User talk:Davide King/Archive 3

what was the purpose of this
I am curious what your reason was for making this edit. The version before your edit was human legible; the latter really is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilmington%2C_Delaware&type=revision&diff=981778691&oldid=981172759 Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know, what was the purpose of this inquire? Especially considering you removed the whole thing anyway? Like, most of the article's ref and most articles I have seen and read are formatted the way I did, or leave only a blank space after the =. If every single ref was formatted that way just to make it "human legible" (I do not see how it is not in the first place; it is not like the infobox where it makes sense to leave some blank space; what needs to be "human legible" is the note itself, not the template cite), we would have so much space just for the refs than for the text in body. Again, it makes sense to leave that kind of blank space for things like infobox, it makes less sense for refs, especially when most refs in the article were formatted that way, so I do not see why you took issue with my edit. That is also why I believe we should have a section where we put all refs there and use sfns for the text and main body. Now that would be much more "human legible", but alas. Davide King (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because, I was curious why you did it. I'm not sure which method was used to generate the original template, but codes are often laid out that way so it's more editor friendly while editing in source mode. These spaces don't show up in reader mode anyways. oh and why didn't you remove that whole infoshop.org and the personal website thing anyways when you first visited it? Graywalls (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did that because it saved some space and for consistency with the way most other refs were formatted in the article. I understand that, but most articles, including good ones, did not do that, so I thought it was not a big deal. I did not remove it because there was no discussion on the talk page and actually expected you to do that as you wrote in one unrelated comment. You did your bold edit by removing that, I do not think anyone is going to revert you back or dispute that, so it is fine. Davide King (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summary
Can you please not use a deceptive edit summary like this one, where you remove a tag and claimed it was ce (copy-editing). --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you please assume good faith? I removed the one related to the primacy source inline which I removed as well and I did not realise at first about the other because I thought it was a reliable source and there was no need for the tag. I did not revert or removed it again. Davide King (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have assumed good faith if it was my first interaction with you, but I have seen you disruptively removing tags elsewhere recently so you can see the confusion. I apologise if it was an honest mistake, and I shouldn't have been so quick to jump to unproven conclusions. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe I had a valid reason to remove them (they are supposed to be discuss on the talk page, not just added as you did; and you stopped replying me there; Braune is a reliable source, etc.) and I would not have opposed if someone else would have restored the tags. Davide King (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say Braune was not a reliable source did I? And that has nothing to do with the tag you removed? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See response here. Davide King (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I like the change
I support the edit you made now it makes sense.7645ERB (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks, but to which edit are you exactly referring to? :) Davide King (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Grover Furr edit you made.7645ERB (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Planned Economy
What's the reasoning for the undo on my edit on the planned economy page? Fephisto (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it did not look like an improvement and there was no need to separate the paragraphs. Davide King (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion
You might have saw my "edits"(I didn't change anything, nor did I save) and sorry if that caused any confusion, i was having some trouble getting my own infobox set up and i was just copy-pasting the source code. sorry if that caused any confusion. Im really new to wiki editing and i am trying to get some bearings. Osric the Brash (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Soviet Union vs. USSR
In your recent edit to Soviet Union, you changed several "Soviet Union" to "USSR". What are you trying to make them consistent with? I am not sure what the right thing is here, but if I could follow the same rule you are following, it would be better than nothing. Note, by the way, that in a Wikilink, you should use the title of the article. So Nostalgia for the USSR is not right, but Nostalgia for the USSR might give the result you had in mind while still using the correct title. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , in the body USSR and Soviet are more consistently used over Soviet Union; it also saves some space, too. I do not understand your issue about the wikilink; that is what redirects are made for. Nostalgia for the USSR still links to Nostalgia for the Soviet Union and, again, saves some space. Davide King (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked around for guidance about linking to redirects, and I found WP:NOTBROKEN, which specifically discourages what I was recommending you do. So, sorry for the false alarm!  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , 👍 Davide King (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

1RR violations at Andy Ngo
Your latest edits at this page violate 1RR. You need to self revert to this version or I will file a report at AE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , what exactly did I revert? Because I made several other unrelated copy editing such as using redirects or copy editing refs cite such as the date format, etc., fixing refs' order according to their proper number and so on. Here, it appears the reverted tag, but what did I revert exactly? I did not revert anything; I only added a better source tag and used a redirect. The only thing I feel like I truly reverted was your edit that you capitalised antifa when the majority of given refs I checked used antifa, not Antifa; and I removed unnecessary primary sources when given refs already there were enough to verify. Davide King (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not debating the merits necessarily (I disagree with a lot of them, frankly, but that's not the issue). Your edits over-lapped with those by . Look at the edit history. Both of you made non-consecutive edits as you were working on the page, and that violates the 1RR DS. This was the last version that didn't violate 1RR. One of you should revert to that version so that 1RR is complied with. We've all been careful to do so. I'd appreciate it if it would be you that restored the page (again, this was the last version before the non-consecutive changes). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, frankly, I would not want to lose and waste all the unrelated copy editing I did, so please clarify what exactly (refs, phrasing, etc.) should be re-added, so that I can return to that version without losing the copy editing and improvement I did. I would also appreciate if you could tell me why you "disagree with a lot of them" and which ones you disagree with. You also did unjustifiably remove this, so you violated the self-revert rule too with this, or am I misunderstanding the rule? Davide King (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits qualified as WP:REVERT and went beyond "copy edits." The page is subject to WP:1RR. I immediately self-reverted because it's not my place to restore the pre-1RR violation version. I'm asking you to restore the version that preceded the violation or I will take it to AE and ask an admin to do it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , technically we should return to this, since you also made a revert by essentially removing this. I think this is nonsense and we would do everyone a favour if we could compromise such as keeping my good copy editing (refs fixing, use of redirects, use of author, re-addition of this, which was the pre-1RR violation long-standing consensus which you removed without any discussion, etc.) while removing my more controversial edits. It is a fact that the majority of given refs in the article used antifa and only a few used Antifa, especially when quoting Ngo; so I do not see how this should not be considered an improvement. You violated the long-standing implicit consensus to use antifa (which is also consistent with Antifa (United States) by capitalising it without any legit reason since most refs in the article use the lowercase. If you have a problem with my removal of primary sources, I do not see what is the issue when there are already much better secondary sources. If my removal of those primary sources is considered a revert, then so is your removal of sources for 'provocateur' in the body; and all three violated the rule anyway. The only thing I reverted was the revert to the long-standing consensus to lower antifa (with your edit not supported by sources) and the sources for 'provocateur' in body (there seems to be consensus to not have them in the lead, but they were not in the lead anyway and have been in the body for a long time). So I ask you again to please list me which edits violated the rule, so that I can revert them back without removing all other unrelated edits by us three. This was also a reverted, but you linked to this same version which violated the rule; so either you put the wrong link or it makes no sense and we should return to this instead. Davide King (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what version is that? The version I linked was the last version before the violation occurred. Consecutive edits qualify as a single revert. Read the rules before you start making changes to a page. It's not "ridiculous" that we all follow the same rules. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I followed the same rules - I self-reverted my revert, and then used my one revert to go back to status quo ante, since you don't seem to want to work constructively with other editors on this. Making wholesale changes to the article and then screaming "1RR!!!!" when other editors make constructive attempts to work within your version is incredibly bad-faith behavior, and it encourages simple, plain full reversions. Which I have done, because it's apparently what you want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I meant to this version as NorthBySouthBaronof did since it could be argued you started the whole thing by removing, without discussion, without consensus (I thought we agree that it was not lead worthy, but it should have discussed in the body, explain why sources say so and so, so outright removal, I do not get it), sources describing him as a right-wing provocateur. "Consecutive edits qualify as a single revert." So one can only edit once?! So all my actual copy edits and legitimate improvements such as fixing refs cite, dates format, etc. qualify as a single revert"? I agree with NorthBySouthBaronof and I reiterate this is ridiculous. All my copy editing gone. That rule should count only for edits that may be challenged, not from copy editing. While not all my edits were copy editing, some indeed were and it is absurd to count them as a revert; only actual changes to the article content should count, so I hope I can re-add my copy editing while we discuss the other edits on the talk page. Davide King (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You made more than copy edits, and frankly the version that was left after yours and NBSB's edits was a mess. The subject's op-ed was removed from the lead as "undue" despite WP:ABOUTSELF being obviously applicable, the sensational and unverified claims about him having ties to the "Proud Boys" based on him covering a protest were restored to the lead. Follow 1RR. We all do it, regardless of how great we think our changes might be. And stop ranting about me on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , all of this could have been avoided if you had clearly told me the more controversial edits so I could remove that but keep obvious improvements such as ref and date formats fixing. Still, a non-primary and green source (National Review is yellow) would be preferable and some users may and did consider that as "unduly self-serving". The Proud Boys were in the long-standing version before the page was lastly removed from protection and that you removed in the first edit after the removal of protection, so I do not understand what you are ranting about. That our edits were "a mess" is your opinion and the use of primary sources are unnecessary when there are already at least two green secondary sources. So you disagree about "sensational and unverified claims about him having ties to the 'Proud Boys' based on him covering a protest were restored to the lead", even though it is reported by green sources; and I disagree with the unnecessary use of primary, usually yellow at best, primary sources when there is already at least one secondary green source. We were being bold just as you claimed here. Davide King (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject's op-ed was about why he was fired. It is due. Your suggestion about it being "unduly self-serving" is a biased, opinionated assertion that has nothing to do with policy. Wherever accusations are made against a public figure, it is not just appropriate, but required that we note their response. "Bold" is fine. Violating 1RR is not bold, it's brazen. And it's a violation of the rules. To borrow a line from a great TV show, if you can cite them, you can follow them. I have nothing more to say about it. Thanks for self-reverting, now put an end to the drama by keeping your comments at the article talk page focused on content, not me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it not be better to use secondary sources that discuss his opinions on why he was fired? If there are no secondary green sources, perhaps it is undue. Also it was not my suggestion, I was not necessarily agreeing with that, I was just saying I read users making that argument on the talk page and as Wikipedia is based on consensus, they are worth considering and discussing in reaching a consensus. Finally, let me reiterate I did not start this drama, I did not remove outright green source content; I gently asked you to tell me the more controversial parts of my edits so I could revert; I removed yellow, primary sources; that, in my view, is not the same thing and I suggest you to calm down and stop acting like you did nothing wrong and it is all mine and NorthBySouthBaranof's fault. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Important notice
- Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks
On my input on the cultural marxism content. Brianshapiro (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The Intercept
I mentioned like Forbescon, because I noticed the writer appeared to be a contributor even though its green. Reading through the RSP commentary it says "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed.", so that's what I'll do when I can get around to it. Graywalls (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that makes more sense and is what I thought you might have meant by that, but I wanted to make sure. However, there is no distinction between between a green and yellow Intercept as we list Forbes at the Perennial list and I do not think that justify outright removal as you did; perhaps it could be reworded and attributed. I also suggest us to follow BRD and open a discussion on the talk page to hear what other users may think, whether it is fine as it is, whether it could be reworded or attributed, or whether it should be simply removed. Thank you for taking the time to write me here, I really appreciate that. :) Davide King (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That author also does not appear in the staff roster, either current or at the time the story was written and his profile shows an email address at his own domain rather than the newspaper. I will need to conduct additional research. Graywalls (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe a thread should be opened on the talk page (you can open it yourself if you want), so that more users can made additional research and we can reach some consensus. Davide King (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

On images on articles.
Hey so I just want to get you're opinions on me adding images to everything, more specifically the thumbnail and maybe I could get some advice. Do you think every article like anarchism should have a thumbnail, or do you think it's better to leave certain articles with no thumbnails? I saw you moved the symbol of Platformism.

If you don't know I am on a jihad (I am an atheist it is just a saying) to add images to every article because they add so much to articles actually seeing examples of what is being talked about. Certain anarchist related pages lack necessary images. Just wanted to find out what you're opinion is and what should be done. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comments! :) I do not think we should be "adding images to everything", especially if we adding for adding's sake rather than a more rational argument. I also believe the sidebar should go first and that if the addition of an image to the lead causes mess to the text flow, it is better removed or moved. We also should not add flags, especially when they are not widespread associated to it as is the case of the bisected black and red flag, hence why I removed the flag for anarcha-queen. For example, I did not remove it, but I think this flag is probably undue or it is better to use an another image, for it actually says "The flag is meant to represent anarchism. The dimensional ratio of the flag is length:11, and width:8. The horizontal length from the hoist to the far point of the star is the same distance as the overall vertical width of the flag. The red field, representing socialism, transitions to the black field, representing anarchism. The five-pointed star symbolizes humanity." There is no mention of the CNT or the Black Army, so it may not be an accurate caption; and even if true, it would be better to verify that it has been widespread used by the CNT and the Black Army, which I do not think is possible to prove simply because they did not use the exact same flag; this flag seems to be created by an user and we already have the black and red star in the sidebar. In addition, this image is better and more relevant than a flag, but it should be moved, perhaps in place of the flags in the Contemporary queer anarchism section. Davide King (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Make America Great Again Edits
Hello. First of all, thank you for being an avid contributor. I wanted to address your edits to the Make America Great Again page. Could you shed some light on how you believe the Detroit Free Press is an unreliable source? Other than that, disagreeing with a contribution that contradicts your political stances does not constitute a legitimate reason for removing content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav214 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is probably better discussed on the article page, since it's content-related. Jlevi (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and, this had nothing to do on whether the Detroit Free Press is an unreliable source and everything to do with the fact the quoted part was literally written by an user in the comments. It was not the author of the article saying that, or even the same author attributing the quote to an accredit expert, which would have held much more weight. Frep readers and users are not a reliable sources and hold no weight. The full quoted part actually says that "[m]y definition of 'Make America Great Again' is making America an economic powerhouse, a military powerhouse, pride in being an American. Nobody complained when Ronald Reagan & Bill Clinton used the exact phrase in speeches they gave years ago. People are just miserable because their own scumbag Hillary Clinton didn't win. You don't have to love your government but support your country, be a Patriot." The definition of MAGA according to "Freep readers" and users are not reliable and hold no weight. Davide King (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, you must have misread the article then. The quoted part was a portion of the main article. The whole point of the article was to poll people in regards to their stance on the phrase. The inclusion of this stance in an accredited article thus makes it a reliable source. Unless you can prove the specific individual is unreliable. Likewise, this edit has been settled for over 6 months before you vandalized the page with it's removal. In the future, please address major changes on the talk page first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav214 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is nonsense. If I search the name of those who commented, I find nothing because they are not journalists or other accredited experts; they are users like us and readers; that is undue and unreliable, hence I just proved that "the specific individual is unreliable." That it was been "settled for over 6 months" does not mean anything; many times actual vandalism like yours remain and whether IU "vandalized the page with it's removal" will be settled at the talk page. I see you wrote on your user page that "I have found that there is a noticeable slant towards the leftist point of view. My goal is to fight the censorship of right-wing points of view and keep this great site neutral." But Wikipedia is not for those who want to right great wrongs. Davide King (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

irrelevant remarks
"That you seem to have a thing against squatting and The Intercept does not mean they should be outright removed." - your comment. What does your perception of what I am for/against have anything to do with the Antifa article? You don't see me making attributions to what I think you're for/against or reference to your announced political affiliation of anarchism in your profile. Graywalls (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that having biases does not imply one cannot be neutral and contribute but that too much bias regarding one issue may cause troubles, hence why topic ban exists. I am not saying you should be topic banned, I simply noted that some users have noted the same thing and that you have a tendency "to erase things", as you write on the talk page, that may not be helpful and would be better discussed first. That you left the Beinart's negative comment led me to think you have a bias against antifa and anarchism (an an example, see your repeated attempts to link any self-declared antifa committing any crime to be added). In addition, I wrote my remarks before you wrote that "I simply took out the material that was past the quotation." So I apologise for my "irrelevant remarks" but so are yours about my alleged "announced political affiliation of anarchism in [my profile]", even though I put a note that it is more of a tongue in cheek joke and that I believe I always tried my best to stay neutral. I am so biased for antifa that I put the negative Beinart's comment in the first place and added myself the mentions and comments on the killing of Aaron Danielson. But apart from our disagreements, let us highlight more things we agree more such as this suggestion of yours that I think it was valuable. I hope you see this as good-faith criticism and suggestions (my suggestion is to be a bit less reckless in deleting things, especially if they are sourced; if they are not well-sourced, they will be deleted anyway after a discussion) and that you have also made many comments and edits that I found valuable, for which I thanked you for. Davide King (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I already gave you the whole explanation. I trimmed out the portion that was clearly delineated as portion related to "some journalists..." expression. You can't just assume I selectively left out the other piece. Please try to keep out remarks that may side track things, just as I have been keeping them out myself. The BRD cycle is working just as it should. You boldly added something, it was reverted, and discussed.
 * I may not have seen every discussion in talk, but it doesn't look like you discussed prior to ADDING contents. If you're requesting that I engage in talk before removing, then I'd like you to engage on talk before you make substantially addition. That's fair Graywalls (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did assume that because I thought you were referring to all journalists and that you were referring to Beinart too, so my bad for not understanding at first what you meant, which was fair. I agree about the rest, so it was more my fault on that, but I hope everything is fine now. Thanks for your comments. Davide King (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , perhaps we can agree on something here. Surely readers' comments are not reliable, as the quoted one is currently in the lead ("My definition of 'Make America Great Again' is making America an economic powerhouse, a military powerhouse, pride in being an American. Nobody complained when Ronald Reagan & Bill Clinton used the exact phrase in speeches they gave years ago. People are just miserable because their own scumbag Hillary Clinton didn't win. You don't have to love your government but support your country, be a Patriot."), are they? Davide King (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, they haven't been given the welcome template, so I left them one. People don't start editing here with knowledge of reliable sources. This should help if they're here in good faith. Graywalls (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and btw, if you did actually see some of the squatting related articles before I started working on any of them, some of them had significant sourcing to totally unacceptable sources like Independent Media Center, wordpress, blogspot, Squat.net, Libcom.org, Infoshop.org and sources of nature that are on par with comments section of newspaper and forum posts as well as non expert self published contents. Graywalls (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Brooks.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A little confusing
Sorry this is partly my fault for replying in several places but we are having the same conversation in three places. Would you be ok with just moving it to the new bottom section, the Main Topic header? PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"Male-only organisation" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Male-only organisation. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Trumpism article possibly heating up.
There have been multiple attempts to alter the topic sentence and invitations to editors to enter into dialog in order to reach consensus on alternate wordings have not been successful so far. I mostly edit boring articles with relatively minor disagreements on talk pages, and have little experience with controversial wikipedia articles. It would be nice if you could monitor the edits so that the collaboration might be smoother between editors of widely different perspectives. Thanks. J JMesserly (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paternalistic conservatism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Nationalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed it already before you got me. :p Davide King (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edits at Antifa
You chastised another user and complained about their mass-reverting you here, yet here you did the same to my edits without bothering to read beyond the first change. Are you aware of any discrepancy here? WP:KETTLE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I already wrote here and here, you are ignoring the different situations. My edits were supported by at least one user, with one opposed (the only one who reverted me); and there was some agreement to discuss in the article and the issue is mainly how to do that. On the other hand, you made bold edits to a long-standing lead which you characterise as merely trimming and minor but others users have disputed this and concisely explained you why, even though you still act like we did not. If I did not revert you myself, Volunteer Marek would have done so, hence this would have been at least two different users reverting you whereas in my case it was the same user who did that. If you do not see how the situations are different, then I do not know what to tell you. You made bold edits to the long-standing lead without any discussion; at least, we discussed before hand about adding effectiveness to the article and the main issue seems to be in how to incorporate that rather than not including it at all, than you complain I reverted you when we are merely following BRD and now it is not just me rejecting your edits as an improvement; there is no consensus for your edits. Try doing similarly bold edits to the lead of controversial articles, or Good article-status articles, and you will see more often than not you are going to be reverted. Davide King (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply-link
Hallo. A technical point: You have a couple of times said in your edit summaries that you are replying to me using 'reply-link'. It looks like this feature is supposed to automatically ping me. I only receive pings from you when you use the standard format in my username This is not currently a problem, since I am currently watching the Cultural Marxism page, but it may cause misunderstandings in future. Regards. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is not actually me saying in the edit summary; it appears automatically. :D I consciously decided to remove the ping because I did not want to get you filled up with notifications and since I saw you were still replying to me and there was no issue. I will keep that in mind in the future though. :) Davide King (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation and your courteous intent. Sweet6970 (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Benjamin Valentino
 * added a link pointing to Communist China
 * Criticism of communist party rule
 * added a link pointing to Alexander Yakovlev
 * Political cleansing of population
 * added a link pointing to Communist China
 * Rudolph Rummel
 * added a link pointing to Communist Vietnam

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed them all. Davide King (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Dominion
You’re not even American... yet you believe you’re entitled enough to make an edit on Dominion Voting Systems wiki and accuse republicans, Trump, etc. of “falsely accusing” the company of voter fraud?? That’s quite comical in my opinion! Well, they did say that the owners of the company are Venezuelan... hm.. are you apart of their company by chance? I mean the news of suspicion against Dominion didn’t really become widespread news until yesterday morning... but you made that edit 22 hours ago. Did you have some inside information to go ahead and make that statement on their wiki page?

So, either you’re a worker for that “company” or you’re a nosey non-American troll; either way, you have no right to make that claim on their wiki page. Why don’t you worry about your OWN country’s politics and leave the rest to those of us who are ACTUALLY in the USA? I’ll forgive you for making assumptions that aren’t true, since you’re not here to witness it personally. But, trust and believe that the Democratic Party has committed widespread voter fraud in America! And they used any tool they could, INCLUDING Dominion! HardRep4Ever (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , what the hell are you even talking about? This is nonsense and an unfounded personal attack. The only edit I did at that page was this, adding a comma. Davide King (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's your talk page so surely you can do as you prefer, but in incendiary cases like this, I recommend just removing the full section with the edit summary "Deny recognition". There's no need to entertain it and definitely no point in pinging them about it. czar  02:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Before doing that, I would not want to give them the 'proof' they want by censoring them and I would like to wait to see if they actually respond, perhaps they meant this for someone else (I guess, this is probably assuming too much good faith); and if they do reply and say they are talking to me, I believe they should be reported for WP:NOTHERE. Anyway, since you are here, I would really appreciate if you could express your thoughts at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes and perhaps review, when you have the time, this RfC sandbox I am preparing. I believe your comment could help since you seem especially good at individuating whether there is a literature and a clear, main topic exists, which is what we have been discussing. Davide King (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Resolution to the reverts you have made
On the New Zealand Labour Party article, you have reverted edits made to include the Third Way ideology. I have hopefully resolved this in the most recent edit to that page. I would appreciate it if you could discuss with me before making further edits. Cheers, WBPchur   💬●✒️●💛 10:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC).

FYI apologies for poor grammar in this I am kinda sleep deprived right now. WBPchur  💬●✒️●💛 10:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC).
 * , no issue about grammar, but I had to revert you again because a discussion should be opened on the talk page to establish consensus rather than edit warring, so I suggest we follow BRD. I also suggest you read The Four Deuces' arguments at Talk:Australian Labor Party and both Talk:Democratic socialism/FAQ and Talk:Social democracy/FAQ. Davide King (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I only make edits like this when I notice that it is absolutely necessary. 1) The Labour Party do not have a Democratic Socialist platform, and barely have a Social Democratic platform. Refer to sources cited. 2) They do have something resembling a Third Way platform, and I believe that the purpose of Wikipedia is to make such information available. I live here and Ardern along with other Labour Party politicians frequently rule out Social Democratic policies. I cannot stand the key information on this page being undeniably incorrect, and I would love to resolve this. Unfortunately I do not have nearly the time available to turn this into a large ordeal on the talk page or anything (as you can probably tell from my recent edit history or lack of it). Hence I am talking to you since it can be resolved the quickest by doing so. One idea I have is at least marking the 'Democratic Socialism' ideology as historical for the meantime? Would love to come to a resolution as soon as we can. Thanks, WBPchur   💬●✒️●💛 04:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC).
 * , I actually agree but this is the left-wing POV. One issue is that democratic socialism and social democracy are actually very close and is more a matter of semantic. You seem to see social democracy as social (neo-)liberalism. I happen to agree but this is the left-wing POV, as outlined by Communist and others that do not regard social democracy as socialism. However, reliable sources give a more nuanced picture. The problem with marking democratic socialism as historical is that the party still consider itself democratic socialist (all social-democratic parties, meaning centre-left socialist parties, not centrist parties like the Liberal Democrats who claim to be social-democratic but they really mean social liberalism, do this; usually, left-wing socialist parties are called Communist or Left parties whereas social-democratic parties are referred to as Socialist parties; see Fuchs 2019, "[t]he notion of 'socialism' became associated with social democratic parties and the notion of 'communism' with communist parties.") The book cited says "[s]ocial democracy is a somewhat controversial term among democratic socialists. Many democratic socialists use social democracy as a synonym for democratic socialism, while others, particularly revolutionary democratic socialists, do not, the latter seeing social democracy as something less than socialism—a milder, evolutionary ideology that seeks merely to reform capitalism. Communists also use the term social democratic to mean something less than true socialism that sought only to preserve capitalism by reform rather than by overthrowing and establishing socialism. Even revolutionary democratic socialists and Communists have at times, particularly the past, called their parties 'social democratic.'" This means that centre-left parties are not really democratic socialist is the left-wing POV. Again, I am more left-wing than that myself, but we should follow the more nuanced approach that academic and scholarly analysis follow. We already say in the lead "[t]he party's platform programme describes its founding principle as democratic socialism, while observers describe Labour as social-democratic and pragmatic in practice." This is something that may go for all centre-left socialist parties since they are like that. Their pragmatism should not be used to imply they are not democratic socialists; in addition, we should used both social democracy and democratic socialism to better represents the party since the first is the right-wing faction and the other is its left-wing faction. I really suggest you to read what I linked to you when you have the time. Davide King (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
While I appreciate that you have thanked me for many of my edits, it's distracting to receive so many thanks. I wonder if you could limit it to ones that you find particularly insightful. TFD (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , my bad, it is just I find so many insightful comments from you, that is why I asked you about this. Davide King (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing warning
Do not engage in WP:CANVASSING, as you did here: (diff). I too could find an editor who I think will agree with me and ask them to help. Please do not do that. Crossroads -talk- 16:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not see how that is canvassing, as defined there (which part do you think I fit?), when I was simply asking for an opinion on my edit. It says that "[c]anvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." But I did not try to change any "outcome of a discussion in a particular way" and I was simply asking their thoughts and if my edit could be improved. I literally asked if they could "review" my edits, not they "agree with me" or "ask them to help". The only help I asked was for a rewording, if that could avoid the issues you raised; I thought Wikipedia was a collaborative project and that if you still disagree, we would discuss on the talk page. I at least wanted to make sure whether my edit was salvageable because if it was indeed undue or synth as you claimed, then there was no point discussing further; that is why I did not open a discussion on the talk page yet, so perhaps that was my mistake. When an organisation add COVID-19 victims to 'Communism', which is different than blaming it on the CCP, we should point out that is fringe as reflected by academic sources. Davide King (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how you worded it, the choice of which editor to ask for help in a dispute over other possible editors is fraught with problems. It really would have been much better to take it to the article talk page where all currently interested editors could hash it out. If then there is an impasse, then it could go to an RfC, but I doubt that would have been necessary. WP:CANVASS is clear that notifications have to be nonpartisan. Regarding COVID-19, I agree that attributing that to "communism" in general is over-the-top, but I am not aware of any good sources commenting on that specific matter. It's fine to leave that to speak for itself. Crossroads -talk- 17:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is right and makes sense, so my bad for that. I just want to make clear that it was in good faith and that I actually wanted to send the same message to you because I thought that could have been solved and reached a solution without a full-on discussion by trying to discuss this individually between different editors, including you, and whether a proper discussion on the talk page is worth opening, but then I forgot to send it to you, too. I will make sure to avoid this again and I will start by opening a discussion about this, which would be a start. Davide King (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To be clear, though, notifying me would not have made the situation okay, since I was already involved anyway; the totality of the notifications (one) to previously unaware editors was partisan, which is where the problem lay. Please be sure to follow WP:APPNOTE when trying to get more input. Crossroads -talk- 19:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Opalzukor (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on the lede of the article on Domenico Losurdo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Domenico_Losurdo 188.252.196.122 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Re colonial genocide
It is a redirect but it actually redirects to colonialism and genocide, recently created by me. (Unlike Communism and genocide, this is a widely supported, possibly majority view in RS). (t · c)  buidhe  15:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks! When I wrote that, I was referring to Colonial genocide which still redirected at Genocide of indigenous peoples and I agree, as you did here, that the Colonialism and genocide article you created is a better target for the redirect. Needless to say, I also agree that "[u]nlike Communism and genocide, this is a widely supported, possibly majority view in RS)." Do you think a stub for Capitalism and genocide can be created based on those sources? Especially Capitalism: A Structural Genocide, "Ecocide, Genocide, Capitalism and Colonialism: Consequences for Indigenous Peoples and Glocal Ecosystems Environments", "Marx, Lemkin and the Genocide–Ecocide Nexus", "Genocide, Race, Capitalism: Synopsis of Formation Within the Modern World-System", "Green Criminology and State-Corporate Crime: The Ecocide-Genocide Nexus with Examples from Nigeria" and Redefining Genocide: Settler Colonialism, Social Death and Ecocide. Or do do you think these can be used and incorporated at Colonialism and genocide? "Ecocide and genocide have been connected throughout the history of capitalism, beginning in the colonial capitalist era that marked the beginning of the world capitalist system in the 15th century." "One of the earliest studies to have demonstrated how capitalism can produce environmental destruction, which in turn leads to genocide [...]." Davide King (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on those sources it looks like any "capitalism and genocide" article would be a WP:POVFORK of "colonialism and genocide", and it would be appear to be making a WP:POINT about capitalism vs. communism. If "communism and genocide" is WP:FRINGE, as you say, then "capitalism and genocide" is at least as fringe for the exact same reasons. If created it will be taken to AfD with various WikiProjects (such as Economics) and the Fringe Theory Noticeboard notified. Crossroads -talk- 16:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Err, I'm pretty sure that Capitalism and genocide is a pretty fringe idea, and many of the sources would be more apt for ecocide article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and, the problem is that both are fringe ideas, but the one about Communism is legitimised by political decisions such as the Prague Declaration and is artificially 'mainstreamised' in popular literature without scholarly support or consensus. I am for consistency, so my view is that neither Capitalism and genocide or Mass killings under communist regimes (as currently-structured and named) should exist, yet this standard is applied only to capitalism and not to communism. Davide King (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you've admitted it's fringe, so I guess that puts the final nail in that coffin. As for Mass killings under communist regimes, it appears that editors are working on that article. We certainly wouldn't make any problem worse by creating a parallel article about capitalism that is pro-fringe. I also don't think that thinking in terms of (or assuming) an exact parallelism between "capitalism" and "communism" is going to be helpful, because the high-quality sources may not do so. If that turns out to be the case, then we have to follow WP:GEVAL and WP:RGW. Along with that, we don't write in such a way as to refute what we might think are popular but wrong ideas, but just present the sources, and people will see for themselves what is correct. Crossroads -talk- 04:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was merely asking if they could review these sources. I literally asked them "[d]o you think a stub for Capitalism and genocide can be created based on those sources?" Nowhere did I state I would support that; I would not support it if sources do not support it, so I asked them to verify whether they would. I was simply asking for an opinion and review of sources since one of them explicitly says "[e]cocide and genocide have been connected throughout the history of capitalism" and another says "one of the earliest studies to have demonstrated how capitalism can produce environmental destruction, which in turn leads to genocide [...]." Note also that Buidhe wrote "many of the sources would be more apt for ecocide article", yet capitalism is currently mentioned only once when sources clearly see a link between the two; so the sources could be added and expanded there. Davide King (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marxism–Leninism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist Unity Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Who died and made you king?
I see all of your edits have to do with protecting far left ideologies like Antifa. How's about you let real non-bias people deal with these pages to keep people properly informed and stop using this encyclopedia to push yours views. Antifa is far left no doubt about it, we have twitter if you don't feel that that about. Wikipedia is for facts not feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawk09 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , If these "real non-bias [sic!] are merely right-wing talking points repeated in unreliable sources, then no, thanks. Twitter is a self-published source and is not reliable. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth and your views are not supported by reliable sources. I find it funny you say "facts not feelings" when the same thing applies to you. That antifa is not an organisation is a fact; you can cry, whine and spout your nonsense "feelings" all you want, it does not change this fact. Climate change and evolution are also scientific facts too and your feelings do not change that. Davide King (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Antifa is a violent left wing organization that is organized!!! The burn down businesses of the innocent business owners that are black, white any color. They say you are racist if you are Republican- they are against you even if you are a moderate. They are a dangerous organization that need to be arrested and jailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanPatriotForever (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you take at face value that the Proud Boys are not really racists because they say so, why not also take at face value "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. 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." "We do what we can to make it an undeniable fact that the people we are doxing are tied explicitly to violent rhetoric or acts of violence. As muddied as the lines are right now, we don't want to go after someone for wearing a maga hat." You only take at face value what you like and not what you do not like. The FBI concluded antifa is more of a movement and it is not an organisation; is the FBI in the hands of antifa, too? You seem to conclude anyone who burn down businesses must be 'antifa' rather than a looter; I bet you highlight only the Proud Boys' 'peaceful' actions and antifa's 'violent' actions. A moderate is in the eyes on the beholder; do you also consider Biden and Clinton communists, far-left left-wing, or socialists? You American rightists always complain of alleged leftists considering anything to their right as 'fascist' but then you do the same in considering moderates like Biden and Clinton as far-leftists and socialists, or any protesters you do not like as 'antifa'. You always have double standards; so much for "facts over feelings". Davide King (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Template:Libertarianism in the United States sidebar; 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. ―  Tartan357  Talk 05:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * , but apparently the other users were not doing the same? There is no discussion on the talk page, but there is a dispute. The natural thing is to keep the status quo ante and reach consensus on the talk page. Once that is done, you are free to re-add them and I will not revert. Davide King (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , fine. I will note, though, that none of the other names have been discussed, either, so you're not reverting to a consensus-backed version so much as your preferred version. ― Tartan357  Talk 05:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , they have been there in a long time and have not been reverted, so I am not reverting to my alleged "preferred version" but to the last stable one. Davide King (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're trying to tell me that you don't prefer that version? If that were the case, you wouldn't be arguing on the merits of the content in your edit summaries. ― Tartan357  Talk 05:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I prefer that version because it avoids awkward formatting such as "Koch (Charles)" and because it already includes most of relevant people according to sources; your wording implied like I reverted just because I liked it, rather than disagreeing with the changes and the fact no discussion was opened on the talk page. Yes, the Koch brothers have donated for libertarian causes but I do not see how that makes it relevant in the libertarian movement; they may as well be added at conservatism US sidebar because they donated to Republican candidates. A compromise may be to add Koch brothers but I would argue they are more relevant to the conservatism US sidebar than here. Same reason why Milton Friedman is more relevant for conservatism US sidebar. Davide King (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Benjamin Valentino for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Benjamin Valentino is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Benjamin Valentino until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nug (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Far-right politics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Birch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , fixed it. Davide King (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove sourced text relating to Marxist-Leninism imperialism and a mass grave image.
I don't understand your issue, you state there is no consensus on it however the text was removed multiple times by other editors as well as this it's not the stable version. What exactly is your issue with the edit? It is completely well sourced as well as the edit was reverted multiple times by various editors, it is complete POV text, its a worrying pattern. Vallee01 (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , that sentence was also worked over by Asarlaí, so there is consensus apart from you, who also removed "and the bourgeoisie" which Asarlaí re-added. Regarding this, as stated in the summary, that image is already at Mass killings under communist regimes, where it is appropriate; and it is a vastly oversimplification of the section. In addition, as noted by Czar at Anarchism "[i]llustrations shouldn't be decorative. It's perfectly fine for sections to not have illustrations." The image needs to summarise the paragraph and that is an oversimplification of the whole section, which is not about atrocities but an analysis. As for this, it is not lead-worthy as it does not represent consensus among scholarly sources, it is simply a left-wing view, which I happen to support, but it cannot be stated as fact. Many anti-communist scholars thought the Soviet Union was socialist because it was bad. You again ignore that the same scholars who you support for emphasising the atrocities, they actually say the Soviet Union et al. were socialists (I obviously disagree); you can not have it both ways. Davide King (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are also removing images of Soviet massacres, the image reinforces this section right here.
 * "Marxist–Leninist regimes have carried out mass repression and mass killing of political dissidents and social classes (so-called 'enemies of the people') such as the Red Terror and Great Purge in the Soviet Union and the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries in China.[28] According to Daniel Gray, Silvio Pons and David Martin Walker, these were partly a result of Marxist–Leninist ideology and justified as a means of maintaining 'proletarian power.'"

So you removed correctly cited information and you removed a sample image of a Soviet mass grave for a section on Soviet killings. Why? Genuinely, you state it has nothing to do with the section but the section is directly about Soviet and NKVD killings. The section is directly about Soviet massacres yet you state it has "nothing do with the article." Vallee01 (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the section is about analysis, not atrocities; and the ideology was the state ideology of one third of the world, but you continue to treat it as it was only the Stalin era. That is simply a paragraph, you cannot just ignore the other four-plus paragraphs; this is not related only to this, you have an habit to add too many images, not all of which are a good summary of the section, as is in this case. Davide King (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For gods sake its a section about mass killings in the USSR, the image is of a mass killing in the USSR. The Image is on a section about the Stalin Era, so either the section about Stalin shouldn't be there or images relating to it should. The image is meant to be a visualization of that paragraph not the entire section. It seems you are simply reverting properly cited information and relevant information because you don't like the information present. Vallee01 (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the section means the whole section, not just one paragraph.
 * "Philosopher Eric Voegelin sees Marxism–Leninism as inherently oppressive, arguing that the "Marxian vision dictated the Stalinist outcome not because the communist utopia was inevitable but because it was impossible."[215] Criticism like this has itself been criticised for philosophical determinism, i.e. that the negative events in the movement's history were predetermined by their convictions, with historian Robert Vincent Daniels arguing that Marxism was used to "justify Stalinism, but it was no longer allowed to serve either as a policy directive or an explanation of reality" during Stalin's rule.[216] In contrast, E. Van Ree argues that Stalin considered himself to be in "general agreement" with the classical works of Marxism until his death.[217] Graeme Gill argues that Stalinism was "not a natural flow-on of earlier developments; [it was a] sharp break resulting from conscious decisions by leading political actors." However, Gill notes that "difficulties with the use of the term reflect problems with the concept of Stalinism itself. The major difficulty is a lack of agreement about what should constitute Stalinism."[218] Historians such as Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick criticize the focus upon the upper levels of society and the use of Cold War concepts such as totalitarianism which have obscured the reality of Marxist–Leninist systems such as that of the Soviet Union.[30]
 * Marxist–Leninists respond there was generally no unemployment in Marxist–Leninist states and most citizens were guaranteed housing, schooling, healthcare and public transport at little or no cost.[219] In his critical analysis of Marxist–Leninist states, Ellman notes that they compared favorably with Western states in some health indicators such as infant mortality and life expectancy.[220] Philipp Ther [de] posits that there was a rise in living standards throughout Eastern Bloc countries as the result of modernisation programs under Marxist–Leninist governments.[221] Sen found that several Marxist–Leninist states made significant gains in life expectancy and commented "one thought that is bound to occur is that communism is good for poverty removal."[222] Olivia Ball and Paul Gready report that Marxist–Leninist states pressed Western governments to include economic rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[223] Others such as Michael Parenti state that Marxist–Leninist states experienced greater economic development than they would have otherwise, or that their leaders were forced to take harsh measures to defend their countries against the Western Bloc during the Cold War. Parenti also argues that accounts of political repression are exaggerated by anti-communists and that communist party rule provided some human rights such as economic, social and cultural rights not found under capitalist states, including the rights that everyone is treated equal regardless of education or financial stability; that any citizen can keep a job; or that there is a more efficient and equal distribution of resources.[224] David L. Hoffmann argues that many forms of state interventionism used by Marxist–Leninist governments, including social cataloging, surveillance and internment camps, pre-dated the Soviet regime and originated outside Russia. Hoffman further argues that technologies of social intervention developed together with the work of 19th-century European reformers and were greatly expanded during World War I, when state actors in all the combatant countries dramatically increased efforts to mobilize and control their populations. As the Soviet state was born at this moment of total war, it institutionalised state intervention as permanent features of governance.[225]
 * Writing for The Guardian,[70] Seumas Milne states the result of the post–Cold War narrative that Stalin and Hitler were twin evils, therefore communism is as monstrous as Nazism, "has been to relativize the unique crimes of Nazism, bury those of colonialism and feed the idea that any attempt at radical social change will always lead to suffering, killing and failure."[77][226] Other leftists, including some Marxist–Leninists, apply self-criticism and have at times criticised Marxist–Leninist praxis and some actions by Marxist–Leninist governments while acknowledging its advancements, emancipatory acts such as their support of labor rights,[227][228] women's rights[229] and anti-imperialism,[230] democratic efforts,[231] egalitarian achievements, modernisation,[232][233] the creation of mass social programs for education, health, housing and jobs, the increase of living standards[69] and for fostering "national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression."[234]
 * Did you miss all this? Davide King (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You understand the image is supposed to be a visualization of a single paragraph not the entire section correct? We do this for every single article, seriously what an extremely strange response. Really we do this for every single article your argument is "The image is a good description for a single paragraph but not the entire section." It's not supposed to be, every single article with images have images for paragraph. Vallee01 (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why do it only for the paragraphs about atrocities and not the others? As noted by Czar, "[i]t's perfectly fine for sections to not have illustrations." We have Mass killings under communist regimes for that; Marxism–Leninism is about the ideology. We are supposed to have only one clear main topic per article, otherwise it is a content fork. Davide King (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The usual reason we don't have images for articles is because we lack them, its a section about atrocities and ethnic cleansing committed by the NKVD, its directly related to the paragraph. What does this have literally anything to do with content forks? Do you have an issue with the image being a visualization for ethnic cleansing. "Then why do it only for the paragraphs about atrocities and not the others" because I don't have other images. So its a good visualization you just feel as though there aren't other images present therefor we shouldn't add them? Vallee01 (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Venezuela
I am replying to you here, because it is tangential to the discussion at ML. Venezuela could decide to use central planning with state owned secondary industry and collectivization as part of a strategy for industrialization and food self-sufficiency if sanctions continue against them. TFD (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is very interesting, including your comments at Talk:Marxism–Leninism. Is there a way, or place, where we could discuss this (I tried to send you a few emails, but I do not know if that was the right way.)? You seem to be very knowledgeable and I would love to better understand the mainstream, minority and fringe views on a given topic. Davide King (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020: Please cite a source for your changes to Wikipedia
Hello, I'm Quisqualis. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Quisqualis (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , what are you talking about? I simply took it from Results, which is referenced. Davide King (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that, in the first place, Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source, and that any random person can make changes, not always constructively. If you can locate the source used for that article's figures, you only need cite it once, for the first figure. Not trying to force you through hoops, just protecting WP.--Quisqualis (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Notetag material moved to end breaks template....
Regarding trumpism article edit, I tried to move the Note Text to the end as you did, but got exactly what you got- red Text failures of the template to resolve sfn generated footnote references. J JMesserly (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , so that is why not all notes were at the end? It is weird though, I hope it can be fixed. Davide King (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. I jumped through several hoops trying to get it to work in the form we both prefer- as a remote reference, but I gave up and left it inline.  Maybe the template author could be notified, giving your edit as an example of the problem.  It might be a very difficult problem to solve, but who knows.  BTW- Merry Christmas from NZ.  J JMesserly (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Started a thread for you: Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 73 (I couldn't figure it out either) czar  19:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Domenico Losurdo
 * added a link pointing to Far West
 * Totalitarianism
 * added a link pointing to Comparative analysis

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed them. Davide King (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




 Davide King , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Jmill1806 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

History of communism
, the problem is I am not sure from where to start or how to improve it. Should History of communism be about the whole history of the communist movement, including anarcho-communism, council communists, left communists and other libertarian and dissident, anti-Leninists and/or anti-Stalinist communists? Or should it be only about Communism, i.e. Communist states? I think it should be the former and that the latter can be discussed at History of Communist states. The problem is the currently-structured article is mainly about Communist states and Marxism–Leninism. Are really most books about the history of communism not giving any space to the aferomentioned libertarian communists and other dissident communisms? Because that article currently only discusses Trotskyism as dissident communism. Honestly, I wish you could make a draft of that article, rewriting it in the style of Anarchism, i.e. only using secondary and tertiary sources, and mainly general ones to establish weight and due.

What I can do is help with copy-editing and going from there but I usually need a draft or some sources to follow. I wish you would write more articles, rather than just giving already outstanding mediations, proposals and suggestions, because you can actually write good articles that respect our policy and guidelines, especially original research, synthesis and respecting weight, which in my view is something that is clearly outstanding since often times these guidelines are violated. In short, articles need to follow the literature. In practice, most articles are simply sourced to a series of unconnected books that are likely undue, if they are not cited, mentioned or discusses in general sources that establish the literature.

Or am I having a too stringent view of our policies and guidelines? Most good and featured articles I have seen have general sources or a clear literature that is used and followed, rather than using any article or book mentioning the topic, whether it is due or not. Davide King (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved to keep the original thread on topic

I intended to write more articles over my break (except on topics I've already researched) but I've been doing more replying lately ;) Scope of History of communism is a good question for its talk page (or Talk:Communism if its talk page is dead), but not sure it needs discussion—on its face, the article's structure seems fine to me. I wanted a gut check, I would compare its structure with the table of contents from other major histories and encyclopedia articles on the specific subject. It should be the history of communism (as defined at communism) in broad strokes, so mainly about the ML thread since the Russian Revolution. It should give a high-level overview of how the era developed, the major events, and the transitions. This would include ideological developments (majority and, if relevant, prominent minority) as pertains to each section. All other detail belongs in the respective articles. Coverage is proportionate, so no, if libertarian and dissident communisms aren't necessary for understanding Stalinism in two paragraphs, it shouldn't be included there. For those who want a history of libertarian communism, we have (too many) other articles for that. I also wouldn't break out a specific history of Communist states as Communist state has no History section. All in all, consider history of Communism your draft. Add sources where there are none and keep it high-level. Merge in history from this article and elsewhere where important. There is some merit the point that Wikipedia is largely written in piecemeal and collecting crumbs from random editors rather makes for a satisfying, thorough read on an intricate topic. Sometimes it's better to rip out an existing section and rewrite it from the gold standard history book vs. random citations. The issues you mention are surmountable—it's just a matter of putting in the time writing, writing, and rewriting. There's a reason why these top-level articles are neglected: They take months of work to get their breadth right, so it's a serious dedication of time/effort. czar 04:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And by the way, linking a username sends a ping when the same post is signed with your signature. You don't need to ping me when you quote me on the same talk page. In general, editors only need pings when they would want to be apprised of how their words are being used. In this case I'm not watching the ML page on purpose—it's not a discussion I'm looking to follow. czar  22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Anti-fascism template
Just wanted to send a huge thank you for sorting out the formatting for this template, as I really struggled with it. Looks much better now. Really appreciate it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 United States Senate elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2021 Georgia runoff election.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Intentional link to DAB page. Davide King (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (comment)
From here.

Regarding this, you are free to hold whatever beliefs you want; you are not free of making such accusations or borderline personal attacks. You are essentially taking Courtois' view of equivalency between class and racial genocide but you cannot use that to ban one user. You are also essentially stating that as fact, when even Sémelin describes it as a theory. I agree with RandomGnome that, as they wrote here, "[a]pplying NONAZIS to BunnyyHop by attempting to create a moral equivalency to his 'extreme political views' and using that argument as a cudgel is inappropriate, and equates to the slippery slope I mentioned earlier." What are the proofs that BunnyyHop advocate class genocide? The Black Ribbon Day is a political decision, which I respect, rather than representing scholarly consensus on the equivalency between the two. Either way, you misunderstood my point.
 * On the equivalency between Communism and Nazism

In regards to "[c]laim by David[e] King that liberalism [...] advocates the same is absurd shows that he does not understand this subject" is false and close to a personal attack. It also completely misses the point that colonialism, imperialism, racism and slavery were justified under capitalist or liberal principles. Do you deny the atrocities in the Congo Free State, mass killings under colonial regimes and the link between colonialism and genocide throughout the history of capitalism? I am simply consistent in opposing Nazism, Stalinism and colonialism et al. This is the double standard. There is no Victims of Colonialism Memorial or declarations condemning capitalist imperialism. By applying your own logic that we must ban an user because Communism resulted in atrocities, it is no different than advocating ban of conservatives, liberals and many other ideologies' users who were also guilty of atrocities. After all, Nazi Germany and fascist regimes were still capitalist regimes, in spite of some right-wing revisionists authors attempt to label them as left-wing or socialist. One could just as easily put the death toll of Communist states to capitalism, as in practice they were state-capitalist regimes with administrative-command economies rather than socialist planned ones. This is just a slippery and a reductio ad absurdum just to show ... how slippery slope and reductio ad absurdum your comment and proposal was in the first place.

In regard to this, I believe Czar has been pretty clear here, "ML is a floating signifier. To this bleary-eyed, third-opinion reader, there is no single reducible definition that applies to all of the ways it's invoked. Our article appears to jumble these different meanings into an invented, contiguous whole." In other words, that "Marxism–Leninism underwent several revisions and adaptations such as Guevarism, Ho Chi Minh Thought, Hoxhaism, Maoism, socialism with Chinese characteristics and Titoism", which incidentally I myself written before Czar's comment, "is all well sourced on the page" does not mean much if it is original research and/or synthesis, as it seems to be the case here.
 * On Marxism–Leninism

"However, based on you comments, I can see that you guys are not familiar with the subject. This is fine. None of us is an expert in this. Unless, you POV-push the subject, as you apparently do." You should really stop making aspersions such as this. Perhaps you are the one who is doing this, as Czar's comment on the topic shows you are one who is not faimilar with the subject or is pusing a POV that it is a "contiquos whole." We should follow the scholarly literature on Marxism–Leninism, not our own POVs.

Regards, Davide King (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So, do you agree that discrimination and extermination of people for ideological reasons is bad, regardless to "justification"? It could be because they belong to a different "race", because they "immigrants, because they belong to another social group (speaking Russian, "miroedy"), or whatever. There are many different reasons for discrimination. Does it really matter what was the stated "reason" for the hatred and a hate crime? Was Red Terror any different from other hate crimes? Yes, it was actually worse because it was state-sanctioned and because it was based on the Leninist ideology. Would not you agree with this? My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for your response. Yes, of course I agree but I do not think this answers my point. All ideologies have been tainted with atrocities and hate crimes. So that liberals like Locke justified slavery and communists like Stalin justified repression through "aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism" is bad. Some hate crimes have been worse than others but are still hate crimes. The difference is that some ideologies do not actually call for hate crimes, and even in some cases they were directly against the ideology itself, they happened anyway. On the other hand, there are quite a few of ideologies such as Nazism who could be rightly called hate ideologies. One cannot discuss the Red Terror without also discussing the White Terror and vice versa, as they did not happen in a vacuum. I think you are being too idealistic in not considering the background that lead to the events as well as giving too much weight to ideology. Benjamin Valentino says that mass killing occurs "when powerful groups come to believe it is the best available means to accomplish certain radical goals, counter specific types of threats, or solve difficult military problem." It simply cannot be reduced to ideology alone.
 * Regarding this. I checked the page and it says "[e]xamples of such groups can include, and are almost exclusively limited to sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation." Social class was only mentioned in "Victims in the United States" as African-Americans were victims of violence and threat of violence, although African Americans are an ethnic group, not a social group as the wording states. Courtois is a controversial academic and Sémelin describes "a sort of parallel between racial enemies and class enemies" as a "theory", not as a fact as you imply. You seem to confuse the events, which are facts, with the interpretations of them, which are theory. So mass killings by Communist states is a fact, but mass killings under Communist regimes, i.e. lumping together all Communist regimes and finding a commonality, is a proposed concept, not different from mass killings by Christian nations, or Genocide in Muslim countries.
 * As noted by The Four Deuces here, "we cannot create articles that group unconnected events. We need to establish why why these events are connected using reliable sources. For example, the Holocaust and genocide against indigenous peoples in the U.S. were carried out by Christians. But if we want an article called Christian genocide, we need sources that draw the connection and explain the degree of acceptance in reliable sources. Otherwise it is just propaganda, listing crimes committed by Christians with the implication that Christianity is a genocidal religion. And the same applies to Islam. This is the only mass killings article that groups the killings by ideology. It could be as the VOC Memorial Foundation says, that 'Marxist socialism is the deadliest ideology in history.' But it is not our role to promote their views, but to explain them in a neutral manner."
 * In regard to this, you again take the opinion of some scholars as fact or consensus. Even if I agree with you, we do not describe it as "pseudoscience", or say "Stalinism is a pseudoscience." We say "Stalinism is the means of governing and policies which were implemented in the Soviet Union from 1927 to 1953 by Joseph Stalin." You say "liberalism does not incite violence but its history says otherwise. Even socialism and other mainstream, or within the Overtow window, do not incite violence but atrocities and violence have nonetheless happened and in several cases were justified through ideology. You are indeed applying a double standard in that you posit liberalism has not also resulted in atrocities, even though Locke justified slavery on liberal slavery, slavery was both justified (property rights) and non-justified (hideous blot) on liberal grounds, colonialism and imperialism were both justified on liberal principles and racism is what it is today because it was used to justify the subjugation of people to expand capital overseas. Was Chile under Pinochet not true economic liberalism?
 * Why do you apply double standards? I made the examples of liberalism but I could have also made examples of conservatism and nationalism. Neither communism nor socialism advocate hate crimes, that does not mean violence has not been committed, but they are hardly the only two ideologies. You may seem to think they advocate hate crimes but that is not a fact and it is a opinion; you may think that Stalinism is the natural and inevitable result of communism and/or socialism, even though there have been democratic and respected socialists; there simply cannot be a democratic and respected fascism, it is a contradiction in terms. Scholars still debate whether Stalinism was the natural and inevitable results of Leninism but you take it as fact and you take one side of historiography, when the field is so politicised and controversial, and you cannot dismiss scholars disagreeing with this as "apologists" or calling them names.
 * Indeed, my main problem with Conquest, Courtois et al. is not the facts or the events but the interpretation they give to some or them, or that they seem to make no difference between communism, or socialism, with Stalinism (if they do make a difference, it should be clarified), or in the case of Courtois, that they advocate equivalency between Communism and Nazism, which is a controversial position, perhaps not in Eastern Europe but elsewhere it is, whether you like it or not. In general, these scholars make a too much idealistic and "Big Man"-interpretation and is why I favour other scholars. You favour these other scholars and is fine; what is not fine is acting like these are the be-all and end-all. Davide King (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on your responses and main space edits, you are promoting works by revisionist historians in WP (like here, note that all these revisionist historians were already mentioned prior to your edit, you duplicated advertisement of their views on the page), and you also believe that the communist terror was nothing special. This is simply not true, just as many of your comments above. No, their terror was extreme and ideology-driven, just as crimes by Nazi, exactly as many scholars say. No, one can not compare crimes against humanity by Stalin with any deeds by Locke. No, Pinochet was not a liberal. No, Jesus Christ did not incite violence, quite the opposite. Lenin and Stalin not only incited, but actually performed violence of enormous scale. No, it is actually a matter of fact that practically all communist regimes conducted mass repressions. And so on. Sorry, but I think my ANI comments were clear enough and precisely on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you do not have anything else to add, I would like to close this discussion you started. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I am restoring this here, if you do not mind. I do not want to cause you any trouble and I agree we are free to agree to disagree but I had to respond because you either clearly misunderstood or strawmanned, as you took some points and implications I never made or meant the way you interpretated my words, especially as I am pro-European Union and anti-Putin. Regarding this, you strawmanned me. Ironically, you are the one supporting the equivalency between Communism and Nazism but this is a "revisionist" view; it may now be legitimised by the European Union and other Western governments but it is a political decision that do not represent scholarly consensus (indeed, one of the main academic criticisim of The Black Book of Communism is exactly the equivalency between Communism and Nazism). This is Holocaust trivialisation at best and denialism at worse.

Davide King (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, how does simply being consistent in opposing capitalist, Nazi, Soviet and any other group or nation's crimes entails to "liberal philosopher John Locke being just as bad as Lenin and Stalin"? I merely stated "liberals like Locke justified slavery and communists like Stalin justified repression through "aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism" is bad", which is not the same thing as saying that they are equally bad (if I wanted to mean what you think I implied, I would have stated equally bad, which I did not). I was simply showing that no ideology is pure. Just like rejecting the equivalency claim between Communism and Nazism entails being an apologist for Stalinism. One does not need to engage in Holocaust trivialisation for condemmding atrocities and killings under Communist states. I actually condemn them more because I need not to engage in Holocaust trivialisation, "Holocaust revisionism", or supporting the double genocide theory, to do that. Davide King (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On Locke, or how I was not comparing them as equally bad, just as bad; unlike you, I am not making a race on who killed more or who was worse

As for Pinochet, who he was to you? He promoted economic liberalism and to do that the dictatorship engaged in atrocities. What do you even disagree about this? Liberalism is not just political democracy; indeed, many liberals like Locke and in the United States justified slavery on liberal and propertarian grounds while progressive liberals did not. Some liberals did not even support political democracy, only the progressive liberals supported the universalisation of fundamental institutions such as universal suffrage, universal education and the expansion of property rights, see Kirchner 1988, pp. 2–3. I say this as a progressive liberal, not as an anti-liberal.
 * On Pinochet, Jesus and Marx

Jesus Christ may have not incited violence but Christians have indeed committed atrocities in his name. I do not see why you do not apply the same standard to Marx, who called on workers they can achieve their goals by peaceful means, later in their life were more open to democratic participation in the parliament and many democrats such as Bernstein, Kautsky and Luxembourg, among others, were Marxists. Ironically, you are pushing Stalinist propaganda that these Marxists were "revisionists" and "not true Marxists." There is so much more too. Davide King (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

As for the Red Terror, whose higher estimates are 200,000, how can you say I believe it was "nothing special"? You really need to stop making insinuation and implication I never made. Does wanting to put the events in context entails to do that? Was the White Terror, resulting in 100,000–300,000 deaths, "nothing special" too for you?
 * On Red Terror, totalitarianism and revisionism

"Lenin and Stalin not only incited, but actually performed violence of enormous scale. No, it is actually a matter of fact that practically all communist regimes conducted mass repressions." And who denied any of this? I actually agree, so I do not see what is your point. It just seems you do not seem to apply the same standard to the White Terror, or that the terror of Pinochet was just as ideologically-driven as the others, nor did I compare Locke to Stalin's crimes; my point was that both communism and liberalism, like any other ideology, have been used to support atrocities and bad things. As for my additions, I do not see what is the problem. Arendt, Benjamin and other supporters of the totalitarian were also mentioned in the body but I added them too, not just the "revisionists", so your claim is false. Your source are no better; you keep stating as fact Leninism is pseudoscience, even though we do not refer to it as fact and [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22Leninism+Political+Economy+as+Pseudoscience%22

Again, you need to stop using "revisionist" as an insult; these are all legitimate historians and scholars, we are not talking about the "fringe" here, so I do not understand what is your problem with these legitimate scholars. I agree with Newimpartial's comment here that "any summary of the revisionist debates as 'Robert Conquest wins and his opponents are all FRINGE' is not a very accurate statement concerning reality as we know it." You seem to take this false summary as fact; you seem to completely ignore how this is one of the more conflictual, controversial and politicised field in academia, hence why I support presenting all relevent views per NPOV (also respecting due weight and avoid false balance) while you seem to support only one side. Davide King (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

As for mass killings, I literally explained the difference between the events, which are a fact; and the category (the lumping together, which not all scholars agree and the very few who actually do, they do not represent consensus), which is a proposed concept. You are free to disagree with this distinction but you need to stop implying I am a "revisionist" or using it like a candy or pejorative term. Mass killing is also a concept to describe or define incidents of non-combat killing by government or state; this does not mean mass killings did not actually happen. The main topic is supposed to be a link between communism and mass killing, rather than a list of atrocities by Communist states. Valentino states "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain why other communist countries have avoided this level of violence." In other words, Communist regimes are not lumped together; the more common grouping is Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (some such as Rosefielde adds Kim and Ho Chi Min) and no source discuss them all together; the few ones who do (Courtois and Rummel) are not about mass killing but about equivalency between Communism and Nazism (Courtois) and mass killing in general (Rummel) and both are problematic and controversial.
 * Mass killings under communist regimes

Even The Black Book of Communism "only presents a number of chapters on single country studies, it presents no cross-cultural comparison, there is no discussion of 'Mass killing[/Any other bad thing] in Communism'" and the introduction is more about "the evils of Communism in general" than any specific link between the two. We already discuss all the events in individual articles and most of them are not described as a mass killing, or a mass killing under a Communist regimes, because historians of Communisms and country experts do not describe the events as such. Even Conquest "did not write about mass killings under Communist regimes, he wrote about the Red terror, the Holodomor and the Great purge in the Soviet Union. He treated these as separate subjects and did not develop a theory of mass killings under Communist regimes. We should not put together a group of events and create an article when no one else has." That is why the currently-structured article is synthesis; we need a link. The reason why we do not have similar articles, even though we could synthetised the events about capitalist, Christian, fascist, Muslims, etc. regimes like we do for Communism ("We could have an article called mass killings under fascist regimes and include the Holocaust, Ethiopia, Spain and Argentina. The reason I would not create one is not that I am pro-fascist, but I would need a source that linked them to fascist ideology. Arguments such as we have to tell people how horrible fascists aren't part of policy and all the events in such article already are described in other articles."), is that we need consensus among sources that link them to communist ideology.

As pointed out by The Four Deuces "and was agreed in the AfD discussions, we cannot create articles that group unconnected events. We need to establish why why [sic] these events are connected using reliable sources. For example, the Holocaust and genocide against indigenous peoples in the U.S. were carried out by Christians. But if we want an article called Christian genocide, we need sources that draw the connection and explain the degree of acceptance in reliable sources. Otherwise it is just propaganda, listing crimes committed by Christians with the implication that Christianity is a genocidal religion. And the same applies to Islam. This is the only mass killings article that groups the killings by ideology. It could be as the VOC Memorial Foundation says, that 'Marxist socialism is the deadliest ideology in history.' But it is not our role to promote their views, but to explain them in a neutral manner." You are free to think that sources do indeed make a link but my analysis of sources shows they do not and I am not the only one reach that conclusion. Indeed, the analysis of sources by Paul Siebert, which was reviewed positively in an academic journal, reached the same conclusion. I think it would be helpful if you could tell what was wrong with the analysis of main sources I did, how these are the best sources we have, or how they represents academic consensus rather than their views. Also what is the main topic? Here, I individuated at least six possible main topic. The lack of a clear main topic has been a big issue and one that has caused much misunderstanding on both sides. Again, we need a clear link that connected all these events together but that link is not so clear and is not what several sources used to support it do.

Even of of its ardent defender admitted most, if not all, the source used are (significant) minority views, which is why we attribute them all. The problem of that article is that it does not actually represent the consensus of neither genocide scholars nor historians of Communism. While the events indeed take place and many, many people have died, we cherry pick the opinions to blame it on communism or alleging a link that either does not exist or is not supported by relevant experts such as country experts. It also ignores the many scholars who ignore the concept because they do not lump them together. The common criticism is the idea to combine loosely connected events under a single category of Communist death toll, "[w]hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss"—the idea to connect the deaths with some "generic Communism" concept, defined down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals. As an example, "a connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category." So lumping them together just because they were Communist states, even though several scholars noted how the Khmer Rouge was closer to Nazism than any form of communism, misses the point and would be no different than lumping together events under capitalist, Christian, Muslism, fascist, etc. regimes.

If you want the article to be a list of the events, that may be done. What can not be done is narrating the events as mass killing under Communist regime, when the individual articles do not described them as such, or are not lumped together by actual experts. What can not be done is proposing the concept or narrative of the events grouped all together as fact (the fact is the events happened but why they happened and what is their interpretation is still debated) or presenting the opinion of non-experts such as Stephen Hicks or George Watson, the latter of whom held the fringe view Marx created genocide or that there is a clear line from Marx to Hitler. What can not be done is create an imaginary terminology to justify any event called under that terminology by at least a source, when there is no consensus in the field. See Paul Siebert's comment here. A rewrite could solve the issues.

I counted 98 "Keep" and 75 "Delete", with 4 "Strong keep", 2 "Weak keep", 1 "Weak delete" and 6 "Strong delete" (counted in totals). The AfDs also did not rule out merge, name change, or a rewrite, which is what I and others are advocating, to resolve the issues of original research, synthesis, weight, etc. So you cannot simply dismiss us as "revisionists." We are not even advocating deletion, we are trying to solve the issues as suggested by the AfDs, though discussion, merge, name change, or a rewrite, the latter of which we support. No one has explained how my reading of sources, which is in itself based on academic reviews and not my personal views, is wrong, or how most of the main sources used to support the article as currently-structured, their main topic is not mass killings under Communist regimes, or even Communist states. It is no wonder the only other 'encylopedias' to have this article are Conservapedia and Metapedia. When these are the only other 'encylopedias' having such an article or covering it as a topic, go figure.

Davide King (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Capitalism talk page
Hi Davide, since you're interested in topics revolving around capitalism, I was wondering if you'd like to express your opinion on this subject. There are two things being discussed: first, my addition from last year of a paragraph talking about early capitalism and Great Britain, and secondly a very recent addition by Crossroads which states, unequivocally, that capitalism not only created economic growth, but also reduced working hours, a highly controversial statement considering how working hours were really reduced. Would appreciate you expressing your opinion since current editors are trying to describe the situation as WP:1AM (even though less than 24 hours have passed) and push the ahistorical view. Thanks. BeŻet (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the WP:VOTESTACKING clause in Canvassing about contacting people with known interests so please ignore this notification, I don't want the discussion to be considered manipulated. BeŻet (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dietmar Bartsch, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Socialist Unity Party and Party of Democratic Socialism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Michael Weirsky
I started a draft about Michael Weirsky. Can you please make it a full article that is a good article or featured article, please? I would prefer it to be featured article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Weirsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Psalm 14
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord. There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous. Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his refuge. Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad." - Psalm 14

I have learned for myself that atheism and socialism are not true. God bless. Msiehta (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Davide King! I dropped by to say hi! I hope you are well amid this pandemic! :) Cinadon36 15:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

NBA infobox
Hi there. I removed your addition of NBA minutes leader to Michael Jordan's infobox. You might not have been aware, but WP:NBAHIGHLIGHTS lists what we generally include. Even with that, his infobox size is already unmanageable. You can discuss at WT:NBA if you have any concerns. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

NBA career statistics
Do not add the "Led the league" colors to players playoff statistics sections, because that is against the consensus of WP:NBA. – Sabbatino (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And do not combine the statistics if the player played for two or more teams in a one season. – Sabbatino (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , if that is against consensus, it should be, and should have been, clearly stated at NBA statistics. If we are going to be pedantic, there should not be any "Led the league" and/or "NBA record" colors because neither are mentioned at the aforementioned NBA statistics' style advice. I could find no discussion by searching "Led the league" and "NBA record" either; unless I am missing something, I do not see where your claim that my edits were "against the consensus of WP:NBA." Basketball Reference also already hides non-qualifiers for rate stats when table is sorted, so if the issue that the postseason has a much smaller sample, it should not be an issue, as there is criteria anyway. I think we should either do it for both regular season and postseason, or strictly follow the NBA statistics' style advice, which makes no mention of either, and do not include any colors.
 * No hard feelings, I just do not get it or see how it is against consensus when I could not find any style guide or discussion stating "Do not add the 'Led the league' colors to players playoff statistics sections, because that is against the consensus of WP:NBA." It is not like WP:NBAHIGHLIGHTS, where I was not aware it is more clear about what to list and what not, so I did not re-add the minutes leaders. Again, I do not get why some annual leaders (scoring, rebounding, and/or assists) are included but others are not (minutes). Minutes are part of the table just like points, rebounds, and assists, among others, and there is no clear explanation or standard in this; perhaps we should remove scoring, rebounding, assists, etc. titles from the infobox too and instead add them all, including minutes leaders and other categories for which we have annual leaders articles, only at Awards and honors, if we are concerned about the growth of NBA infoboxes. Davide King (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Players play a different number of games during the playoffs and that is why we do not list leaders or record holders for playoffs. There have been many discussions through the years and every time it was determined not to list leaders or record holders for playoffs in career statistics sections. You ought to ask this at WT:NBA. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Davide King: The related discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_22. If you are able to help update the statistics documention to reflect the de facto standards, it would be appreciated. Consensus can change, so as mentioned, you are free to establish a new consensus at WT:NBA. I'm sorry that your bold edits were reverted. In lieu of a discussion for mass changes that might seem like an obvious improvement, sometimes I pick a few high profile pages—e.g. Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, LeBron—make the new changes, and wait a few days and see if there are any objections before making it widespread.—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, alright. First of all, thanks for your answers and apologies for the late reply. It is understandable; however, I have not seen many discussions through the years, other than Bagumba's useful link which I missed. Of course, before doing it I thought, "Well, there must be a reason why the "Led the league" thing is not done for the Playoffs table." But as I already stated, I could not find any written statement about this in the Manual of Style and the only discussion seems to be that linked by Bagumba because the others seemed to be only about adding the Playoffs table or something, not what I tried to do. So I just went ahead and tried to be bold. The thing is, there is actually a criteria and "non-qualifiers for rate stats" for the playoffs too, which is also referenced at Basketball-Reference.com. So Jordan technically had the highest minutes per game at 45.0 in the 1986 Playoffs but it did not meet criteria while his 43.7 points per game average did. I guess this can be explained by the totals, where Jordan ranked 37th for points total (131) but only 81th for minutes total (135). I do not know whether the "non-qualifiers for rate stats" are taken from the NBA itself or is done by the website itself, which could determine its legitimacy. If there were no qualifiers, I likely would not even tried to do that due to the much smaller sample size, but since apparently there are, I thought to give it a try and that it was still an interesting thing to show.  By the way, that is exactly what I did too; I mostly picked high profile pages. I was reverted each time by the same user (Sabbatino). My only issue is them claiming "[t]here have been many discussions through the years and every time it was determined not to list leaders or record holders for playoffs in career statistics sections", which does not seem to be true, as the only discussion I found was the one started by Bagumba, and I found it only because they just linked it here. The ones I found were about the Playoffs table, not what I tried to do, see "'Officialize' playoff stats pages", "Playoff Career Statistical Leaders" and even "Playoff statistical leaders in infobox" was really about adding playoffs annual scoring leader to the infobox, which is not what I propose since we do not even have a page for it, like we do for List of National Basketball Association annual scoring leaders.  So unless I missed many of those discussions, there does not seem to be such a strong consensus to just revert each edits, rather than open a discussion with proper attendance. Again, apologies if there are indeed these many well-attended discussions specifically about adding the "Led the league" color to the Playoffs table stats. I just found this a bit too unilaterality; however, if there have indeed been many discussion about exactly what I propose, I understand the unilaterality. have no issue with it and I actually apologize for missing them.  Finally, to play devil's advocate, that discussion assumed there was no criteria or qualifier ("there is no set minimum") but there actually is, which is the ultimate reason why I went ahead with my edits. So what to consider is whether these qualifiers are set by the NBA too or whether it is just a website, although I would note that same website seems to be perfectly fine for all the stats, so I do not see why it could not be used for this too. Either way, it is not a big deal. Also, I can always go watch the old revisions and enjoy all this blue-green on both tables. ːD  It was fun and interesting discussing this; if things change, let me know, especially whether the criteria used by that website is fine and if that makes it more useful. Davide King (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, I have no issue with your bold edits or discussing this further. This is exactly WP:BRD. As for the database minimums, it's possible b-r.com has evolved since. That aside, another of my original points is that I dont see other reliable sources generally mentioning season playoff stat leaders.  It's not something, say, that I've seen in obituaries. Regarding consensus, weight should also be given to defacto standards.  The playoff leaders are generally not in bios.  Now some things aren't there because nobody ever thought of it, but others are due to unwritten but practiced conventions for understood reasons. Now it can be frustrating when it's not documented, and you make a bold edit that gets reverted, so that's just perhaps a necessary evil of WP of "knowing" when to be bold and when to ask first.  There's no full-proof solution.  Not to sound like a broken record, but you are always welcome to open a wider discussion at WT:NBA and establish a new consensus. Regards—Bagumba (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)