User talk:Izuru Kamukura

RE: Democratic socialism
You're right about the DSA quote, but the bracket is used exactly as to make it grammatically correct since the quote is incorporated in the phrasing; this isn't really something unusual and I don't understand why you changed that. Same with your other edits; it's not clear why you made such changes. Try to fix typos rather than reword it to your favorite writing style when there's nothing wrong with it. I kept some of your edits and better wording, but you weren't able to do the same and simply recopied and pasted the previous version. Also socialism is correct in the Hayek paragraph because they conflate socialism with all that; indeed, they don't even think or believe there's a democratic socialism. It's exactly democratic socialists that reject Hayek et all conflations of socialism with all that, so it was fine before.--Davide King (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, i dont think removing 85% of my edit, as you did earlier on the article about demsocs, was proper at all. Text is bound to be overhauled or changed at any point in a article s development, as that is the point of Wikipedia, which anyone can edit or change in any way that doesnt violate policy. You should have avoided removing most of my edit, especially as it wouldnt have done any harm to the article if it stayed like that, and i have gone out of my way to avoid changing quotes in a way that is inconsistent with the original text after you notified me about my mistake. I do want to collaborate with you properly, but we cant do that if you keep removing most of my edits with no clear justification as to why. Izuru Kamukura (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly what you did to mine, too. You didn't even bother checking. Maybe ask yourself why; maybe most of your edits were either wrong or not helpful. It's funny you quote "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" when that apply exactly mostly to your edits. It's still not clear why you did all that rewording, apart correcting typos or obvious mistakes. There's just so much wrong with your edits, I can't tell you why each one of it was wrong. Just a few examples:
 * Variant of socialism that advocates for political democracy and parliamentarism alongside a socially owned economy Why variant? And why parliamentarism? That's not what the sources say as they talk simply of poltical democracy; and democratic socialism can ecompass direct democracy or democracy opposed to parliamentarism and representative democracy.
 * Democratic socialism is a political philosophy and ideology There's no need for that; we usually just say political philosophy, social philosophy, economic philosophy, etc.
 * Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled by the working class But that's not what the given source says.
 * As an example, the new version of Clause IV of the New Labour Constitution falsely conflates democratic socialism with modern social democracy Weasel words, POV-pushing; your own personal opinion. As an example, the new version of Clause IV of the New Labour Constitution use the term democratic socialism to describe a modernised form of social democracy. This is more neutral.
 * Partly because of this overlap, some political commentators erroneously use the terms interchangeably Again, just your opinion; and not what the given source actually say.
 * Tony Benn, a prominent leftwing populist and a Labour Party politician Again, where's the source for that? As far as I can see, there's no mention of it in his own article and honestly I have never saw or read him as being a left-wing populist.
 * And I could go on and on. The fact you don't see or can't correct your own errors in your edits, nor incorporating part of mine, doesn't help. I correctly incorporated some of your edits and better wording. Since you just created your account, maybe you should try listen to me, who has been here for a few years; and understand why I kept only some of your edits. I did many of similair edits in the past, but they were reverted for the same reasons.--Davide King (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How ironic of you to say not an improvement when you just reverted back to your favorite version, especially after I literally told you what was wrong with your edits. You need to know that if you revert for more than three times, you may risk a block; and that in cases of disputes like this, it's a rule to keep the most stable version and not edit warring about it until a consensus is reached or the discussion is over, so I'm going to revert back to the more stable version, but including some of your edits that improved it. Please, don't edit or revert back and let's discuss instead. Single-purpose accounts are discouraged; why don't you try edit other pages to practice and learn more?--Davide King (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I had to revert your most recent edits (they were better than the previous ones and I already incorporated most of them) because they included also some of the previous rewording that wasn't as good or as improving. You need to justify and explain why your edit are needed or improving, not simply putting the onus on me. i have re-added PAIS Alliance because it has a social democratic faction, which has took over; and while I may personally agree that it's not really social democratic, relable sources refer to it as social democratic. I already told you not to edit while the discussion is on, unless you want to correct some typo or add some information like I did with Erich Fromm. At least don't simply revert back to your version; for example, your current rewording of today was better, but since you did that on your favorite version I had to revert it back and add myself all your good rewording.--Davide King (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop reverting and edit warring? You have already been warned about it. Can't you simply not edit the page until our discussion is over? That's the custom in such cases. Status quo version; and I've been more than kind in already incorporating your edits. You continue to revert to your version and aren't even accurate enough in incorporating my edits and copy editing too; I simply disagree with many of your edits and rewording to the lead and Definition section. You couldn't even wait for me to incorporate your edits when I told you to wait. You also triggered a tag.--Davide King (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How the hell are we supposed to reach a consensus when i don't even fully know what exactly do you have a problem with? I have told you for the billionth time that I have went out of my way to make sure all edits made by you that are not related to reverting my content are fully included in addition to my CE, and yet you keep fighting over trivial matters such as simple improvements to the article s text, even though it isnt wrong or bad. Your edit summaries are also vague and do not provide any explanation for why do you adamantly refuse to even consider just keeping my contributions in place without protracting this puerile fight of ours.

As i said earlier, we need a full comprehensive list of all your objections here so that i can get a rough idea of just what exactly are you disputing, not just mere examples which only move the goalposts to a different problem if solved. Frankly, this issue is extremely infuriating, because all the effort it took to polish this article to a professional standard is erased in the blink of an eye by an editor who seeminly cannot adequately explain why. You are perfectly welcome to add in content of your own or correct legitimate mistakes, but constantly erasing other people s contributions or butchering them for arbitrary reasons is very improper conduct for an editor. Izuru Kamukura (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you happy now? The page got protected. That isn't how it works, one doesn't have to make a list of objections to every single, little edit of yours, especially with such massive edits like yours. I feel you because I made similar edits like yours and they got reverted and I didn't get anyone to explain why every part of it was wrong, but at least I didn't edit warred about it every single day and either discussed it or simply accepted it. Also you need to understand that edits should be improving, not just harmless. The fact you think all the effort it took to polish this article to a professional standard is just your personal opinion; what's polishing and professional to you may be outright wrong or worse in reality; and don't blame it on me when I've been more than kind in incorporating your edits that were actually good and improving. I told you countless times not to revert back until our dispute is over and we can reach a consensus (we were working fine towards it, I don't understand why you edit warred again).
 * One major issue is that you separe democratic socialism and social democracy too much when social democracy is simply reformist democratic socialism, but not all democratic socialism is social democracy. You conflates social democracy with what social democrats did and the Third Way. Just because social democratic parties made neoliberal reforms, does that mean now social democracy support them too? Or maybe they were being neoliberals and not social democrats? Just because social democratic parties defended the imperialist war, does that mean social democracy supports wars and militarism? Contrary to your personal opinion, social democracy is a (reformist) socialist ideology; and Engels, Lenin et all were clearly involved within it; just because they were revolutionaries, it doesn't mean they weren't social democrats either. Per the Historical Dictionary of Socialism and a knowledgable user like, the hundreds of [social democratic] political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test. The Third Way isn't even exclusive to social democracy as social liberals also did the same.--Davide King (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Democratic socialism has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. You are using edit summaries for things that belong on the article talk page. Doug Weller  talk 19:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 06:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)