User talk:C.J. Griffin/Archive 4

New Labour were not neoliberal - edit war
Hi CJ Griffin, Tony Blair, who created New Labour, was also credited as one of the main adopters of the [Third Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way] movement: "Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism". The Third Way, by definition was neither left nor right, neither free-market nor socialist. It is impossible simultaneously for New Labour to be critisized by neoliberals for not being neoliberal ("Third Way has been criticised by certain conservatives, liberals and libertarians who advocate laissez-faire capitalism"), and to be neoliberal. Let me give some actual New Labour polices that demonstrate my point: These are not free-market, neoliberal policies, nor were New Labour. Please cite factual counter-evidence or concede that your citation is baseless conjecture and does not belong in the Neoliberal article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightflood (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * More schools & hospitals built than for a generation with commensurate drops in illiteracy and waiting*lists.
 * Doubled funding per pupil
 * 36,000 extra teachers & 274,000 more teaching assistants
 * 85,000 more nurses
 * Cancer deaths down by 50,000
 * 14,000 more police & 21% criminal-justice spending helped cut crime by 35%
 * Child poverty halved (600,000 fewer)
 * Increased paid holiday to 24 days
 * Introduced two weeks paid paternity leave
 * Free TV licences & introduction of winter fuel payments to pensioners
 * Pensioner poverty reduced by one million
 * Introduced minimum wage
 * Sure Start scheme (2,200 childcare, early education, health and family support centres)
 * Overseas aid doubled & wrote off debt for dozens of poor nations
 * Introduced GiftAid scheme
 * Introduced Tax credits for the low-paid
 * Brought Human Rights act into UK law
 * 26% increase in child benefit
 * At Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say, and I have cited several on the article in question, all academic and reliable. You have posted nothing but a bunch of statistics with no source, and a link to the Wiki page on the Third Way (a neoliberal variant of the post Cold War center-left which places more emphasis on the market than the state, and many sources in that article characterize it as such). I even added to the text that "some scholars" are saying this, so as not to use Wikipedia's voice, but that wasn't enough to stop your edit warring. In fact, MANY scholars consider the Third Way, and Third Way politicians like New Democrat Clinton and Blair, as neoliberal, just a more tepid version than the neoliberals of the right like Thatcher and Reagan. Bottom line is that you have provided no justification for the deletion of reliably sourced material, other than you personally disagree with it. My personal talk page is not the place for this discussion. Take it to the Neoliberalism talk page. EDIT: you have also violated WP:3RR with your constant edit warring and could be blocked from editing. I suggest you revert your last edit.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Another source, Stuart Hall, elaborates on just what makes New Labour "neoliberal" in spite of the policies you list above (there are still many others):

"New Labour did initiate very important social reforms, including the minimum wage, shorter waiting times, better health targets, attempts to reduce child poverty, the doubling of student numbers and (rather reluctantly) some equality and human rights legislation. But triangulation was its life-blood, its leading tendency. There was a continuous tension between a strident, Fabian, Benthamite tendency to regulate and manage and the ideology of the market, with its pressure for market access to areas of public life from which it had hitherto been excluded. Regulation was often the site of a struggle to resolve the contradiction between an enhanced role for the private sector and the need to demonstrate positive outcomes. But there was a strong impulse towards getting rid of the excrescences of the ‘nanny state’, in areas such as planning and health and safety regulations, and towards ‘flexibility’ in labour markets. What was distinctively neoliberal about New Labour’s strategies? The private funding of New Labour’s flagship achievements via the Public Finance Initiative left future generations in hock for thirty years to re-pay the debt at exorbitant interest rates. Yet ‘public-private partnership’ became a required condition of all public contracts. Contracting out, competitive tendering and ‘contestability’ opened up the state to capital. Private contractors were better placed to cut costs and shed staff, even at the expense of service quality. The rising archipelago of private companies providing public services for profit was spectacular. Consultants floated in and out to ‘educate’ the public sphere in the ways of corporate business. Senior public servants joined the Boards of their private suppliers through ‘the revolving door’. Emptied out from inside, the ethos of public service underwent an irreversible ‘culture change’. The habits and assumptions of the private sector became embedded in the state.

Neoliberal discourse promoted two discursive figures - the ‘taxpayer’ (hard- working man, over-taxed to fund the welfare ‘scrounger’) and the ‘customer’ (fortunate housewife, ‘free’ to exercise limited choice in the market-place, for whom the ‘choice agenda’ and personalised delivery were specifically designed). No-one ever thinks either could also be a citizen who needs or relies on public services."
 * --C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

World Scientists' Warning to Humanity
Hi CJ Griffin, I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing so maybe you could help me with the following. It is important to make the reader aware that they can still ENDORSE this warning. So, is it OK to mention this and point the reader to the external links section where the activist link is referenced? (I had previously put this external link in the body text but you deleted it. That is ok, but if you could briefly explain why this kind of ext link use is inappropriate I'd be grateful). Regards, Ivanalison (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mentioning any links in the external links section or the section itself in the lede or body of the article would not be considered proper for Wikipedia. It is included in the external links section. That should be sufficient. This might help: WP:External links.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tip. Ivanalison (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yellow Vests
I wonder if we shouldn't also be rolling back that change (by a factor of 10) in the number of police involved. (maybe RPPP?)  SashiRolls t ·  c 17:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say so. There is no citation following this information and no reason was given for the change.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/United_States check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/United_States?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI
FYI this, although I reworked another eds contrib I support your deletion of the whole thing. FYI I did read the fine print at that source looking for a statement about editorial control and found absolutely nothing to evaluate the source as an RS in terms of editorial control. So it did seem suspect and I am glad you gave it the ax NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was contemplating adding criticism of Extinction Rebellion from Gary L. Francione in that section but was concerned about undue weight issues, although given he is a prominent intellectual and philosopher I'm starting to lean in favor of inclusion, but thought if this has undue weigh issues, then that screed from "writer" Ben Pile is absolutely undue. That's why I decided to go ahead and remove it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks for your care and attention NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

updating security
Recently I have noticed that on my watchlist some pages appear as "read" even though I haven't clicked on them! Just taking some precautions to prevent possible hijacking.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Jacobo Arbenz
Hi. Please comment on the talk page of the article "Jacobo Arbenz", under the thread "Nicknames", as to whether "El Soldado del Pueblo" nickname is obscure or not. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the spot
sorry about my oops I appreciate you showing how my edit was wrong and explaining whyJack90s15 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey no prob.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Quorisullo
I see you have reverted some of this editor's contributions, as have I. If you are more familiar with the territory he's editing in, you might want to take a closer look at the totality of their edits. I believe the editor is adding information from a single source and deleting inforation from other sources which disagrees with it, without any discussion about doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Users account is following the same editing pattern of user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poundofdonuts who was a sock puppet of banned user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Accopulocrat and this old user was to following the same editing pattern also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=6ullga&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end= I did file a report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Accopulocrat Jack90s15 (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been paying attention to the edits of this user and find them problematic for the same reasons you do. The one contribution I reverted was for deleting sourced materials, and then adding a significant amount of content without an edit summary. Other instances where this editor added materials without removing sourced materials I left alone for the time being to see if other editors might take issue with them. I do agree with Jack90s15 that Quorisullo is most likely a sock. EDIT: Upon further investigation, while I do take issue with most of the additions from Quorisullo and his lack of edit summaries, it appears that some of the additions are quite good, in particular from historian Andrés Reséndez and his work "The Other Slavery" in the Encomienda article, which corroborates what Stannard and others have to say on the subject. I'm embarrassed to say I was actually unfamiliar with this book until looking into this issue, and it has peaked my interest in it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry For trying to bring you in to my oops
I Just want to say sorry for trying to bring  you into a dispute that I handled in the endJack90s15 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a problem.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable News Sources
With all due respect, I don't care if you think Fox News is not a reliable news source - Wikipedia has determined that Fox News is a reliable news source. You can't flatly revert edits just because you disagree with the cite to Fox News.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply regarding my editing
Hello, I made a Conflict of Interest Disclosure on 2 Wikipedia pages, for Direct Action Everywhere and Wayne Hsiung (the founder of DxE). I volunteer with DxE. I believe that it is the correct thing to remove blatant slander that does not appear in any publications and is false information. It appears that potentially people with financial ties to the animal ag industry routinely try to harm our organization both through ethical and non-ethical ways. I will refrain from making edits to DxE pages unless it's blatant slander or if I want to create a new page. I will be sure to make disclosures of Conflict of Interests going forward. Also, I have never been paid by DxE or any other non-profit organization. I simply feel motivated to help people and animals and also to make sure that related Wikipedia pages are accurate. I usually try to use language directly from news sources whenever practicable, otherwise I try to accurately summarize the content from a neutral point of view. I can try to use mainly just language from news-sources so that I am as neutral as possible. I actually already do that almost always, whenever possible. My motivation is to provide accurate info from news-sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RasaPetrauskaite (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:COI editing is strongly discouraged. I would recommend taking concerns of inaccuracies and possible slander to the talk pages of the articles in question and allow other editors without a COI to examine the edits and make the appropriate adjustments, per the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert - Climate change
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments
Just sending this FYI to everyone recently in the topic area who doesn't have one in the last 12 months. And before I posted here, I sent one to myself too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Globalization of Individual action on climate change
Hello C.J. Griffin,

If you drill down into the source quoted for the figure of 58.6 tonnes it appears to be citing another source which is USA specific. I have linked to it on the talk page if you would like to take a look.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sir David Attonborough video
I don't think it's a good idea to add David Attonborough as most of his claims are based on his personal unsupported speculation. While he is correct that population is a problem his claims on how it started and how to stop it are not based on research but his own personal speculation. He claims woman empowerment results in less births. Germany (where women are empowered) has a population of over eighty million people in contrast to Saudi Arabia, a country which has just around 30 million people and where women are not empowered. Researched evidence shows the fertile land able to support agriculture is the leading factor of unsustainable population growth. Germany can support agriculture; wheras Saudi Arabia can't, which is why there is a low population there. Not because of women empowerment. If anything Attonbroough's speech is misleading despite his good intentions.--76.71.5.251 (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this is RS for his views ("According to Sir David Attenborough...") and I've often seen the claim that women education/empowerment globally averaged leads to lower birth rates. As a starting point, here is a 2014 lit review. It would be interesting to browse the later RSs that cite this paper to see how followup work is progressing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Socialism

 * Thanks for the invite!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Climate change
Hi, thanks for your edit on the leaked report. I tagged it to re-verify after the final version of the report is released, since governments can change what the scientists would say. Meanwhile, we're slowly getting WP:WikiProject Climate change off the ground. New members are welcome! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite. I'm considering adding to the text "The Guardian reported that a leaked version of a forthcoming 2019 IPCC paper..." for clarification. Thoughts?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Best to maybe say "leaked draft", since that is accurate and conveys fact that it might still change. I'm not opposed, though these IPCC leaked drafts are a recurrring thing, and prior conversations often focused on how much weight we should give to something that isn't yet certain.  Bottom line, I don't mind, and don't be surprised if someone else brings this up again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry
I'm sorry I got mad at you on the Socialism talk page four years ago.

CJK (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please support the Sustainability Initiative!
Hi C.J. Griffin, as a member of WikiProject Climate Change, I would like to invite you to support the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative by adding your name to the list of supporters. Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Citation standards
Hello :). You added a source today to global warming. You're probably not aware that we've been doing this herculean exercise of getting all the sources into the same format as part of the effort to get to article into FA shape again. The standard we agreed upon has its own description + example page. See the talk page of the article for some of my thoughts about the content. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. In particular, please move the full citation in your edit to the Sources section, replacing it with a short-cite. The short-cite to use in this case is. You will also need to add ref to the full citation. Thank you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human impact on the environment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GHG ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Human_impact_on_the_environment check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Human_impact_on_the_environment?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

United States
Hey, which of these are used as sources in the article? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't see this. I need to check my talk page more often. I responded on the United States talk page.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

edit war
Please read wp:editwar.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * More like reverting BLP violations by a WP:SPA, which you are doing as well. But I'll refrain from any further reverts to see what other editors say on the TP.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

SPI case
Hey there, it seems like you've been watching Spain-related pages a lot more closely than I have, so you may have something to add to this sock puppet investigation Nblund talk 23:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you have it pretty well covered. If I find something significant to add to the SPI case I will do so.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome! And thanks!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Joker movie
Hey, C.J, I am relatively new here, so found that on the highest grossing R-rated films page it is stated to have earned around 800 million but on it's own it is stated to have earned around 776 million dollars, so can you edit the page joker page as various media outlets have said that it has topped 800 million dollars, so that the pages remain consistent? I cannot do it myself because I am a new user and the page is semi-protected. Nekron2 (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-view of the Leninism article

 * Query for Editor C.J. Griffin

Greetings, Colleague:

Might I trouble you to re-view the content of the Leninism article? I have completed a clean-up whereby I removed anti-Communist easter eggs and off-topic false statements piggy-backed onto sources that do not substantiate such anti-communist vandalism. Let me know, if you might, because I sense a looming edit-war.


 * Regards

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked it over and recent contributions have improved the Leninism article. I'll keep an eye on it to make sure undue statements and original research do not make its way into the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet by Lightflood on Neoliberalism
Hi C.J. Griffin, I think Lightflood may be using a sockpuppet by the name of Contribpedia to create the illusion of support on the Neoliberalism page over the inclusion of New Labour. The account appears to have been made within the last few days and its sole edit was an attempt on 3 January to remove references to New Labour—citing the exact same argument Lightflood recently used (deep into the discussion) on the Talk page that Blair's spending increases mean New Labour should not be included. (The edit has been reverted). I'm still new enough to Wikipedia that I've yet to deal with attempted sockpuppetry so I was hoping you could help me with what should be done next. Thanks, Jaydavidmartin (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I have not linked to either account as I was hoping to get advice from you before sending a notification to either user accusing them of breaking Wikipedia policy. The edit in question is easily located on the Neoliberalism edit history page. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed this as well, and I'm 99.9999 sure the two accounts are the same person (See here and here for evidence for potential SPI). I was thinking about reporting this if the edit warring continued, but feel free to go ahead and report the suspected sockpuppetry here if you wish. (There are guidelines to walk you through it, and also look at other SPI's for guidance as well). I hope this helps.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ via CU evidence. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was quick! And I was thinking about starting an SPI given the continued edit warring as of today. Thanks!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey before we get cross-purposes
I just wanted to say a friendly "Hi". Please see my most recent post on Holocene extinction: Talk, which will hopefully establish some common ground.

Riventree (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding "meat-eating" in the article on cognitive dissonance
Your opinion is sought here:. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and your time, but I tried to be as objective as possible, I'm sorry if it was not enough, but I still say it was all backed up with information that can be confirmed by far with more sources than those I used, and as I said before, those are not an opinion but facts, economics is objective not subjective, and I did not removed the information against Pinochet, I let it stay there, now I think the article is really one sided, there are only negative things, and some can be refuted by other sources, I hope we can achieve a consensus and improve this section together, because now, as I Chilean I would say, it's really one sided, have a nice day and I apologize if I was rude yesterday Klohy (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinochet; it was reverted by ideological reasons?
Why my edit was reversed? I worked for like 3 hours on it, it was reverted for political reasons? Everything I edited was backed up with evidence so it was not a lie or something that didn't happened, I added a lot of information of the era for it being removed the next day, if it's always like this I don't want to help Wikipedia anymore, and please, take in consideration what you have done, and revert the edit, because it was backed up with evidence, evidence which is more compelte than that which now is in the article, Wikipedia should be neutral, not ideological and evidence is neutral. Please revert the edit. Klohy (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edits per WP:BRD because they appeared to be very POV and unconstructive, in particular the massive block of text towards the top of the section which was very one-sided and WP:UNDUE by my estimation. Other edits, such as putting neoliberal in "scarequotes" for example, also demonstrated to me that your edits constitute POV-pushing. In my view this justified the restoration of the consensus version. I'd recommend discussing your contributions on the talk page and see what other editors of the article have to say, per BRD.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well hoxha was actually a dictator and the type of government was de facto a totalitarian regime. Thus i can’t possibly understand what was so concerning with my insights. In the end he (the dictator) was responsible for the killing and persecution of many intellectuals in the country. I value your opinion but you must understand that the changes made by me are for the sake of giving a better understanding of this period of the Albanian history. Sonis1992 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoxha totalitarian regime.
So hello, i have to admit that you are very stubborn in in regards to changing little bits of reality. May i know why you think it’s a point of view that hoxha was a Dictator? Sonis1992 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The repressive nature of his regime is already mentioned in the lede and the body, including the use of camps and executions and secret police. There is really no need to call him "dictator" or "totalitarian" over and over again as it comes off as POV-pushing. The article has a talk page if you feel differently.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Random copy paste
I also noticed they did it here to, just wanted to let you know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Soviet_Union.Driverofknowledge (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * there's always next time!Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * After doing some research it seems like, they are doing mass copy pastes from different Ip address and one main account edits are the same.Driverofknowledge (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocides_in_history&diff=951363795&oldid=951345936 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russification_of_Ukraine&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor_genocide_question&action=history


 * The first Ip from the list of genocides page and the one you undid same range.Driverofknowledge (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2601:601:1501:1890:a948:8741:cead:6642

https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2601:601:1501:1890:7560:929f:f164:2734


 * It all looked a bit off to me so just wanted to show a experienced user my findings.Driverofknowledge (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! Good job! Thank you for posting your findings here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I try to help any way I can.Driverofknowledge (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Part 2 Copy past
Hello I was on this page a few hours ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penal_military_unit&action=history and the user said this was a banned user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penal_military_unit&diff=929521509&oldid=929504646 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.17.36.115 and when you look at the IP its in the same range as the one you undid and this new edit.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_genocides_by_death_toll&diff=952995923&oldid=952907919

If I did find a sock. How do I report it first time doing this, that's why I tagged you to get your input on this.Driverofknowledge (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that guy pops up from time to time. You can start an investigation at Sockpuppet investigations. There are instructions on the page to walk you through the process. Also take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases. hope this helps.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Thanks for this.Driverofknowledge (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad I could help. :) --C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I submitted it so I will just wait now.Driverofknowledge (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Homeless man photo
how is adding a photo of a homeless man vandalism? That image was directly correlated with the section I placed it in since it revolved around stigmas which that man was dealing with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew T Rader (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the edit history. The ip edits that preceded yours altered data in a way that constitutes vandalism. You missed it when you added the photo.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I see that now, I should have looked closer at your edit, sorry about that confusion! Thank you for removing the vandalism. Matthew T Rader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes
Thanks for your contributions to the article over the years and for being one of the more reasonable editors involved. About your recent edit here:
 * 1) you didn't use the article's reference style, just like that last Cuba edit by the other editor! The article uses template:citation. I will fix it if you don't want to.
 * 2) I am not sure the source you cited is appropriate for the article, since it seems to be about capital punishment and executions as part of normal criminal proceedings are not normally considered killing of non-combatants outside of show trials or the like (I have not read the source you cited because I haven't found an available version yet).
 * 3) I am not endorsing the other recent Cuba edit with my addition of the source to the Bibliography; I was just trying to fix the formatting.

AmateurEditor (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm now thinking it might be best if both edits are removed altogether and estimates added only once more reliable sources are considered. For example, historian Hugh Thomas in his book Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom places the number of executions at around 5,000 by 1970. If this is accurate, then the estimate of 40,000 to 50,000 would be outrageously high. Even Rummel, who gives some ridiculously high democide estimates for Marxist-Leninist regimes (especially the USSR at 62 million, laughably absurd), puts the minimum number of executions at 4,000 and the maximum at 33,000. Thoughts?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I found an academic source here that has the number of noncombatants killed in Cuba between 5,000 and 8,335 from 1959-1970 (Ulfelder/Valentino 2008). I added it to the article. I don't know the context of the 40-50k figure, but I suppose many of them are "disappeared" persons (who may have fled on their own), rather than people known to have been killed. Looking at other Cuba estimates in the excerpts section, the 40-50k figure is not out of the question: White has 50k (including people who died at sea fleeing the regime); Courtois has 150k for Latin America as a whole. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You demonstrate why these high estimates are problematic for an article on "mass killings" under communism, as much of this number could include people who fled the island, in other words, people who were not necessarily killed by the regime. There is no context added to these high numbers. At least we know Amnesty International is basing theirs on official death sentences, which makes it more relevant to the article. Moreover, the source in question has an ax to grind against the regime as a Cuban emigre, and has boasted of far-right political views, and the publisher is not an academic one. The source is as bad as they come, and should be excluded from the article IMO. Mathew White is not a trained historian or academic and it not affiliated with any university, and is basically a lay person who has a macabre interest in governmental mass killings. I don't know why anyone takes that guy seriously, and I don't believe he is a credible source for Wikipedia. Courtois's estimates in the intro of the BBoC are wildly controversial, and it is well known that even fellow contributors to the book distanced themselves from it because of this, and who knows how many of that 150K pertains to Cuba in his mind, anyway. The Ulfelder/Valentino source is certainly more reasonable in its estimates.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes
Can you add Marichjhapi incident in this page?

As the accused was Communist Party of India (Marxist) who ruled West Bengal at that time.

https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/book-excerpt-countless-were-killed-many-raped-say-eyewitnesses-of-bengals-marichjhapi-massacre-2149231.html

https://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/ghost-of-marichjhapi-returns-to-haunt/story-4v78MhnW2IZVCQMPfDObqO.html

https://scroll.in/article/923325/we-were-attacked-thrice-a-survivors-story-of-the-left-front-governments-siege-of-marichjhapi

https://theprint.in/opinion/40-yrs-ago-the-left-mercilessly-massacred-dalit-bengalis-now-its-back-to-haunt-them/235648/

https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/the-left-massacre-of-migrant-hindus-in-bengal-that-was-bigger-than-2002-1984/233691/

https://www.amazon.in/Blood-Island-History-Marichjhapi-Massacre/dp/9353025877

https://thewire.in/history/west-bengal-violence-marichjhapi-dandakaranya

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/folk-theorem/how-west-bengals-left-government-committed-genocide-on-dalits/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.237.238 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on PetSmart; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

— Normal Op (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pot, meet kettle. In your tireless crusade against PETA, might I suggest you refrain from adding right-wing propaganda to the encyclopedia (Capital Research Center, The Washington Free Beacon, Sinclair Broadcast Group)? Thank you. :)--C.J. Griffin (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not everything in the world is about politics, and there are many good sources you are not going to agree with but are perfectly good sources for the matter at hand. If you feel so strongly against "certain right wing sources" being used in Wikipedia to source what are non-political matters (such as news articles about PetSmart and PETA), then I recommend you start a reliable source discussion so that the source gets added to the list at Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which is the list that I and many others in Wikipedia use to determine if a source is inappropriate for use as a citation. Per WP:RSP, "There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science," and "Local Fox affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG"... which says "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." You shouldn't care who is the "parent company" of THE LOCAL TV STATION that was covering the issues related to the PetSmart v Jordan and PetSmart v PETA cases. It was news. They covered the facts. Those facts are easily verified and YOU had the link to the court records because I posted it! |title=Case Case# 18-CA-006083. Until you get those sources blackballed, your jabs of "neoliberal" and "notorious" and advocating for your political affiliations are neither needed nor wanted... nor relevant. It's disruptive. Normal Op (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)