CustodianOfClara (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

National Rally (France) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Republicans

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Social Democratic Party of Austria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Freedom Party

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Socialist Party (France) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cedex

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Swedish Social Democratic Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Red rose

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed them all.--Davide King (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The politics of the United States

What do you know of American politics? What is your perspective on it from the outside? How much do you really know if it? Camposjavier348 (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Camposjavier348: Are you referring to this edit? Because that may well be true, but it's unsourced. Furthermore, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body and there's no mention of the United States as of now. We need to create a referenced section about the United States. Finally, another issue is why exactly since the War on Terror and the PATRIOT Act along with various social reforms? For some libertarians, it was since Lincoln or Roosevelt. Why couldn't it be since Nixon or Reagan? Hell, why not even since Trump? Most capitalist states had at least one period in which they could be described as authoritarian (under Wilson during World War I and most capitalist states during wars). So that's why I reverted it; it was unsourced and undue as there was no mention of the United States in the main body.--Davide King (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox's

Hi, Davide King. Thought we could discuss the matter about infobox text. I know there is no written rule or consensus regarding this matter. I think its matter or improving readability and general neatness. (Reminds me of Ignore all rules/Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, although I don't think this breaks any rules per say, its more the fact I'm doing it because I think it improves the respective articles). Personally I think it looks fine to use nowrap in these cases as it can easily be distinguished which section lines up with which in the infobox. It also means information isn't splitting after literally only about two words. I agree that beyond a certain point it can look ridiculous. Say if it ends up reducing the lede paragraph to less than 10 words a line because the infobox has been so enlarged. However, in the cases we have been over this is not the case. Sentences in the opening paragraphs are still of standard length before starting a new line. While you are quite right to point out that the address line still splits, the way the address is stated in the infobox is not typical of how an address would normally be written as addresses are normally written line by line e.g.

Mr X
Holly Road
Little Town

Not 'MrX, Holly Road, Little Town'. In my opinion having information such as the foundation of Labour splitting literally like this:

'27 February 1900; 120
years ago'

looks ridiculous and makes information more difficult to read/understand at a quick glance. The fact it isn't more than a couple of words/numbers before splitting.

Anyway, thought I'd layout my thoughts here and see if we can maybe reach a way forward. Helper201 (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Helper201, thank you for writing me here. As I wrote in the edit summary, I used to do that for your same reasoning; however, I've come to realise that it actually look worse and bad too large like that. One issue I have is that you argue that it improv[s] readability and general neatness but I've never seen one user lamenting in the talk page that the Infobox is too small or isn't readable. Secondly, if it means much to you, then you should go to the template itself and ask for it to be made bigger and larger, so that the nowrap will not be necessary; until then, we should avoid using and only use it in cases where it splits the Ideology or Political position as these are the two most likely to be split since they usually have more than one source. In the case of Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK), neither the Ideology nor the Political position actually splits, so please check again. I think that if this was such a big issue, then surely it would've been noticed already when the template was created with the current dimension. I think that's still better than using so many <br> for the address which actually makes it confusing in my view.--Davide King (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Davide King in regards to Labour, democratic socialism is still splitting like this

Democratic

socialism[6]

I don't kinow if you are using a mobile version of Wikipedia or its to do with screen size but that is how it is appearing for me at the moment after your last revert. Helper201 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, economic liberalism on the Conservative Party page is now splitting like this

Economic

liberalism[6]

Helper201 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm on the notebook and it doesn't split. We should consider the desktop version as default.--Davide King (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm on a desktop PC and on the standard version and it is splitting. Can we at least compromise to using nowrap for the ideology and position sections please? Helper201 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That's really weird. I just checked on my phone and it doesn't split in either case. Why is it splitting to you?--Davide King (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea. Since you agreed that its ok to use for ideologies and political positions is it alright if we just add it in for these sections? Helper201 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, because both on my phone and notebook they aren't split already. I want to find out why it looks different when it should look the same for both of us.--Davide King (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to know why. For now I've compromised to only using nowrap for the ideology sections. It only enlarges the infobox ever so slightly (probably about a millimetre, barely noticeable). I don't see any problem with this. Helper201 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fine because it doesn't actually increase, at least in my case; it only enlarges it in your case since it was split and now it isn't.--Davide King (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Helper201, in regard for this, I think the onus is on to argue for why that is improving, for I'm not sure there was even no discussion or consensus to support your particular edits, so I repeat that until then, until you can get consensus for that or change the default size of the Infobox to make it bigger so that it will be no longer needed (again, how much bigger? You can never know, there may be party or wikilink in the Infobox that we may use which would simply be too big and large to be nowrapped in the Infobox), the status quo stands. My offer and compromise is the same — use the nowrap only for the party name or/and Ideology. There's really no use in using for party affiliation, for it makes it too large and it's fine to have it split with two words each which is less awkward anyway. Also, the logo is too big. I also notice I'm not the only one to have this problematic; and while I may not support the way it was raised, I agree with the main point that it's not improving or in some cases it makes it worse. So please, from now on let's use the nowrap only for Ideology and for the party name which is only slighty longer than the default Infobox size; in other words, let's use it only so that the Infobox grow unnoticeable bigger, or in some cases it doesn't grow at all when the Ideology doesn't split on the desktop but it does split on your phone, although I'm not sure that's a good enough reason to add useless characters since it does't change on the desktop which is the default version. Another thing is that we should avoid putting references in the Infobox. For one, they should already be discussed and referenced in the main body (just like for the lead); second, this could drastically reduce the use of nowrap, or in cases where we use it, the size change isn't really noticeable or too large.--Davide King (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. The way the state or devolved parties (English Liberal Democrats, Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Welsh Liberal Democrats) section of the infobox now looks awful and is far harder to read quickly/easily. The problem is for infobox sizes is it is difficult to determine one uniform size, as each infobox is going to have different information which may require a range of different sizes. I don't think this is an issue where you can have a one size fits all approach. It is better to work on each infobox on an individual basis depending on what information is in it and how it looks and how much it affects the introduction. Personally, I think the way the Liberal Democrats infobox was before you changed it was fine. However, in the spirt of fairness and Wikipedia guidelines I compromised to somewhere between the original that I preferred and what you wanted. I think that was, and still is, fair. In this case your version you have reverted back to makes barely any difference in terms of how compromised the lede section is. It affects maybe about one small word / a few characters. Yet by making it a little bigger it makes the infobox far more readable. In regards to the logo I was using similar sizing to other parties like Labour and the Conservatives, as this looked too small. Helper201 (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Helper201, do you usually use Wikipedia from the phone? Because to me it looks perfectly fine (indeed, it's what it should look like, since that's the default sizing; again, if there was any issue of reading, I bet the Infobox itself would have been made larger as default). On my phone, it already appears bigger than it actually is on the phone (I'm saying only as appearing because it isn't actually bigger, it just appears bigger because on the desktop it is on the right with the text on the left and so it appears smaller than it is while on the phone is the contrary, etc.; it's just a good optical effect). Furthermore, I would like to see other users' opinion because for many others it may be just as easily readable as it is to me. Either way, that's why zoom exists; if the problem is really reading, there's zoom for that. Of course you may say that it's annoying that one has to use the zoom, but if it was such a big issue, then the Infobox would have been made bigger, but it isn't and unless you can get consensus to enlarge it, I think we should keep it normal and use the zoom which obtain the same exact effect without adding anything. Finally, Template:Nowrap is clear that it should be used sparingly and there is no mention of use in Infoboxes (similarly, Template:Small states we should avoid using it in Infoboxes), that's why I support the compromise of use it only once for Ideology or in case the party name is slightly longer than the Infobox itself.--Davide King (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I just tried to see how it would look like and I think it would still look unnecessarily too large and split too much lead text. I was already reverted here, too (still smaller than your original version here), so as you can see it's not only me.--Davide King (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I usually use Wikipedia from a desktop, although I do occasionally use a phone, mainly just for logged off browsing. As I said, I think the suitable infobox size can vary depending on the content in it. So it would be difficult to make one size that would fit all situations. I think on a phone what I'm describing is not usually an issue as the infobox is usually displayed separately from the lede section. I'm talking of the readability of the infobox from a desktop/PC. I can understand not wanting to make the infobox too big. If it reduced sentences to say 10 words or less before starting a new line I'd say the infobox is too stretched. However, I think it generally helps to keep information in infobox's on one line as it helps make them easier to read and understand at a quick glance. Helper201 (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Helper201, but that can easily be done by simply changing the zoom without doing anything to the Infobox, so that people like me and all the others who had not a issue with it can read without making the default Infobox looking awkwardly and strangely large. Again, I think you should just propose to enlarge the Infobox, for why I agree it should be done on a case-by-case analysis, in practice almost all such Infoboxes have at least one Nowrap and appears too large; then again, almost all Infoboxes probably require to be enlarged to be perfectly readable as you want, but if it was such an issue, the Infobox would have been made larger already. While I hope and wish you can perfectly read Infoboxes, I feel like we need more input from other users too, for you can simply use the zoom to make it look as large as you want without affecting the Infobox itself. If there really is a readability issue, then something ought to be done about it. Until then, the status quo should stand.--Davide King (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleoconservatism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Far-right politics

Please do not make changes like combining "Informational notes" with "Citations" and calling it "Citations and notes." Each of those lists are numbered separately, and putting them together to result in:

• Citations and notes

• 1. Note 1
• 2. Note 2
• 1. Citation 1
• 2. Citation 2
• 3. Citation 3...

etc. only serves to confuse the reader. There was no need to make that change. Please think before you edit. Beyond My Ken (talk)

I'm sorry, Beyond My Ken, I didn't notice that at first; I have already reverted the incorporation. There was no need to include such words in edit summaries.--Davide King (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if it upset you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's okay, thank you, Beyond My Ken. I simply thought it was unwarranted because I didn't notice at first your point and I thought unhelpful or simply bad would have been more appropriate, but then I noticed it; I agree it may confuse the reader and I promptly changed that.--Davide King (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your doing that, although now another editor has come along and resquenced the entire section in a way that makes absolutely no sense to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, are you referring to the use of === or to the listing order?--Davide King (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Antifa

With regard to your comment at Talk:Antifa (United States), I agree that you were subjected to an uncalled-for personal attack, which I condemn. However, since you live in Italy, cultural differences may have contributed. As an American, I do not believe that anarchism is the absence of a political viewpoint. To the contrary, anarchism in the United States, especially of the violent sort practiced by Antifa and the black bloc, with its history of deadly rioting and presidential assassination, is very much an expression of political extremism. Accordingly, your user page infobox parameter saying "Politics: None (anarchism)" strikes me as nonsensical. If your politics is anarchism, that's your choice. But if you are actually apolitical, calling yourself an anarchist will inevitably lead to confusion by American Wikipedians. NedFausa (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, thanks for your comment and support. Ironically and incidentally, strik[ing] [...] as nonsensical was the whole point, but I get what you are saying, where you are coming from. I just do not believe I ought to change that just because Americans (this is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, although Americans users are probably a good or decent majority of active users) may see that as nonsensical or not understanding; one should never use one User page or Userbox to strike a point in talk pages or anywhere else. If you are saying that it is probably better I change that or add a note so as to avoid instances like today, then it makes sense and is a good point.

Truth be told, I was working adding that (I wish I could make a sort of Wiki article, I like User pages styled like a Wikipedia article, with one own life and thoughts, both on Wikipedia or simply personal views, etc.) and a bunch of Userboxes (because why not? And also because I think it is a good faith attempt to show one own's bias so that other users can help me to always maintain neutral point of view, which I why I often ping other users; we are all biased and have some form of ideology after all, but that does not make all of us incapable of serving the neutrality goal of Wikipedia which I hope to reach; basically this) some of which I added because I liked them either for the look, the colours, the text or anything else really, planning to add also several note to address some points and other things which may at first appear contradictory or incompatible and nonsensical, but I did not have the time to finish that; however, I am digressing.

Since we are here, I would like to hear your thoughts this. It is not a big deal to me or the end of the world, I am fine and can live with the current wording, but I still would like to discuss it, especially in light of what is discussed in the final point. Some of my arguments are the following:

• None of the given sources seem to support the claim of antifa being against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right, i.e. they all say they are against fascists, racists and those on the far-right, in other words they are not disputing antifa's claims, nor does a wording changing imply that antifa is always correct in identifying them; even then, only one given sources discusses one case where it was not a Nazi or white supremacist; it does not rule out that may have still been a case of racism and many other sources may consider at least several Trump supporters to be racists and right-wing enough.
• It is not actually a good summary of the main body, i.e. sources seem to consider that those whom antifa engages are indeed fascists, racists or on the far-right and that, as it is obvious, those who were not either of the three are a minority, at least as reflected in the main body. Only one mention from the Los Angeles Times that basically say what the o their sources say, i.e. some Trump supporters mislabelled of being white supremacists and Nazis; still, they are not so far away as going after liberals, centrists or other leftists not left-wing enough; and many sources may have described Trump supporters and indeed Trump himself as being at least racist or far-right, i.e. what antifa is engaging with.
• The current wording is basically a truism and thus unnecessary or that the identification part either needs sources that explicity make the point or it should, or it is better, discussed in the main body.
• Finally, considering the controversial nature of the article and the movement themselves, in addition to far-right and other pretenders and hoaxes which have been reported as true by right-leaning media outlets as discussed in the main body, it is probably better we avoid a wording that may imply even in the slightest that antifa is going after anyone who disagree with them and that basically their definitions of fascist, racist and the far-right are made up when this is not supported by the many sources we have in the main body agreeing with antifa's characterisations. We have one source quoting a member and basically describing how they research to make sure the label is correct (although mistakes can always happen, but they do not seem to be the majority and they need to be added in the main body to support it being in the lead). This is the full quote:

“ But what criteria are used by Antifa to determine who might be deserving of such physical violence?

"In our research, we determine someone to be a fascist, Alt Right, White Nationalist, etc. based on which groups they are a part of and endorse," said a group member.

"Nazis, fascists, white nationalists, anti-Semites and Islamophobes are specific categories, even if they overlap or are subsets or each other. Our main focus is on groups and individuals which endorse, or work directly in alliance with, white supremacists and white separatists. We try to be very clear and precise with how we use these terms."

”

Apologies for digressing and the long post, but I hope you can reply and expose your thoughts. Please, let me know if I wrote any mistake.--Davide King (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Davide: There are two sources in the main body that speak to this point. You know of the first (emphasis added):

• According to the Los Angeles Times, they have engaged in "mob violence, attacking a small showing of supporters of President Trump and others they accused, sometimes inaccurately, of being white supremacists or Nazis."

Here is the second source (emphasis added):

• According to Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at the California State University, San Bernardino, antifa activists feel the need to participate in violent actions because "they believe that elites are controlling the government and the media. So they need to make a statement head-on against the people who they regard as racist".

I believe you underestimate the extent to which Antifa USA opportunistically mislabels their enemies. Antifa activist William Gillis has written:

• "I keep saying 'anarchist' because let's be honest—despite there being liberal, socialist, and libertarian members of antifa groups, antifascism has been predominately an anarchist project since the end of the second world war, championed and directed by anarchists. Especially in the United States where antifascism is overwhelmingly an anarchist project."

In Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, Mark Bray concurs:

• "Some antifa groups are more Marxist while others are more anarchist or antiauthoritarian. In the United States, most have been anarchist or antiauthoritarian since the emergence of modern antifa...."

To everyday anarchists, anyone who serves in a governmental capacity—politicians, bureaucrats, law enforcement officers, et al.—at any level (local, state, federal) is ipso facto a fascist. Americans are cruelly oppressed by fascists from the president of the United States down to the neighborhood beat cop (A.C.A.B.). Antifascism is our only path to salvation. And the heroes of Antifa will lead the way—whether we want to follow them or not.

References

NedFausa (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, thanks for your comment and reply. Sometimes (meaning occasionally, rather than all of the time) is different from often (meaning frequently; many times) and the main body seems to support the sometimes wording. I do not understand the two other quotes; they do not actually seem to support your claim that Antifa USA opportunistically mislabels their enemies. We actually have one source reporting this:

“ But what criteria are used by Antifa to determine who might be deserving of such physical violence?

"In our research, we determine someone to be a fascist, Alt Right, White Nationalist, etc. based on which groups they are a part of and endorse," said a group member.

"Nazis, fascists, white nationalists, anti-Semites and Islamophobes are specific categories, even if they overlap or are subsets or each other. Our main focus is on groups and individuals which endorse, or work directly in alliance with, white supremacists and white separatists. We try to be very clear and precise with how we use these terms."

”

So please excuse me if I write to me it seems that does not actually confirm your claim. Sources support the claim that antifa engages against fascists, racists and those on the far-right, not merely those who antifa identifies as such. Misidentification seems to happen sometimes and thus we should not use a wording that may imply antifa merely goes against individuals it believes to be fascists, racists and those on the far-right, which is a truism, when the ADL clearly talks of those being harassed by antifa as being right-wing extremists, not what antifa believes to be right-wing extremists. Also note how the ADL and other sources clearly write of events being held by right-wing extremists and white supremacists, not an event held by alleged right-wing extremists and white supremacists, or by those whom antifa identifies as right-wing extremists and white supremacists, which means antifa was correct in those identifications which seems to be the majority of time.

Finally, the bottom line is that of the six given sources to support the claim, only the ADL may use a wording (what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups) that may support the current wording, yet it uses no qualifier to describe right-wing extremists as the object of harassment; all the other five sources do not use such wording. So we either need sources that explicity use such wording (then we would have to discuss anyway for why those sources which use the qualifier are better than, or to be preferred to, those who do not) or it needs to removed because it is not supported by given sources.--Davide King (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit, with its gratuitous accusation of doxing, shows me that you are not an objective editor of Antifa-related articles. Please stop sending me public "likes" via edit summaries. NedFausa (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, Vox reported that, not me. I was simply reporting the full quote far-right sympathizer who has doxxed antifa members in the past and I thought it was relevant to antifa, but if the second part violates WP:BLP, my bad then. There was no need to retort to such accusations.--Davide King (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever mistake I make, it is in good faith (I was merely reporting the Vox quote, but I did not close the quotation marks properly) and due inexperience (I am not one of those users who has read or can cite all of Wikipedia's guidelines on command or every time to justify an edit). Considering it seemed I was actually right, it makes your wild accusation look even worse and unnecessary now, with all due respect.--Davide King (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hix

Can you update the cite to this study on the Soc Dem article: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000234 ? The article currently cites the working paper. I can't edit bundle cites properly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, sure, thank you. Like this?--Davide King (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anarchist schools of thought, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish Revolution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed.--Davide King (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on some philosophy writing

Hi Davide,

I'm not sure it's more appropriate to ask here or send you a private message, but I'm curious if you might be interested in giving me some feedback on something I've written recently, not on Wikipedia. I wrote a philosophy book, at least some parts of which I think you might find interesting (it sort of concludes in an argument for a kind of libertarian socialism, building up to that from very abstract philosophical principles, after applying them to a bunch of other topics first). I've been struggling to find any educated readers willing to give it a shot and send me useful feedback about it, and I thought you might be a good person to reach out to about that.

Please let me know if you'd be interested, --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW I did receive your email response to this and wrote back to it. No rush if you're just busy, just thought I should ping you here in case the email didn't go back through. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812 Infobox - Not following Wikipedia Policy

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issue - bias in results box - war of 1812

Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific term

Caucasian is a racist term, it perpetuates racism. It was formerly used in the context of a now-outdated model of dividing humanity into different races.

• https://www.firstpost.com/world/the-racist-history-of-caucasian-945375.html
• https://www.straight.com/blogra/526526/five-reasons-why-we-should-stop-calling-white-people-caucasian: "Friedrich Blumenbach devised a flawed classification system [Blumenbach ha ideato un sistema di classificazione errato] that divided humans into five races—Caucasian (white), Mongolian (yellow), Malayan (brown), Ethiopian (black), and American (red)."

I am just feeling blue... --93.211.223.112 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Feeling better...♥ Merci. --87.170.196.1 (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not know who you are or why you did that, but thank you. Of course, I did not mean to use a racist term; I was not aware of that when I first put it in the infobox, so thanks for letting me know. Black Lives Matter.--Davide King (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey thanks

For deleting those redlinked cats. I'm still on my phone and I can create categories, but I can't find an option to delete them. This will save me switching to the laptop with HotCat Elinruby (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I also don't seem to get an option to thank, I guess that must be a plug-in too Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, no problem. I do not know why you do not seem to get the option to thank, but I redirect you to Help:Notifications/Thanks for more.--Davide King (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:War of 1812

Elinruby, this is my talk page, so let me reply you here about this. If there is anything I despise, it is arguing with people who misinterpret my own words to fit their viewpoint. Neither me nor anyone else has said that Canadian history is fringe theory. We are saying that Canada won is fringe theory (that is among historians, we do not doubt that Canadians personally feel they won and that there is a popular view that they won; the result is based on historian and scholarly consensus) and even then we are only saying that this claim should not be in the infobox, which should say Military stalemate (I never wrote or argued that we should delete the Canadian views from the main body, which is what you seem to imply by your false accuse). Whether you like it or not, this is consistent with our definition of fringe theory. Just for the record, America won is fringe theory, too.

The Canadian (and others) view should be in the main body while the infobox's Result should say those key facts:

• Military stalemate
• Treaty of Ghent
• Status quo ante bellum
• Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy

We may add about indigenous and Spanish territorial losses but otherwise status quo ante bellum in the Territorial changes parameter.

Is it clear now? How does this imply Canadian history is fringe theory is beyond me. By the way, I did not ask not to post any more on [your] talk page on this subject as you implied (yet another misinterpretation of my words). I meant that I was just tired discussing this again, so we either discuss about something else like improving the article and suggest some proposals to do that, or we simply stop. You are the one who threatened me to block me from your talk page, hence I wrote Then we are done here because I did not want any problem or discuss this further; I did not mean to never discuss the subject, including how to improve the article, ever again.--Davide King (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. I should be doing something else right now but I am going to answer you instead. Again. One more time in the name of not biting the newbies (WP:BITE), except you aren't that new. So. Yes, this is your talk page. You can write whatever you want to here. You can also delete it, which I suggest you do, eventually. I am not necessarily going to respond though, because that is becoming a full-time job and the fun part about being a volunteer is not having to perform tasks that seem repetitious. (WP:VOLUNTEER) Basically this is not a debate club. I don't enjoy debates. We are supposed to discuss not debate. Life is short. BUT. It made me sad that you said you didn't feel qualified to work on the body and I have been meaning to talk to you about that. You can, absolutely, edit the article without spending a decade on a finely-parsed distillation of what the sources say. The article had plenty of easily-spotted and fixed problems and probably still does. As an example, if you want to stay in the infobox, even, you could improve the casualties section. I still don't think the list of commanders is accurate, how about you give that a critical read? I don't know why someone felt the need to footnote Tecumseh, but footnotes are good, actually, add some to the other names. The Canadian Voltigeurs should probably be in the list of participants, and so possibly should others. Look at Canadian Militia, and the equivalent US article if there is one. Just a suggestion. I am trying to be constructive. You could fix the problems in tagged material in the body, or find references for unreferenced sections. If you insist I'll get you the diffs, then you can tell me that you meant the infobox. And I will tell you that all of you have been stuck on the infobox for so long that your mind goes straight to the infobox, and other issues exist besides the infobox. By the way, the specific language you objected to in the thread was not about you. It was someone else who complained on the NPOV board that I hadn't discussed, but he doesn't actually discuss on the talk page either, just says that it is not the consensus of historians. We are not supposed to comment on editors, but I suppose it is ok to describe the talk page when I got there as trench warfare. This is not behaviour you should imitate. If you want a mentor talk to Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs). And, and this is the important part, listen to what he says. As for outcome I would suggest working for a bit on another article or a different part of this one. There are discrepancies between the casualties reported for battles in the article and in the articles for those battles. That might be something you would enjoy tracking down. You were on the right track with mutually repelled, but it didn't quite fit the facts. Try again. But it would be better to WP:DROPTHESTICK for the moment. Indigenous history sections of the article need a lot of work, for example. Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, I honestly think that this was made out to be a much bigger problem than it actually was and that there has been misunderstanding on both sides. I can assure you that I was always referring to the result in the infobox (Military stalemate) when talking about fringe, not the main body, Canadian history or the addition of Canadian Voltigeurs at the list of participants, so my bad if I was not clear enough about that. Another thing could be that I may have actually confused you for Deathlibrarian, with whom it really was about the result in the infobox. I hope that now we concentrate on actually improving the article and the main body and that your suggestions are a good place to start, so I will see what I can do about that.--Davide King (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marxism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

DPL bot, fixed it. By the way, am I the only one who get ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT when trying to fix it with Dab solver? I had to do it manually. Davide King (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ~

I just noticed the "thank you" for the edits. Thank you for the support! ^_^

Ironic Luck (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironic Luck, thanks to you by proving my point more clearly and with sources.--Davide King (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Apologies for any confusion; I am catching up on everything as I was busy with my full-time job. I think ElinRuby mixed me up for you as I am a newcomer and I was the one to say that "Canadian history was a myth" as part of a retort to him. You simply agreed to my opinion of the military stalemate related to the War of 1812 (as nearly all sources cite this fact); I should have (in retrospect) separated my personal opinion of Canadian history and the military stalemate into two comments (rather than a large one) or left it for the "Who Won" page.

Anyways, I see it's calmed down on the Talk page, but if any other issues transpire from this, then feel free to send the War of 1812 people my way.

Take care ~

Ironic Luck (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironic Luck, ^_^--Davide King (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

WARNING: Removing Trumpism from Template:Conservatism_US

Please do not remove the Trumpism school of American conservatism from the sidebar.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sas3301 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sas3301, sorry but nether Conservatism in the United States nor Trumpism seem to support the school claim. It is probably better to be moved in related or movements.--Davide King (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812 - Infobox - Dispute Resolution

Hi Davide King, as we both discussed, our conversation was going nowhere, and we both agreed (I think) that a third party (and a fresh pair of eyes) would be good to look at the issue. I've listed it on the noticeboard, and there is a spot there for you to present your side of the case, as you and I are probably the two most in disagreement. Hopefully this will sort it out one way or the other. This is a notification that you have been listed as an editor involved in the discussion about the war of 1812 Infobox Results section. The discussion has been listed on the disputes resolution noticeboard, for a third party to provide input. The discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#War_of_1812 Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Startup hoping to learn more from Wikipedia editors

Hi Davide King,

If you'll oblige my reaching out directly via your Talk page, I'm working at a startup called Trust Lab founded by former senior trust and safety professionals at Google, YouTube, and Reddit, that's working on technology to keep the web free of misinformation. We are trying to bring to market a crowd-sourced model for reporting misinformation and to that end are hoping to learn from dedicated Wikipedia editors about their motivations to volunteer to do editing work online. Would you be willing to chat with me about your work for about ~20 min one day?

Thank you for considering!

Trust Lab Product Marketing Intern https://www.linkedin.com/company/trust-lab/about/ TrustLab (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for stepping in there and reinserting that aspect into the results section of the infobox. I thought we had got past all this and agreed on a compromise, so was a bit frustrated to see Tirronan had changed it. I'm hoping this is the last of it, and we can all move on with more productive things! Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, to be fair to them, it was me who actually did that here to see if this was their favourite version. I still prefer we just say draw for concise reasons and have all viewpoints in the infobox, but it is fine and better than before; maybe could you please use another ref that say (I think there was one that was mentioned), without contradicting draw or military stalemate, both sides were happy about their results and saw it as a win? This would be better than use sources that claim British win; we need both sides claim win to support the statement that... well, both sides claim win.--Davide King (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think there are references saying things like "Both sides thought they won" generally - But I don't think there is a reference saying *historians* from both sides thought they won. So you could split UK and US, and then put the reference for the historians that support those viewpoints. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, thanks! I believe this one was good. :-)--Davide King (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

references MUST be verifiable

They are not there to look pretty:

"Under the Verifiability policy (see WP:CHALLENGE), any challenged statement should not be restored (in this case, detagged) without a citation to a reliable source."

(WP:DETAG)

Removing tags for legitimate verification problems is borderline vandalism and will be treated as such. Should be treated as such now but I am warning you first. Strictly speaking I should delete these references. If you don't like the "failed verification" tags there, fix the page number problem and find an actual reference that supports your text. Oh and by the way, stop editing my indents. Editing other people's comments is frowned upon. I haven't wanted to make an issue of just that, but please stop. Meanwhile, fix your references or I will delete them. Elinruby (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, sorry, but I was simply doing another edit, there was edit conflicts, so I simply copied and pasted my version which did not include the templates and I forgot to add them before pressing the bottom. No need to be so aggressive; I did not edit any word, just the indents to make more clear who are you responding to, apologies if that bothered you. What was wrong with those references? As I wrote at the talk page, it is verified in the main body; I simply took them from there. I did put those two sources just to show that even those who claim one side won over the other still acknowledge the result was a draw.--Davide King (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It does not support its text. You are overthinking this. "Draw" gets a citation that says it was a draw. Not one that says most Americans think it's a draw but I disagree. Elinruby (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

if it wasn't originally you who added those references it isn't up to you to fix it necessarily but that's the fastest way to make the tags go away Elinruby (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, I probably made confusion with the ones for military stalemate and that wording comes from here. Again, I put those ones just to show that even those who claim one side won do not deny it was a draw or that it is the majority view.--Davide King (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Dude. Don't "show" anything. Your mission is to provide a reference or two or three of anyone at all saying what you have been claiming is the overall consensus of historians. Should be easy. The page number problem came up, I think, in the thread about RS invitations. yes, I know Elinruby (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No need to be so passive-aggressive. I just did. Even those disagreeing still say the majority view it as a draw or that it was a draw, etc. Since you wrote elsewhere Hickey - does not support claim it references, Hickey does write in The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict, Bicentennial Edition (2012) that [t]hus, after three years of campaigning, neither the United States nor Great Britain could claim any great advantage in the war, let alone victory. Militarily, the War of 1812 ended in a draw.--Davide King (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

So use that as your citation then and stop trying to "show" stuff. I don't understand why this is hard. Elinruby (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I already did and I do not understand your problems with the word show, it was just an expression to highlight that draw is fine and that it is not really disputed; do you have issue with highlight too now?--Davide King (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You are trying to explain to me that this is good because it *highlights* something and you lose me right there. I want this article to me accurate and not highlight anything in particular about how unreasonable other views are, mmkay? Elinruby (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

PS - this is not open for debate. Please do not start writing long essays again about how wrong I am. Elinruby (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are misinterpreting me. Where did I say this was good? I am just saying that when even those who may disagree or claim that the war is usually seen as a draw, etc., it just makes it more obvious or strong said by them.--Davide King (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I can see that this may require escalation. Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by that exactly? Here, I listed you some further sources.--Davide King (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War of 1812, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Vienna.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for Civility and Collegiality

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thanks Davide King for being an example of civility and collegiality.   // Timothy :: talk  10:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, why thank you. :} Davide King (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you stop making major changes on the war of 1812 page without consultation?

You are constantly making major changes on the war of 1812 page. If these are likely to be controversial, can you please consult with the editors?. This is not your personal sandbox! You removed all the references from the infobox, and then stated that there is general consensus among historians that the war was a draw. There is no such consensus, and before writing such a thing, you should be consulting the editors. This is turning into a behavioural issue. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, this is nonsense. I am following WP:INFOBOXREF. That is what the main body say and has been saying even before this whole dispute. Even by your own listing, a great majority of historians, including some British and Canadians, say it was a draw. Do you really want to ruin that compromise reached? I believe Tirronan was pretty clear when writing As for a British Victory, no that is crap. You don't sign that treaty if you wanted to win. The hard evidence is not refutable. It sounds as idiotic as Americans who go to the Vietnam War and claim we didn't lose. It is just dumb. It isn't a fringe theory, it is just out and out stupid. Davide King (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Will you stop making changes and ask the editors first!!!! You know there are editors that want the references in there. Also NO! It did not say it was a consensus before, and you also know that editors do not agree it was a consensus. I'm sure you and Tirronan may think one thing, but there are other editors who dissagree. If you want to insert that word into the body of the text please discuss it first! IT IS NOT YOUR CALL TO MAKE. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, you really need to calm down because in this edit I only removed the already cited references from the infobox and I did not get at first you were referring to that wording which was not even added by me but by Moxy here days ago; and since it was not reverted, I thought it was fine. We should follow the guidelines for the references in the infobox, no matter our personal views. If they are already in the main body, we should not repeat them in the infobox. Davide King (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, and you were also wrong about It did not say it was a consensus before as it actually read the consensus among historians has been that the war ended in a draw so I suggest you revert that. Davide King (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It said about three weeks ago, and it had said this for years! - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_1812&diff=966843799&oldid=966843581 "Historians have differing and complex interpretations of the war.[270] In recent decades, the view of the majority of historians[citation needed] has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive." If you want to make changes to this section CONSULT with the editors first please. This section was the result of months of work, as part of a third party mediation. We put a lot of time into this and it was very stressful, to get it to where it was. And you are coming along and making changes without consulting anyone. This is not how wikipedia works. Ask the editors on the page what they think. I asked about things that I think are controversial, its only polite and good editor behaviour. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The citation needed tag was only added recently by Elinruby. By the way, that does not contradict it.--Davide King (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, there is no need to circumvent WP:INFOBOXREF by adding newer refs as you did here. All of those claims in the infobox are already verified in the main body and there is no need to add further ref there. Work on the main body instead. Davide King (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of pages with infoboxes that have references in them, and as discussed, the last conversation on the talk page was that the references were put back in. At which point I added some. Please respect that conversation and don't take it upon yourself to change it without checking. If you want to take the references out, start a thread and see what people say. I would be interested to see if people agree with your or not.Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC) My argument is, given the controversial nature of the page, that things should be references otherwise they will be challenged and deleted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, again, they are simply following the policy of using references only when it is not in the main body already. See Iraq War as example for refs used because they are not in the main body already and see World War I and World War II for no refs for the results. I suggest you to follow the guidelines. The Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante bellum, defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy, etc. are not even controversial but key facts and we do not need refs there too. They are already in the main body. The only controversial thing may be that both sides claim victory, but that is discussed both in the lead and main body already, so I am fine with that. There is no need to use them. If someone has a problem, they need to challenge the ones in the main body because the infobox is merely reflecting what is in the article. Davide King (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is the "Lee" in the Marxist-Leninist Citation section?

I'm translating the article to Portuguese, however it seems as if there's absolutely no citation whatsoever to any of "Lee"'s books — Preceding unsigned comment added by BunnyyHop (talk • contribs) 00:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, I do not know why it was removed, but I re-added it here.--Davide King (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited State socialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merrie England.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

DPL bot, fixed it. Davide King (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank You - Historians section in war of 1812

I know we had a lot of disagreements, but like the infobox disagreements, in the end, I think this section came out well. You put lots of work into the Historians views section, including some pertinent quotes and references, and I must say, its pretty good now. A very tricky section to get right, considering people (including me obviously) have some pretty strong views on the topic. So thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Domenico Losurdo

added a link pointing to Great Terror

Utopian socialism

added a link pointing to Romantic

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed both of them. Davide King (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of minor edit tag

Davide, please review the use of the minor edit tag WP:MINOR. I think some of your edits such as this one exceed what should be considered minor[[1]]. This good faith edit changed some of the text in a way that some editors may object to. I wouldn't consider that minor and there has been discussion/debate related to the text you changed. Anyway, just a heads ups up. Thanks Springee (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, what exactly did I change the text? Besides fixing a few already used wikilink and a missed blank space after the full stop, I merely changed wikilinks to the ones in the United States since he is American. Small-c conservatism is opposed to classical liberalism whereas American conservatism is not and indeed, for Ian Adams "all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratized Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism." So I must have missed what you are referring to. Davide King (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I think the edit summary made the changes appear bigger than they were. Still, I think MINOR would suggest if you change where something hot links or move text in the article it shouldn't be tagged as minor. I take minor to mean any change needs to not change the meaning, presentation etc. Spelling, punctuation fixes etc. Still that's my read and I can certainly agree your interpretation may be valid as well. Anyway, please take this as a good faith comment on my part. I can see your POV as well. Springee (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I likely forgot to add ce redirects because I also did other ce like fixing some wikilink already used in the same section and a full stop without blank space next. It may also happen that I accidentally press minor when it was not my mention and I did not consider it as such, but I may hit publish before realising that, so my bad for it. Davide King (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giuseppe Mazzini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Action Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting article expansion support

Hi,

Greetings ,

Requesting you to have a look at Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if topic interests you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National-anarchism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Radical left and Racial separatism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Davide King (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Evolutionary socialist" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Evolutionary socialist. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 18#Evolutionary socialist until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Right-libertarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Self-reliance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Davide King (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe an interesting article for you

Hi there! I recently started It's Going Down (collective), and I thought you might be interested in taking a peek based off of some of your other editing. Jlevi (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Anarchism and nationalism

added a link pointing to Cosmopolitan

Black anarchism

added a link pointing to Black culture

Contemporary anarchism

added a link pointing to Class war

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed them all. Davide King (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cabayi (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say -- I appreciate our discussions regarding the Antifa article

Obviously, we have our disagreements with respect to how to handle the article Antifa (United States), but I just wanted to thank you for taking my points into consideration and for creating good compromises in response to them when appropriate (and of course, for maintaining a respectful dialog when you disagree). It makes the process of dispute resolution a lot more pleasant, and I'm grateful for that. I hope I don't come off as hostile toward you on the talk page; I think you have good intentions with respect to the article and to the handling of disputes with other editors, and it really shows in the measured and respectful way you respond to content disputes. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hadger, thank you so much, I really appreciate that! :-) I also have no problem with this edit, I think it was a good improvement. Davide King (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips (false balance and false equivalence). Studying... Will reply on Article Talk page if I find anything relevant to add to the discussion. Jared.h.wood (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is White supremacy and the Proud Boys.The discussion is about the topic Proud Boys. Thank you. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mutualism (economic theory), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul McLaughlin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed it. Davide King (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)