User talk:Michaelwuzthere

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Socialism, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RolandR 14:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to 2009. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RolandR 14:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

June 2012
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Joseph Stalin. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ''Please supply an Edit Summary for each change so others will understand what you're trying to do. '' &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 00:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of the Moldavian SSR.png
Hi. May I ask you where did you get this image from? It looks wrong. As far as I know, the real coat of arms of the MSSR didn't have the blue-white ribbon under the sun. This element was added only in the coat of arms of Transnistria.--Imrek (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out. The correction has been made. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing I've just noticed. There is a mistake in the Moldovan text on the left. It says "УНИТСЬ-ВЭ", while the correct spelling is "УНИЦИ-ВЭ". --Imrek (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Are you planning to fix the mistake in the Moldovan text any time soon?--Imrek (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have been somewhat busy lately, but this will be done very soon. However, I notice that there seems to be a contradiction between spellings. There are images such as File:COA Moldavian SSR.png that display the "УНИЦИ-ВЭ" spelling, but also files like File:Coat of arms of Moldavian SSR.png that display a "УНИТСЬ-ВЭ" spelling. So there's clearly an error, but being that I'm not a native speaker of Moldavian, I need some verification that a correction made would be into the correct spelling.--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a scan of a Soviet newspaper "Izvestia": (it's in DjVu format, so, in order to see it, you may need to install a special program: ). At the top left corner you can see the motto "Workers of the world, unite!" written in the languages of all the costituent republics of the Soviet Union. Moldavian variant is at the very beginning of the third line from the top.--Imrek (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Juche
Please see Template_talk:Communism_sidebar User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 08:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? I added information about Ernst Thalmann on "Ernst Thalmann Island" and some twelve-year-old decides to continually revert the edit and I am the one being warned? Is this some idea of a joke? --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Phyllis's Wedding.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Phyllis's Wedding.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:Lenin image
w The image of Lenin you recently uploaded seems to be very similar to another file, File:Lenin CL Colour.jpg. With so many images of Lenin, it seems unhelpful to have many similar versions.

In the case of both images, I think the original photograph that hasn't been obviously tampered with and coloured may be more appropriate. With so many photographs available, why should we use a coloured/filtered version of one? -- Peter Talk to me 16:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The uploaded image is of exceptionally higher clarity and of higher quality in a realistic, non-distorting colour. As far as a portrait for primary use, I think it's of a significantly better quality to all others in the commons. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume by "uploaded image" you are referring to your own. In which case, I disagree that it is the highest quality and realistic image available. In my personal opinion it appears to be crudely coloured and far less detailed than either the original or the original's coloured version (that I posted above).--Peter Talk to me 16:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Peter Talk to me 17:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the uploaded image has no rough surfacing like the other coloured image, nor is the photo grainy or spotty or damaged.--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is because the other image is a skilfully coloured version of an original photograph. The uploaded image has questionably sharp outlines... it just looks unauthentic (which it is). --Peter Talk to me 17:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And the lack of 'graininess' gives the image a blurred look, which contrasts with the sharp outline. -- Peter Talk to me 17:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sharp outline is a result of the smoothing of the background, though I don't see this as having any significant impact on the overall quality of the photo, as, in my opinion, the photo doesn't seem to be much more 'blurred' than the other photos.--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But aside from the quality, I just don't see any good reason to replace a perfectly fine original photograph with an altered version. A coloured image is great - but not at the expense of authenticity. -- Peter Talk to me 18:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For the Vladimir Lenin page, the primary image should always have minimal distortion and be in colour when possible. The uploaded photo, while not being authentic in the sense that it is not the original photograph, is of high quality, while the previously used photo will still be in the commons for use.--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Phyllis's Wedding.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Phyllis's Wedding.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Phyllis's Wedding Image
Hey, I just wanted to drop by and say why the image keeps getting removed. The fact is, it is a non-free image that doesn't pass NFCC, which states that the image is needed "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". As of right now, the image is just a picture of a group of people. and doesn't add anything to the article, critically. Thanks.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The image is literally of Phyllis's wedding (particularly of when Michael Scott gets upstage by Phyllis's father) on the page of Phyllis's Wedding. How on earth is that not relevant to the article?--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not the fact that it isn't relevant, it's that its addition doesn't help the reader understand the episode better than just presenting the information in text. I think Ruby2010 did a good job of explaining it on the history page of the article. In order to be included, the image would need to be critically examined, either in the production, or the reception. As of right now, it isn't.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   20:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited And you are lynching Negroes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soviet media (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Mexico
I feel that your edit in Mexico was appropriate. I do not agree with the editor who reverted it, citing WP:RECENTISM. I do not believe recentism applies in this case. Earlier today, I made an edit request regarding the country's official name to have a citation added to the first sentence of the article. It was completed a few minutes later. If your content is put back, you can add the CNN citation to the one you used. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flag of Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constitution of the Russian SFSR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the hammer and sickle represents non-Bolshevik communists?
You claim the hammer and sickle represents all communists while the title page of the Communist Manifesto does not because you claim that it does not represent non-Marxist communists. But the hammer and sickle is associated with a narrower group of Marxists - Bolsheviks. What evidence do you have of non-Bolshevik communists using the hammer and sickle?--R-41 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The usage of the hammer and sickle in representing agriculture and urban industry pre-dates the socialist movement. Their contemporary usage in representing the unity of agricultural and urban industrial workers as the proletarian class originates from the Russian revolution, however it is not ideologically exclusive. The symbol is used by parties all over the world who hold different and sometimes contrasting views towards the Bolsheviks. While the Manifesto is ideologically exclusive to Marxists, the hammer and sickle symbolises the urban industrial and rural proletariat class, which is a universality of all communist ideologies.--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Communist Party of the Soviet Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cpnm-electionsymbol2064.PNG)
Thanks for uploading File:Cpnm-electionsymbol2064.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Democratic republic
I have removed the prod tag from Democratic republic, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. (I also reverted it back to an old revision which is much better written than the version you tagged, so hopefully that resolves your concern.) If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Also just FYI for the future, when you use the prod tag it's helpful if you include your rationale with the tag (like this: REASON ) in addition to in your edit summary. Not a big deal but it makes life easier for administrators and prod patrollers. BryanG (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Craig Cobb
I highly recommend you read over WP:BLP carefully and see my message on the article's talk page explaining why your edit is of concern. Washablemarker (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Your recent editing history at Vietnam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Neil N  talk to me  18:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Socialism
I have posted a list of suggestions for the organization of the Socialism article on its talk page and would appreciate your input.

Also, User:Eduen continues to revert the lines in the lead on the distinction between the principles of "To each according to his contribution" and "To each according to his need", and is unanimously either removing or downplaying any material on Marxism in the article in favor of what appears to be a broadly "ethical socialist" bias. I suggest you review and comment on the talk page.- Battlecry 09:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Federal State of New Russia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Bachtell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yellow Springs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Bachtell
Hello, Michaelwuzthere. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, John Bachtell, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want John Bachtell to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism
I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

February 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. RGloucester — ☎ 06:12, 15 February 2015 (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.


 * You're claiming that I'm starting an edit war, despite this being a ridiculous claim. I edited a couple words in a page, then I later edited after someone else had already done so to make it less biased and my response is "stop giving me a headache with your rubbish" and am told I am in an edit war. What the hell? Are you that insecure about the obvious agenda pushing going on in that article that you feel the need to immediately brand anyone who tries to neutralize the content as someone starting an edit war? Wikipedia has been run into the mud for years now, and this kind of bullshit is just ridiculous. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent events at American Left
I noticed your talk page comments and attempts to alter American Left in 2013. The community of editors who are usually there leave much to be desired in my view, but I managed to briefly change the lead of the article to a well-referenced version that you might actually agree with! That was before the inevitable happened, of course, a few days later. The amusing tale is told at User:Flying Jazz and the nitty gritty details begin at Talk:American_Left. Temporary and small victories for reality are better than none, and they can be captured for future amusement, especially when things swing from one side of reality to the other! Flying Jazz (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Redlink
In case you didn't already know, in the userboxes on your user page, there is a redlink, to something about Mozart. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at ContraPoints, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''The information you added was not supported by the reference. Also it is against policy to give the deadnames of trans people except when they were notable under their previous names.'' DanielRigal (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To follow up on the above, I have oversighted the material mentioned above as it is non-public personal information. Please do not re-introduce it. ST47 (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Crimea
Your replacement of "ham fisted state propaganda with a nuanced explanation" here makes it seem as though Crimea joined Russia of its own accord, and it omits mention of what most people would consider crucial circumstances, i.e. the invasion of Russian military forces. Your statement about this being disputed, with "Ukraine continu[ing] to claim Crimea as its territory", comes across as misleading, as it again omits what many would consider to be important facts (i.e. the fact that it's not just Ukraine, but almost the entire international community that recognises the republic as Ukrainian). – Uanfala (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC) "What most people would consider crucial circumstances" are fabricated ideas not based in objective facts, which are that the Russian military had been present in Crimea since the collapse of the Soviet Union -- what did occur was a relatively peaceful handover of power by the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the Russian military. The majority of the international community, if population is the determining factor and not GDP, holds an ambiguous position on the issue to support a peaceful resolution to the conflict.Michaelwuzthere (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)