User talk:M2sh22pp1l/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:M2sh22pp1l. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, M2sh22pp1l, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Be careful what you call "vandalism". This edit does not appear to be vandalism at all, and may indeed be accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Appologies, I got it mixed up with the previous two edits. I'll be more careful in the future. Bacondrum (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Australia First

No objection there. Though the (NSW) on the party registration suggests that it's something to do with whatever that infighting is, so if something about that can be sourced it could be useful to have the explanation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I'll have a look, see if I can find some references. I'll give it a little tidy up in that regard. Cheers.Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo

Hi, thanks for expanding the Family section. Would you be able to add reliable sources for each of the members listed? Regards MX (✉ • ✎) 19:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@MX: No worries, all sorted. Bacondrum (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Lads Society Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lads Society Logo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I find it all very confusing. I think I've filled it out properly now. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)

You moved the article 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) to Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 Act with the edit summary "The actual name of the act". I have reverted this move because every referendum in Australia has a consistent name: "YEAR Australian referendum (SUBJECT)". Find bruce (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Satan and Adam and Sterling Magee

If he's notable enough for an article and you want to write it then go ahead and write it. But until you or someone else does so, the redirect to the duo group's article should remain. Please don't delete the redirect again, and don't add his link to the group's article until there is an article. And please don't remove the sources required maintenance template for the group's article. The article is almost entirely unsourced. It may not technically be a BLP. but it still needs a template., whether ti is a BLP or not. Just change it to a more appropriate template.. Meters (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I'll work on the article. I'll pop a more appropriate template on the article. CheersBacondrum (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, you've already done the template...I'll work on a Sterling Magee page.

Thanks. I look forward to reading it. Whether someone has an article is often more dependent on whether someone has taken an interest in writing one than in their relative notability. Meters (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I read that as meaning you were going to write article on Sterling Magee rather than improve the group's article. Either way, thanks. Meters (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I am working on the Sterling Magee page. Cheers mate. Bacondrum (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Any tips?

This message is also dedicated to frequent political contributors Aquillion and Nblund.

I have been encountering a rising number of Wiki editors who are in the recent alt-right bandwagon of reactionaries. Anyways to deal with them? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey ImmortalWizard, obviously we should assume good faith, if people are gaming wikipedia or turning it into a partisan battleground you can report that behavior here, as it is disruptive editing - certainly, biased alt-right and reactionary edits need to be removed, as with all POV edits. You are welcome to ping me in on the talk page of any article that is being tendentiously edited by any side of politics and I'll have a look, but I would need to see specific edits before commenting. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

So, there's a lot of things to go over here. Obviously it's not against the rules for someone to be an alt-right reactionary! But if you suspect that an article is likely to be targeted by people trying to systematically push a POV on it, you can add it to your watchlist to keep an eye on it; you can also use WP:RFCs to attract outside opinions or places like WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, WP:BLPN and so on. In extreme cases - when edit warring and the like has plainly disrupted a page - you might go to WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP. And of course it's always important to acquaint yourself with core content policies like WP:V and WP:RS, as well as policies that often come up in these sort of conflicts, like WP:DUE, WP:BLP and WP:FALSEBALANCE. (Edit conflict: Bacondrum recommended WP:ANI. I would suggest that only as a last resort or in extreme cases. It's not generally there to resolve simple content disputes, but for serious conduct issues. You'll have better luck identifying what you find objectionable about a contested edit and going to the appropriate noticeboard for that policy. For conduct issues you might also consider WP:AE if the conflict is in a topic area that has an arbcom remedy on it - which includes all post-1932 American Politics articles - and the other person has received an appropriate AE warning in the past. But note that in both WP:ANI and WP:AE, there is often blowback if you lack clean hands yourself, especially if the administrators there feel you're trying to game the system by resolving a content dispute via getting the other party removed for conduct reasons. Most of the time you're better off focusing on the relevant content policies.)

Assuming you know all of that and are asking for deeper advice about how to navigate that situation... the same issue applies in that it's not necessarily useful or healthy to see yourself as specifically dealing with editors pushing a particular POV, and I don't just mean because of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:AGF, or other policy-based reasons, although all of those are important. What you have to realize is that regardless of the views or politics driving them here, a lot of the users who cause the most problems (especially, perhaps, in the way you're thinking of) come here spoiling for a fight. Part of dealing with this - while also retaining your own mental health, energy, and sanity - is to avoid giving it to them. Avoid fireworks and dramatic back-and-forth on talk pages. Focus on policy and content, not users. If they refuse to engage on policy and content, use WP:RFCs and the boards outlined above to call in people who will care about policy. (Another advantage to relying on those systems is that it avoids turning yourself into a target and helps ensure that you haven't let your own view of the situation bias you by bringing in second opinions.) If they're willing to engage on policy and content grounds, grit your teeth and use the policy to work out an acceptable compromise. Don't get pulled too deeply into disputes over minor details - this is one reason to focus on policy and not editors, since it becomes easy to get drawn into a pointless dispute over minutiae when you prime yourself to view everything an editor does as questionable. This doesn't mean you have to ignore signs that an editor is WP:NOTHERE - WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact - but even then, it's helpful to keep the policy in mind rather than the editor. And, of course... sometimes, at the end of the day, you'll find the sources and the policy supports them. Don't dig in in situations like that; it's pointless (although if you have a nagging sense that something is wrong regardless, sometimes it can be useful to step back and look at the situation from another angle; sometimes the real problem isn't what you initially thought it was. And sometimes you'll find the person you were in a dispute with doesn't even object to approaching it from another angle - another reason why it's important to avoid pigeonholing editors.) Generally, remember that if you're worried about Wikipedia being flooded by people with a particular POV, the best thing you can do isn't to burn yourself out aggressively trying to fight them, but to just keep editing normally, as yourself. Just having editors who are willing to edit constructively in controversial areas with a cool head, enforcing policy without burning out, is enough to prevent the problems you're worried about. --Aquillion (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey @ImmortalWizard: I'm on a Wikibreak while I finish a dissertation, so I'll just briefly second everything Aquillion said above. I would especially highlight the advise to seek outside input from noticeboards and RFCs when you're facing a difficult situation. Getting more people paying attention to a page really makes sustained POV pushing difficult, and new eyeballs may catch additional issues and make further improvements. Nblund^talk 15:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Quick explanation

I've included a more explanatory edit summary here regarding removing the redundant phrasing added by Kingerikthesecond. I can also include it on the article talk page, but it seems a minor thing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for explaining the reversion. Bacondrum (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NACADEMIC

Re this, WP:NACADEMIC has absolutely nothing to do with source reliability. VQuakr (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It relates to notability, which in turn relates to reliability - Please read the guidelines. Bacondrum (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading about the author of relevant citation, I got the impression that this may be an honors thesis or some such, they've published nothing else that I can find. I don't know where you are from, but here in Australia more than 56% of the population would potentially qualify as a reliable academic source if the bar was set so low. Bacondrum (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That is a concern about reliability, not notability. Again, notability has nothing to do with reliability and your handwave to "read the guideline" is unhelpful. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be helpful, you came to me with this issue. Notability informs reliability and you'd know that if you bothered to read the guidelines. As in this case, the author is not notable,, they are an unknown quantity, they are therefor not a reliable source. We know absolutely nothing about the author, they may be a habitual liar or a certified loon for all we know. Simply being published or completing post-grad studies does not make one an authority or a reliable source, that's why academic sources need to be authored by notable academics not just ya mate who got a doctorate from Universidad Virtual Latinoamericano or the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective...plus the "journal" that published this seems to be a wordpress blog. This is a stupid debate, I'm done discussing it. You want to challenge the edit, then go for it. Bacondrum (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check

Hi Bacondrum, I noticed your comment in the Taki's Magazine RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard (Special:Diff/906440757) that referred to Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry). Since most editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check generally unreliable, your argument would probably be stronger if you didn't mention this site or if you referred to a more reliable source instead. Cheers! — Newslinger talk 04:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

You shouldn't rush things to WP:ANI so much.

I noticed this and thought I should shoot you a line. Unless you're dealing with very clear-cut cases, WP:ANI is sort of a last resort; by posting something like that there, you're basically asking them to sanction or remove a user, which requires a lot of discussion and difficulty for long-standing users. Disputes over content are better taken to appropriate boards - in this case WP:AN3 if you think it's a 3RR / 1RR violation (although he self-reverted quickly, so they wouldn't do anything), WP:BLPN for BLP issues, WP:RSN for source issues, WP:NPOVN for NPOV issues, etc. Even if you feel an editor's conduct is a problem (which usually requires proof of problems over an extended period of time for established users), you're usually better off taking it to WP:AE - it's still difficult and has a risk of WP:BOOMERANG, and you'll have to identify which discretionary sanction you think is being violated (there's one for post-1932 American Politics in general), but it's more specific than WP:ANI. Although more generally in this particular case it's also worth knowing when to just let things go... just a quick nose count on the talk page shows a four-to-one consensus against you. Often it's better to just drop the issue at that point, especially if you don't think it's a huge deal. If you do want to continue in that sort of situation, the next thing to do would probably be to open an WP:RFC or to raise the issue at one of the content boards I mentioned, but I don't think you'd be likely to prevail; sometimes it's better to just drop it and move on. --Aquillion (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I realised I was letting my frustration get the better of me and it was a silly thing to do. Thanks again. Bacondrum (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, generally speaking, on longstanding, high-traffic controversial articles like Alt-Right... people tend to react badly if you make massive changes with no discussion first. WP:BOLD is policy, sure, but you should also consider WP:BRD - restoring a bold change after someone has objected is only going to make it harder to convince people. More generally, you should probably try and focus more narrowly on what you feel are the most important things that need to be changed, and argue for those; it's hard to convince people to accept massive sweeping changes to an article all at once, since you're basically stepping on everyone's toes at the same time. --Aquillion (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2019

(UTC)

I hear you, and I take your comments seriously. I guess it's just frustrating to see such a dodgy article and not be able to make good faith edits, maybe I should just leave Wikipedia alone. As for old mate, I'd gladly discuss the edits, but old mate refuses to discuss them. Bacondrum (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that more generally you need to be willing to walk away from disputes that clearly aren't going your way, haha. At least for a little while (sometimes the other people involved cool down or lose interest and you can come back later to try an alternative approach then.) Definitely trying to open a subsection about BMK on the ANI report was a mistake - yeah, sure, they're being a bit too aggressive too, but from ANI's perspective you hardly have clean hands in that respect yourself at this point, so the most likely outcome if they do anything is to topic-ban both of you - or just you, because you're the newer user and don't have a reputation for anything there except showing up in ANI reports again and again, which isn't going to endear you to anyone. Basically the last thing you want to do is escalate things - you're better off trying to let things cool down, maybe proposing a few compromises on talk with regards to the parts you feel are most important or swinging back once other people have cooled down, too, to try again from a more conciliatory start. If you look at eg. the talk section on Causal Factors it didn't take much to get a rough discussion on a possible compromise going. Also, you should go over WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF - yeah, other people are getting a bit snippy with you, but it's important to keep a stable head and avoid getting too accusatory against people unless you're absolutely sure you can back up any conduct allegations you make (and if you can, you're better off taking them to WP:AE and laying them out in blandly formal language.) Remember that the users you're arguing with are also some of the ones you're generally going to have to cooperate with and convince of stuff if you want to get major changes through controversial pages without having it be a huge struggle every step of the way, so even if they're annoying you it's best to stay polite and avoid burning bridges if at all possible. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

thanks again, and thanks for being patient with me...and of course, you are correct, I think I’ll just stay away from US politics completely in the future and I’ll avoid ANI reports. Cheers mate Bacondrum (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please note these special rules for American politics

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

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

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | talk 11:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

A "retaliatory edit"...

...is one made by an editor in retaliation for an edit or edits made elsewhere. Nashhinton made some very bad contributions on other articles, which I reverted or edited, and in retaliation, he scrolled through my contribution list and arbitrarily reverted some of my edits, without regard for their value, and without particularly caring whether the edit improved the article or not, i.e. pure retaliation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you are making personal attacks and edit warring to me. Bacondrum (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Then you are wrong. Nishhinton has just been warned by an admin for retaliatory editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't know you, so maybe I am wrong, but all I have to go on is what you have written on wikipedia. Maybe you shouldn't go around nit picking about indentation, accusing others of being right-wing (an insult that I consider to be at the extreme end of egregious), whitewashing, being POV editors, asking that they be blocked, accuse others of POV pushing, being a sock puppet etc...and those you've defamed, attacked and besmirched might be more inclined to believe you. Bacondrum (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

RSN

It was a problem with Template:Collapse bottom, not your edits. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh thank goodness. Cheers

Call-out culture dispute

Regarding User:Bacondrum call-out culture Revision
Topic: Edit War/NOR/PS Claim
Edit Disputed: [22:15, 12 August 2019] vs [22:09, 12 August 2019‎]
Edit Summary: "Not a reliable source/primary source/original research/edit warring. Please stop, I don't want to report you. Take it to talk and work towards consensus."

Disputed Edits and References:
1. "...usually by means of amassing large, aggressive followings on social media.^[1]"
2. "Due to the swift and frantic nature in which such movements typically rise, call-out culture and its variants are often attributed to mob mentality.^[2]"

Dispute: Revisions and associated references provided are no less WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS than following references featured in article: ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6]

Conclusion: Given time between revisions, User:Bacondrum did not review source material in its entirety before undoing edits, and is failing to follow WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:EW guidelines.

Suggestion: Provide justifiable reasoning for dispute by WP guidelines and display good faith in attempting to reach consensus. Otherwise, a report will be submitted.

ASKWik Hi, you're going about this the wrong way. I agree the primary sources that you have listed and related assertions should be removed. However, the consensus was to keep them, if you want to start a discussion about their removal on the relevant talk page, I'd most likely support that proposal.

Regarding your suggestion about submitting an ANI, you are free to do so, but take some friendly advice from an editor that has had to learn the hard way...you will most likely end up being sanctioned, you've repeatedly reverted to your preffered content after your edit was challenged and not made any attempt at reaching consensus. I have assumed good faith, however you have not, accusing me of bias - I'm not upset about it, but it will work against you in any ANI report, believe me I've been there.

I personally think the article could use more pruning rather than expansion at this point, it relies too much on primary sources/opinions pieces like the ones you pointed out and the one you added to support your original research. serious academics just haven't really weighed in, it's a throwaway neologism that may end up being deleted due to a lack of notability.

I've contested your edit, you need to take it to talk, if you keep re-adding the same material you'll almost certainly receive a block. And I'd strongly urge you to reconsider making a report yourself, it will most likely boomerang.

Best regards

Bacondrum (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

____

References

^ Wayne, Rachel (12 January 2019). "The Problem with Call-out Culture". Medium. Retrieved 12 August 2019.
^ Ashman, Sairah (22 July 2019). "'Wokeness' In The Age Of The Twitter Mob: How Brands Can Navigate Cancel Culture". Medium. Retrieved 12 August 2019.
^ Bromwich, Jonah Engel (28 June 2018). "Everyone Is Canceled". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
^ Glaser, Eliane. "With "cancel culture" political correctness has indeed gone mad".
^ "Pavlik Morozov Is the Patron Saint of Cancel Culture". 2 July 2019.
^ "Cancel Culture Comes for Counterculture Comics". 29 April 2019.

MEL

I'm not saying it's a great source, but it has editorial oversight and passes what appears to be the basic requirements. It seems on par with Jezebel. I'm not saying I like it, just that you can claim it to be flatly non-RS and remove it. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to squabble over it...it's just so trashy, I wouldn't trust anything published in it. We'll see what other editors have to say. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Jim Saleam source inclusion

I doubt we will reach consensus. I will post my reply later; if indeed we cannot, I will be forced to escalate the dispute to a third party. AwakenedWorld (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC) I've spoken too soon! Glad we were able to make something work. AwakenedWorld (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Me too, Cheers mate! Bacondrum (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Taken to ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alert

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

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned on ANI, you are hereby warned that further BLP violations will almost certainly result in sanctions (whether discretionary or otherwise). Thanks. El_C 23:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Noted, thanks, it won't happen again. Bacondrum (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

My posts

Regarding this, do not touch my posts again! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 You are accusing me of bias, it's a personal attack. The RFC is about the lede, not me. You should be focused on content. I'm not going to be subject to personal attacks. If you really feel that kind of attack is acceptable then take it to an admin. I'm going to remove every time you reinstate it. I'm not a biased editor and I'm beyond sick of you calling me one. Bacondrum (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This is why I am arguing to remove that content: "Much of the last paragraph is undue detail, who cancelled contract, details of his attempts explain his child abuse comments can be found in the body, the lede is supposed to summerise." your claims I have other motives are a personal attack. I know what my motives are better than anyone, this is a ridiculous argument. Bacondrum (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bacondrum reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violating the 3 revert rule, yet again. That was not a personal attack, maintaining that there was bias in your argument. You really ought to have gotten clarifications about that before violating 3RR for the third time. Now, I am also about the to use discretionary sanctions to article ban you from anything to do with Milo Yiannopoulos, unless you have some pretty convincing arguments to the contrary. Today's developments, also in regards to that subject and BLP again (yes, I realize you ended up redacting that, but still), simply do not inspire confidence. Frankly, I'd hoped you would voluntarily take a break from that subject. That would have been the prudent thing to do. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 23:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C Alright, so rules about focusing on content rather than other editors and rules about calling other editors biased are not enforced. Editors are allowed to insult and gang up on others? Wikipedia is a joke. I won't be back. Bacondrum (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. But someone is allowed to say that one's argument is driven by emotion rather than logic. That is not a personal attack, or even much of a personal comment (because personality isn't being addressed — rather, the soundness of an argument is). El_C 00:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

For example: your argument suffers from bias — not a personal attack. You are a biased person — personal attack. El_C 00:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban from Milo Yiannopoulos

Hi. Because of this comment (brought to my attention on my talk page here), you are now topic banned from Milo Yiannopoulos, broadly construed, for six months. If you wish to appeal this restriction, please review the relevant procedure at WP:AE. Thank you in advance for your close attention. El_C 21:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging?

I thought only `{{ping|...` actually pinged the users. In the Talk page I used `{{u|...`. Does that also ping them? —Srid^YO 22:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep, they both do the same thing. Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess I have to stick to `[[User:...`. —Srid^YO 01:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to link to users unless you intend to ping them. Bacondrum (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Indentation changes

Why are you making these indentation changes to my comment? I put them at the same level as yours for reason--as my comment was not specifically a response to yours. —Srid^YO 01:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Legibility. Bacondrum (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Removing text from article without stating why in diff message

Be careful of removing nearby text (by accident or not) from an article when making an edit to something else. I had to revert your (possibly accidental) removal here.[1]. —Srid^🍁 21:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Be careful using tendentious claims and phrases. We are not here to make the left or the right look as unreasonable as possible or bang on endlessly about women and feminists. Bacondrum (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I was not (otherwise, I'd fix it myself). It is direct quote from the source. Discuss it in the talk page. —Srid^🍁 21:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You added the tendentious language, you need to justify it. You need to take it to talk. Bacondrum (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

You currently appear to be 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. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You are right, sorry...I'll stop immediately and take it to talk. Bacondrum (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Feminazi

You are advised to take a break from substantially editing Feminazi while the DRN process is in effect. —Srid^🍁 23:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

By you?!? Hahahaha! Bacondrum (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Dispute resolution initiation. 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. The thread is "Feminazi".The discussion is about the topic Feminazi. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Srid^🍁 02:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your kind words. I guess I have to act respectable now ;-) —Sangdeboeuf (talk)

Haha, don't be too respectable! You're welcome. Bacondrum (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Feminazi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

DS Reminder - Gender Related Topics

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

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

This is listed on the article talk page of Feminazi, but I want to ensure you get a direct notice to ensure it's seen. Please let me know if you have any questions. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for edit warring, again. Bacondrum (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos topic ban violation — only warning

El_C 00:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines -- other editors' comments

Hello, Bacondrum. About this and this: I would request that you not remove other editors' comments from article talk pages. It's a violation of talk page guidelines to do so. It's true that sometimes other editors might not be as civil, and focused on content, as they should be. But removing their posts is not a good approach. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Mudwater Uncivil comments like that are to be removed. They are a violation of policy. Read up WP:PERSONALATTACKS If the editor wants to readd comment without snide remarks or personal insult they are free to do so. Bacondrum (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I can see why you didn't like the other editor's comments that you removed. They could have been phrased more respectfully. But they were not personal attacks, as described in WP:PERSONALATTACKS. I would therefore ask that in the future you not remove those types of comments. — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

On Talk:Bruce Pascoe

Likewise, on Talk:Bruce Pascoe. I do not approve of some of the language either, but, per WP:TPO, I do not think it appropriate to edit the posts. If you honestly believe that some of their material is sufficiently WP:NPA to warrant deleting (and I personally do not think it is) then replace it with something explicitly indicating that it has been edited. E.g. "Lorem ipsum [personal attack redacted by Mitch Ames (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)] anim id est laborum."

Relevant links:

Bacondrum editing other people's posts: [2][3][4]
Reversion by HiLo48: [5]
Reversion by me: [6]

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging HiLo48, who was mentioned but not linked above. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Mitch Ames Removing uncivil content is a must, swearing and calling other editors a "bunch of leftists" is a clear, serious blatant violation of WP:CIVILITY and is a WP:PERSONALATTACK and must be removed immediately, I'm going to remove the offending statments as per guidlines, I will use (Personal attack removed) as you recommend. If the offending content is again reinstated I will take it to ANI and the users will most likely receive a block. Bacondrum (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not looked at everything, but certainly some of what you have removed are not a personal attacks, as user:Mitch Ames has already pointed out to you. User:El_C has also made a similar the point to you about what is and is not a personal attack. Have you asked the other editor to address what you consider the uncivil comments? Per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL "It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment." If you continue to remove comments that are not personal attacks you may end up in trouble yourself. Your claim that "removing ~~incivility~~ uncivil comments is a must" is wrong, as is your claim that swearing is a personal attack. Meters (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Meters"You're the one linking the debate about his heritage to the credibility of the book, not me." The fucking article YOU told us to read did the fucking linking! Not"....You think that is civil? I certainly don't, nor is calling other editors a bunch of leftists Shall we take the editors to ANI? Or shall we just redact the personal attacks? Redaction would be my preference. Bacondrum (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Where did I say it was civil? What I said was that some of the things you are removing are not personal attacks,, and that you are wrong when you say that removing uncivil comments is a must. Meters (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

At least three editors have made comments to you that you are incorrectly labeling uncivil comments as personal attacks. You might want to listen. Meters (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay revert to the "fuck" this and "fuck" that version with the "bunch of leftists", and I'll report those editors. I thought civility mattered, but apparently not. Bacondrum (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's time I said my piece here. (Thank you for the ping Mitch Ames.) Yes, I swore. It was for effect, because the IP editor I was addressing has become the rudest, most irritating, most repetitive, most unthankful, most incompetent, most illogical and most insulting person in that discussion, and I genuinely was trying to get some attention on his behaviour. When he first appeared, I actually gave him a formal welcome on his Talk page. I also gave him a more personal welcome, explaining how indenting works and how important it was for him to do better on that front. I explained how important it was for him to register, and suggest he broaden his wings by working on some other articles. This all done in good faith on my part. All I got in return was insults. He now sometimes seems to try to indent, but almost invariably gets it wrong. He comments in the wrong place. He routinely insults other editors, including me, despite the help I gave him at the beginnings of that discussion. Nothing is being down about this editor's behaviour. I know some people don't like swearing, but don't kid yourselves that view is universal. I was once in job where colleagues asked why I didn't swear as much as everybody else in that workplace. As for my comment being a personal attack, that's male cow manure. Bacondrum removed it, with an aggressive threat. I have restored it, but removed the naughty words, and a little bit of emphasis by punctuation. No other words have been changed. What I have written there is truthful and honest, and a logical continuation of the conversation. I challenge anyone to look at that sentence now and declare that it is a personal attack. If someone can, I will edit the sentence some more. But Bacondrum, don't pretend you care about civility. That IP editor shows none! HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

And this is why I removed the comments, the discussion is being sidetracked by uncivil behavior. Bacondrum (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I repeat, I have removed the naughty words, and nothing more, which is what you could have done, rather than much more dramatically changing my wording and stuffing up the flow of conversation. You also did nothing about the appallingly overwhelming, overall uncivil behaviour of that IP editor. I challenge anyone to look at my sentence now and declare that it is a personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: while I agree that civility is important, we do need to clearly distinguish between incivility and personal attacks. WP:TPO allows removal of personal attacks, but it "generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil". It also states that "you should stop if there is any objection". Given the objections listed above, it would probably be prudent not to make any further edits to others' comments. A discussion on the editors' talk pages might be more productive. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Not when the actual problem is the behaviour of that IP editor. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: Hey, yes I see your point and won't remove uncivil comments unilaterally in the future. I have tried both users talk page, but it's beenn to no avail, as you can see from mthe above comment. I'm just going to leave it as HiLo has voluntarily redacted the "fuck" this and "fuck" that parts. I hope you can see my intent was good, the two of them have been disruptive with this overly heated exchange. HiLo is generally a very agreeeable editor, so I tend to agree that the IP editor is most likely the issue here - though HiLo could temper their responses. Bacondrum (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You really do seem overly sensitive to the use of a couple of naughty words said in response to t=some of the worst behaviour I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time. Your comments suggest that you regard naughty words as worse than everything our IP editor has done. That won't help build a better encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Come on, you're usually much more reasonable than this. I agree with everything you've said on the talk page, I just want to take the heat out of the discussion. As for swearing? I love swearing, in the real world I'd win the swearing Olympics, I truly love swearing - I punctuate every sentence with swearing. But it's not appropriate in this context and your only adding to the disruption of civil debate by swearing at the IP, yes they are disruptive and as I've said, I've always found you to be an agreeable editor, but we are meant to discuss the content not each other. I've no issue with you at all, the IP's behavior is egregious, but we can hardly tell them off for being uncivil and just let "fuck" this and "fuck" that pass can we? I was going to report the IP but I didn't out of not wanting to put you in it too, because an admin looking at that dispute would probably sanction you over the swearing. We've always gotten along, no need to turn on each other over a lunatic fringe IP whom consensus is firmly against anyway. Bacondrum (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please don't elevate your opinions to the top of an RfC, out of time order

It is inappropriate to insert a "Note" with your opinion at the top of an RFC when other people have previously given their opinions above where you would like yours to be. I have moved your comment on Talk:Murder of Laquan McDonald down to where it would appear naturally. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

DIYeditor They're relevant guidelines, not my opinion. Other editors should be informed of relevant guidelines. Bacondrum (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

No it is totally out of line to think your opinion is so important you need to plaster it ahead of everyone in the RFC. Most people replying to RFCs reference guidelines, policies, precedents. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wont do it again. Bacondrum (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Aggressive edit summaries at Bruce Pascoe

I appreciate your edits but not your edit summaries here and here. The infobox should only reflect what's in the article and it wasn't there at the time, so I cleaned it up. I was in the middle of several other re-organizing edits to improve the article and had not gotten around to checking those individual awards yet.

There's really no need for aggressive wording like don't butcher it because you can't be bothered checking. Thanks for your edits and have a nice day. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the harsh words, but this page has been subject to a lot of tendentious edits, and you did cut easily verifiable facts that other editors had taken the time to add in good faith. Nothing personal, sorry again for the harsh tone. Bacondrum (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No Safe Spaces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My thinking

Bacondrum, I know we haven't agreed on much but I thought I would try to explain my thinking on topics like Quillette via an example. Take a topic like the NRA. That article is a mess in part because many editors want to pile on controversy after controversy. Well to some extent that makes sense. Most discussion relating to the NRA in the press is talking about the NRA obstructing some "common sense" gun law or opposing some politician they don't like or how much influence they have on elections etc. The current NRA article totally fails to help a reader understand why the NRA does these things. It's easy to assume the NRA opposes say an assault weapons ban because "the gun lobby paid them off". Logically it makes sense: new law -> fall in gun sales -> gun makers give less money to NRA -> NRA opposes law. But what about other laws (expanded background checks, red flag laws, gun registries, etc). The article doesn't say a thing about why the NRA would oppose those laws. Given the large amounts of money and political capital spent by the NRA one has to assume there is some logic behind what they do even if we don't agree with it. The readers of the NRA article are better served if they come away understanding why the NRA opposes things, not just that they do. Going back to the Quillette article, I think what is most important is that the controversies come from the publication's willingness to allow people to publish, within reason, unpopular ideas. Once we understand that, its easier to see some of the results. Since the editors aren't experts in every field, sometimes they will let a really controversial idea through, sometimes others will want to target them for wrong speak (the DDoS attack after the Google memo, the hoax that targeted the publication). Anyway, I didn't mean this to be so long so I'll wrap up. What I would hate to see (anywhere on Wikipedia) is an article that is a laundry list of sins as if we editors just want to say how bad someone or something is. What I would much rather see is an article that explains the warts but focuses on how/why the warts got there. I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from... in 2000 words or less :D Springee (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee Hey mate, thanks for the detailed explanation of your reasoning. And thanks for keeping civil despite seriouslydiffering opinions. I agree with most of what you're saying, and I agree tendentious editing on many contemporary "culture war" articles leaves many looking like a dogs breakfast (one of my pet hates also). I don't want this article to be a list of sins, but it can't obfuscate the fact that this outlet has a shocking reputation among many readers and professionals in the field. We have very different views of Quillette. For me the publication does not allow people to "publish, within reason, unpopular ideas" - it publishes yellow journalism, from a intensely partisan perspective. The only reason I've heard of it is quite frankly the poor quality of the journalism it puts out, the fact that it's published an inordinate amount of falsehoods and pseudoscience for such a recent publication - I don't expect the article to reflect my personal view of it, but the way I read the sources there are many commentators and critics who see it as a disreputable and unreliable outlet, even Wikipedia lists it as unreliable. Several members of my immediate family are journalists, I've worked for newspapers myself for many years, I can tell you that it's not normal for a reputable masthead to publish falsehoods and pseudoscience, editors take this stuff very, very seriously, their careers depend on it. Publishing falsehoods and pseudoscience is not "wrong speak" it's reputation destroying incompetence, at best. As far as I'm concerned leaving out the falsehoods and pseudoscience would be obfuscation of the highest order. I obviously see it very differently to you, but I respect your views and your efforts to improve the page, it's clear you are aware of your bias and try to mitigate it, as do I. Hopefully we can strike a balance. Bacondrum (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I know we have been arguing like cats and dogs. I didn't come here for that. I wanted to offer what I hope are a few helpful suggestions that are just Wikipedia things I've picked up over the years. The first, is to try to avoid using the same headings/subheadings on a talk page. This happens a lot on things like noticeboards where people have RfCs. It's very comment to have a Survey and Discussion section. The Wiki hot links aren't very smart so if there is more than one Survey section it always goes to the first. That's why I changed the name of your RfC. I won't take any offense if you want to change the name to something else. The other thing is when starting a RfC we can't just ask for "outside" editors. All editors are welcome to comment. There is actually some merit to getting a few involved editors to comment first as well. As involved editors you and I both have opinions and reasons why we support our positions. It helps new people to the discussion to see both of those positions up front as a primer for things they might overlook. It means we get better feed back. To that end, when formulating a RfC, it's typically a good idea to have your !vote and rational ready since you want to set the state for the rest of the discussion. The RfC question needs to be neutral and, depending on the case, closed ended. However, we will ultimately get a better answer if "the locals" also weigh in. Also, if all the locals didn't weigh in and only say 6-7 editors offered opinions, well it wouldn't be clear if a new consensus actually was established. I hope you don't mind this feedback. Springee (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thankks for the feedback. And yes we have been arguing like cats and dogs, but I feel like we've been generally respectful despite our frustrations, so thanks for keeping it civil despite serious disagreements. Sorry for reverting your comment, you have every right to have your say, obviously. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, that's a fine statement there. Our best articles have always been forged through respectful disagreement, IMO. I am beginning to think that this article would be improved by removal of a couple of gadflies and letting you guys get on with it. Guy (help!) 09:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Warrowen

I'm a bit concerned that you're going to get the article kept with the arguments you're pushing on that page. Wikipedia has articles on tons of events with verifiability questions, even ones based on scant primary sourcing. The difference between Warrowen and the articles we have is that it has no real coverage in secondary sources because basically no one takes it seriously apart from the white nationalist weirdo who wrote the Wikipedia article in the first place.

Continually pushing the line of "but the original source is questionable!" makes people who don't know any better mentally put the article in the same categories as the ones we already have (that actually have secondary source coverage) and pushes them towards keep !votes and "document the debate" answers. It's already happened a couple of times on that AfD and I'm concerned there's going to be enough of them to stop it getting deleted. It's only when you point out the utter lack of non-passing secondary source coverage and that there isn't even the sources to "debate" it that people go "actually, hang on, this is not a legitimate historical controversy, this is actually just rubbish". The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Totally, I'm bad at arguing my case. Ill leave the arguing to you..."white nationalist weirdo" too funny 😄 Bacondrum (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink

Hello, M2sh22pp1l. You have new messages at Talk:Social justice warrior.
Message added 00:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of George Floyd

Bacondrum, please WP:ARCHIVE the More respectful image? section of the page if you wish to. Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

1RR Violation

You just violated 1RR at Boogaloo movement by removing "Participants generally identify as libertarian" twice. I suggest that you self revert or you may be sanctioned. - MrX 🖋 02:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, no worries. Bacondrum (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did you delete my post?

Why did you delete my post on the talk page of Far-right politics? I simply wanted to know where the source came from. I don't want to hear that it's "common knowledge" or anything. I want clear, incontrovertible proof. Pacingpal (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Pacingpal Hey mate, sorry but Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing fringe views. If there is an issue with a specific claim and citation then please raise it. But, be specific or you'll most likely be ignored or your question deleted for being about something other than improving the article - as I just did. Sorry again if I've been a bit curt, we get a lot of bad actors asking tendentious questions about Nazi's not being far right. Communism and fascism are diametrically opposed ideologies, hence far-right and far-left, I'm not willing to get into it any further without a specific issue related to sourcing being raised. Bacondrum (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I understand. I never intended to start a debate. I just wanted to learn so that I understand it better. Thank you.Pacingpal (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Pacingpal Sorry, if I came off a bit harsh. Have a read of https://libcom.org/library/anatomy-fascism Hannah Arendt's Banality of Evil is a classic study of fascism. Also, here's a list of five books about the far right recommended by one of the worlds experts on the subject. https://fivebooks.com/best-books/far-right-cas-mudde/ Bacondrum (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you! Pacingpal (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Far-right politics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Rally (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Communism listed at Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism

I would like to read your thoughts about having Category:Communism listed at Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism. I believe we should only list categories such as Category:Leninism, Category:Maoism, Category:Marxism–Leninism and/or Category:Stalinism because those are more appropriate and have actually been described as authoritarian or totalitarian. Apart from right-wing anti-Communists, academics and scholars do not see communism as authoritarian or totalitarian and they clearly distinguish between the general and broad communism as well as libertarian strands from the authoritarian strands such as Marxism–Leninism.

As I wrote here, I think it is very simple. Communism has a libertarian strand, fascism does not; therefore, we should only list the authoritarian strands (Stalinism et al), not communism which is often conflated with Marxism–Leninism, the official state ideology of Communist-party ruled states. Raymond Aron's five main signs of totalitarianism may fit Marxism–Leninism but not communism. Furthermore, the totalitarian concept has been criticised, especially by the so-called revisionist school. As for the 100 million claim, it was discussed at length here. In regard to this [revert], there was no consensus to have it in the first place and it has been disputed. This is also based on the misunderstanding that communism is authoritarian because it does not respect the sacré right to private property, yet capitalism does not respect the right to the commons which were forcefully transferred into private hands (see the Enclosure). A disagreement about property rights does not imply authoritarianism. Private property is authoritarian for all the workers and people who do not own any of property, whether capital or land; indeed, giving the means of production back to the workers who use them would be a libertarian, not authoritarian, act; it would be authoritarian only for the capitalists who would simply lose their privilege status of owner of capital and be reduced to *gasp* the role of producer and workers like everyone else. In other words, authoritarianism is relative and there is nothing inherently authoritarian about communism unless one assume private property über alles. Do not even get me started on how misunderstood communism is about property, with communists from Marx to Kropotkin, from Engels to Malatesta all supporting personal property and even private property in the case of self-employment and small property holdings (that is their point; private property should be reduced to small property holdings). I always loved the quote from The Communist Manifesto about how [t]he distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. [...] You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. But I am really digressing.

If communism is put there, then why not socialism? After all, so-called Communists states actually called themselves socialist states and still described themselves as socialists, indeed the only true socialists. I think this goes to show the bias against communism, which is conflated as a whole with Marxism–Leninism; and is considered the black sheep compared to socialism, which is considered a more respectful position. As for the claim that [t]he category of Communism defines what is it for, and totalitarianism is part of it, I say [t]otalitarianism would still be part of the category of communism by virtue of Marxism–Leninism et al being themselves part of the same category. By the way, should we add capitalism and liberalism too because fascist regimes were capitalist and Pinochet was an economic liberal? By your reasoning, we should add them too.

I do not see why, if communism is added, we should not also add capitalism and liberalism. I oppose adding capitalism, communism and liberalism because authoritarianism and totalitarianism are not their characterisation according to sources; on the other hand and unlike communism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism are a core concept of fascism, including Nazism; and we should only include communist strands that have been described as authoritarian or totalitarian by reliable sources and scholars. I think that is fair. Scholars do actually distinguish between communism and for example Soviet communism; I do not see why we should not do the same. Considering how we started out like this and this, I am glad we discussed more and found many of your comments insightful and helpful, so I would like to hear your thoughts about this. Thank you.

Davide King (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey Davide, sure, thanks for asking. I definitely disagree with communism in and of itself being listed at authoritarianism and totalitarianism. And while I agree authoritarianism and totalitarianism do apply to some forms, it by no means applies to all, not even all forms of Leninism-Marxism. The dictatorship of the proletariat in it's historic context can be seen as a call to mass democracy, Marx certainly did not mean it in a literal sense of dictatorial rule.

As for this 100 million claim, communist regimes in China, Russia, Cambodia etc have been among the most murderous in history, no doubt, but I have a bookshelf full of books on the subject and I've never seen that number bandied about. At best it is a fringe claim. The fact is, as you point out, capitalism, communism etc have plenty of blood in their respective history's, but the ideologies in and of themselves are not based on authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Fascism is probably the only major ideology that advocates authoritarianism or totalitarianism explicitly.

I agree 100% with regards to private property, nothing authoritarian about having to sharing the earth and its resources, quite the opposite. I'm a huge fan of both Kropotkin and Malatesta, by the way. Bacondrum (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Communism listed at Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism

I would like to read your thoughts about having Category:Communism listed at Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism. I believe we should only list categories such as Category:Leninism, Category:Maoism, Category:Marxism–Leninism and/or Category:Stalinism because those are more appropriate and have actually been described as authoritarian or totalitarian. Apart from right-wing anti-Communists, academics and scholars do not see communism as authoritarian or totalitarian and they clearly distinguish between the general and broad communism as well as libertarian strands from the authoritarian strands such as Marxism–Leninism.

As I wrote here, I think it is very simple. Communism has a libertarian strand, fascism does not; therefore, we should only list the authoritarian strands (Stalinism et al), not communism which is often conflated with Marxism–Leninism, the official state ideology of Communist-party ruled states. Raymond Aron's five main signs of totalitarianism may fit Marxism–Leninism but not communism. Furthermore, the totalitarian concept has been criticised, especially by the so-called revisionist school. As for the 100 million claim, it was discussed at length here. In regard to this [revert], there was no consensus to have it in the first place and it has been disputed. This is also based on the misunderstanding that communism is authoritarian because it does not respect the sacré right to private property, yet capitalism does not respect the right to the commons which were forcefully transferred into private hands (see the Enclosure). A disagreement about property rights does not imply authoritarianism. Private property is authoritarian for all the workers and people who do not own any of property, whether capital or land; indeed, giving the means of production back to the workers who use them would be a libertarian, not authoritarian, act; it would be authoritarian only for the capitalists who would simply lose their privilege status of owner of capital and be reduced to *gasp* the role of producer and workers like everyone else. In other words, authoritarianism is relative and there is nothing inherently authoritarian about communism unless one assume private property über alles. Do not even get me started on how misunderstood communism is about property, with communists from Marx to Kropotkin, from Engels to Malatesta all supporting personal property and even private property in the case of self-employment and small property holdings (that is their point; private property should be reduced to small property holdings). I always loved the quote from The Communist Manifesto about how [t]he distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. [...] You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. But I am really digressing.

If communism is put there, then why not socialism? After all, so-called Communists states actually called themselves socialist states and still described themselves as socialists, indeed the only true socialists. I think this goes to show the bias against communism, which is conflated as a whole with Marxism–Leninism; and is considered the black sheep compared to socialism, which is considered a more respectful position. As for the claim that [t]he category of Communism defines what is it for, and totalitarianism is part of it, I say [t]otalitarianism would still be part of the category of communism by virtue of Marxism–Leninism et al being themselves part of the same category. By the way, should we add capitalism and liberalism too because fascist regimes were capitalist and Pinochet was an economic liberal? By your reasoning, we should add them too.

I do not see why, if communism is added, we should not also add capitalism and liberalism. I oppose adding capitalism, communism and liberalism because authoritarianism and totalitarianism are not their characterisation according to sources; on the other hand and unlike communism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism are a core concept of fascism, including Nazism; and we should only include communist strands that have been described as authoritarian or totalitarian by reliable sources and scholars. I think that is fair. Scholars do actually distinguish between communism and for example Soviet communism; I do not see why we should not do the same. Considering how we started out like this and this, I am glad we discussed more and found many of your comments insightful and helpful, so I would like to hear your thoughts about this. Thank you.

Davide King (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey Davide, sure, thanks for asking. I definitely disagree with communism in and of itself being listed at authoritarianism and totalitarianism. And while I agree authoritarianism and totalitarianism do apply to some forms, it by no means applies to all, not even all forms of Leninism-Marxism. The dictatorship of the proletariat in it's historic context can be seen as a call to mass democracy, Marx certainly did not mean it in a literal sense of dictatorial rule.

As for this 100 million claim, communist regimes in China, Russia, Cambodia etc have been among the most murderous in history, no doubt, but I have a bookshelf full of books on the subject and I've never seen that number bandied about. At best it is a fringe claim. The fact is, as you point out, capitalism, communism etc have plenty of blood in their respective history's, but the ideologies in and of themselves are not based on authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Fascism is probably the only major ideology that advocates authoritarianism or totalitarianism explicitly.

I agree 100% with regards to private property, nothing authoritarian about sharing the earth and its resources, quite the opposite. I'm a huge fan of both Kropotkin and Malatesta, by the way. Bacondrum (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King You know, it's a hard one...when I think about it, I can't actually think of a single Leninist-Marxist government that wasn't/isn't an authoritarian dictatorship, I can't even think of any communist governments that weren't authoritarian dictatorships...can you? Even ones I can see a lot of good in, like Vietnam and Cuba, are in-fact one party authoritarian dictatorships - and I've met many leftists in both those country's who despise the government for it. I have to say on reflection that Marxism-Leninism is definitely an authoritarian ideology, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I am glad to hear you agree; I also absolutely agree about your point that [t]he dictatorship of the proletariat in it's historic context can be seen as a call to mass democracy, Marx certainly did not mean it in a literal sense of dictatorial rule. The point is that the working class as a whole is having actual power, not a party that claims to represent them which is actually so bourgeois! I do not know whether modern Marxist–Leninists parties do still call for a one-party state (I assume some do and some do not anymore), but as you yourself noted I can't actually think of a single Leninist-Marxist government that wasn't/isn't an authoritarian dictatorship, I can't even think of any communist governments that weren't authoritarian dictatorships and that is why I reached your same conclusion that is probably fair to have it listed, but not communism. At Talk:Totalitarianism, Rjensen did say for example Soviet communism (not just communism) and scholars do actually distinguish between communism and Soviet communism, i.e. Marxism–Leninism, something that KIENGIR missed and claimed that it applies to communism as a whole.

That is why I tried to rename articles such as Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes to Crimes against humanity under Marxist–Leninist regimes and Mass killings under Marxist–Leninist regimes because the official state ideology was Marxism–Leninism, they were part of the Communist International, or under the hegemony of the Soviet Union, etc. For example, Maoisim and Titoism are simply Chinese and Yugoslavian Marxism–Leninism; they all support core Marxist–Leninist tenets such as the one-communist party state, industrialization, state capitalist development, the necessity to develop the productive forces, etc. Or at least communist should be capitalised as Communism to distinguish from the general communism and make clear it is referring to a state governed by a communist party (I believe this also also why Nazi and Italian Fascist are capitalised; and indeed, many do capitalise it for this exact reason.

Both Marxist–Leninist regimes and Marxist–Leninist states are not made up terms; they are actually used. Communist may be more widespread (then again, if Communism was the actual common name for Marxism–Leninism, then that would mean communism should be only about Marxism–Leninism, but scholars do distinguish between the two; there is just this Cold War habit to call it Communism). I believe whatever it may be lost by notability, it would be recovered by neutrality and clarity by using Marxist–Leninist rather than Communism; and that is notwithstanding the critique of Marxism–Leninism that it is neither Marxism nor even Leninism but a misnomer for Stalinism (in this sense, it is not much different from the German fascists calling themselves National Socialists). Unfortunately, this Communism = Marxism–Leninism pervades Wikipedia; you can see that by how History at Communism and History of communism are really about Communist states and Marxism–Leninism than communist history, with no mention of all criticism, dissent and opposition from the left and of all anti-authoritarian, democratic and libertarian strands such as anarcho-communism, council communism, left communism and libertarian Marxism, among others.--Davide King (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a hard call, I certainly don't want to obfuscate the crimes committed by communist governments, which are among the most horrific in history, IMO. And I still personally think they are far-left and the left needs to own that, just like the right has to own fascism. I guess my objection to communism being labeled as authoritarian and totalitarian comes down to the fact that I don't believe communism is one ideology ie Marxism-Leninism, I don't see Trotskyism as authoritarian and totalitarian, and certainly not anarcho-communism or Left communism, though I would say the overwhelming majority of communist ideologies are single-party and totalitarian...I don't think Marx intended the ideology to be either authoritarian or totalitarian...as Kropotkin pointed out Marxism-Leninism was a lesson in how not not to introduce communism. I agree, if we apply the reasoning that an ideology having been espoused by dictators makes the ideology itself authoritarian and totalitarian, then liberalism and capitalism are also authoritarian and totalitarian...I'm thinking of Latin American governments that terrorised the population with death squads (often trained and backed by the USA) that protected corporate interests across Central America, Augusto Pinochet, etc. Certainly the horrors of colonialism could be characterised as capitalist crimes. American slavery and the continued mass persecution of African Americans is pure capitalism and one of history's great crimes. The way the USA treats the Americas, and parts of Asia and Africa are essentially neo-colonial capitalist mass impoverishment and exploitation...but that's another story. Having said all that, the more I think about it the more I go back to my initial thoughts, which is that communists governments have generally been mass murdering psychotic regimes comparable to that of the fascists in terms of cruelty, even if their ideologies are diametrically opposed. Also, that number of 100 million, if you tallied up all the deaths under all the Marxist-Leninist regimes in history, the death toll may well get up that high...though I've never seen that claim published anywhere. I think it would be fair to make a distinction between broader communist ideologies and Marxism-Leninism...the issue really comes down to what reliable sources say. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments, I really appreciate that! I do not think the left want to to obfuscate the crimes committed by communist governments and I believe the left has owned up to it; the problem is the right who still deny the crimes committed by fascists, make excuses like claiming they were left-wing or that state capitalism is socialism, or do not have the same standard of indicting capitalism for it (it was just an incident, but what the Communists did is what is always going to happen, no matter what); and uses those terrible crimes as proof that communism and socialism can never work, allowing for all left-wing criticism of the excesses of neoliberal capitalism to be silenced, for the alternatives will supposedly inevitably result in economic inefficiency and violent authoritarianism. Then they do not apply the same death toll to capitalism, which I find it ironic as those alleged 100 million should be under the capitalist death toll, for they were still capitalist regimes and another problem is that it is taken as fact that they were socialist or that the economy was socialist (when many on the left say they were state capitalists, or non-socialists, they do not say that because they committed crimes and do not want the left to be associated with it; they say that because they actually analysed the economy and came to that conclusion), when it is mainly Marxist–Leninists and anti-Communists that agree on that. As for the 100 millions, it comes from The Black Book of Communism (which actually do distinguish between communism and Marxist–Leninism), but there were many problems with the book and several of its authors distanced themselves from it for inflating the numbers to get to those 100 millions.

As was noted here by the term holodomor has been adopted by anti-Communists because of its similarity to the word Holocaust and to promote the narrative that the Communists killed 10 million Ukrainians while the Nazis only killed 6 million Jews. Notice that none of the sources Timothy cites use the term holodomor in their titles. All these writers are anti-Communists. Anti-Communism does not mean opposition to Communism, but opposition to an extreme degree. That doesn't mean that their books are unreliable but that they present one view of events. In other words:

The Communist death toll is often used to whitewash fascism by claiming it killed more than they did (unlike deaths under fascism where they were direct and they tried to hide the Holocaust when they were losing the war, deaths under Marxist–Leninist regimes were non-direct consequences such as famines. This does not excuse the fact that the government should have done more to prevent them and not mismanage them, but the consensus among historians is that they did not planned it or did it intentional like the Holocaust; and famines happened under capitalist regimes and I do not see the Bengal or Irish famines being used as an indictment to capitalism or that capitalism causes famines like is done for communism.
There is a problem that many sources we use are anti-Communist and that while, as noted by The Four Deuces, are reliable, they only represent one view of events and we should make clear that there are also legitimate revisionist or dissident views that are not anti-Communist, without one being an apologist; one can be an anti-anti-Communist, without being an apologist or excusing Stalinism or Stalinist crimes and that is what many on the anti-Stalinist left are. You can see this by how our article Anti-communism is mainly about Stalinism and Communist states rather than opposition to a classless, moneyless, stateless society based on common ownership; by this logic, many communists are anti-communists for rejecting Stalinism and Communist states.
As noted here by The Four Deuces, [i]t is not common knowledge that Communism was responsible for the deaths of 100 million people. The figure was picked by anti-Communists in the 1990s as part of an effort to defend fascism which was responsible for the deaths of only 50 million people. The moral was that anyone who supported the Allied cause was fighting on the wrong side. The only plausibly reliable source whether that estimate was used was the introduction to the Black Book, although the main contributor to the book said that the estimate was false and did not represent the estimates in the book. Respectable scholars provide a much lower estimate.
As noted by reliable sources, totalitarianism gained prominence in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era as a tool to convert pre-World War II anti-fascism into post-war anti-communism.

Another issue raised by The Four Deuces was whether the vast majority of deaths, which were caused by famine mostly in China, can be described as mass killings. We don't for example refer to the Irish famine of 1848 as a mass killing, although British policies were responsible for the deaths of 1 million people. The vast majority of the deaths were recorded in three countries under three rulers: Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. While scholarship has linked mass killings in these regimes to a shared Stalinist ideology, they have not developed a general theory linking Communism to mass killings. There were for example no mass killings under Gorbachev's leadership.

I also agree with the rest of your comment and there this double standard of not applying the same standard to capitalism which include colonialism and imperialism. The right uses the left's argument for equal standard for both capitalist and Marxist–Leninist regimes to accuse it of whataboutism, but that is actually one example of whataboutism not being a logic fallacy because the left is not denying or deflecting Marxist–Leninist crimes, it is merely asking for there not be a double standard (see Whataboutism#Criticism). Finally, this double standard, as noted in my previous comment, is used to deflect any discussion about whether property rights should be common rather than private (and even under common property rights, there would still be private or individual property such as personal property, self-employment and small property holdings), so that common property rights will always result in Stalinism. It is nonsense but it is taken as fact. The Tragedy of the commons is used as propaganda for private ownership and the capitalist status quo; incidentally, while [t]he theory originated in an essay written in 1833 by the British economist William Forster Lloyd, it became widely known as the "tragedy of the commons" over a century later due to an article written by American biologist and philosopher Garrett Hardin, an eugenist and white nationalist. Why I am not surprised at all to find this out?

Anyway, sorry for digressing, but I was really enjoying our discussion and I hope it was helpful and interesting. You can try to revert Totalitarianism to this version, but I bet KIENGIR is going to revert and continue their misunderstanding of the talk page to argue there is consensus to include communism when there is not and that both Rjensen and the author he quoted spoke of Soviet communism, not communism. Incidentally, KIENGIR also removed the fascism template and the Nazism category. Whether that was intentional or not, I wonder why.--Davide King (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to add that the left already criticised the Soviet Union as state capitalism in 1918, so state capitalism is not a post ipso facto used by the left as an excuse; and it was not just anarchists, which is to be expected due to their criticism of taking state power; it also included many Marxists and other communists and socialists, so there was not agreement even among Marxists about whether the Soviet development and path was correct or the right one, which just makes it all the more absurd to conflate communism or Marxism as authoritarian and/or totalitarian.--Davide King (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I just opened this discussion at Talk:Authoritarianism and you are also free to state your thoughts at Talk:Totalitarianism. Any comment, suggestion or references by you would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!--Davide King (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide, I really appreciate your efforts and views, but I respectfully disagree completely with your view of Soviet history. Respectfully, I find what you said about the Holodomor highly offensive, it's no different to Holocaust denial. It was a deliberate act of genocide, and denial of this fact is no less fringe or offensive than Holocaust denial. The name was not chosen for cynical reasons by "anti-communists", it was chosen by survivors in exile because it literally translates from Ukrainian and means "death by famine", which is exactly what it was, execution by mass starvation of a population resisting colonialism by Russians. Please treat the crimes of the Soviet Union (Russian Imperium) as seriously as they should be treated. I also find phrasing like this "private property über alles" offensive, you are trivializing the Holocaust - private property ownership and the Nazi national anthem have no relation. One shouldn't take such a casual attitude to such tragedies. I've nothing more to say on the subject. This has just become a forum and I find it lacking in a factual historic sense. Bacondrum (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Holodomor denialism is the denial that a famine happened in the first place, something that I never did imply. Unlike the Holocaust, which is settled, there is an actual debate about the Holodomor among scholars on whether it was a genocide. I even wrote the government should have done more to prevent them and not mismanage them and saying that the far-right has used Communist crimes (read my lips, Communist crimes) to actually trivalise the Holocaust is not denialism, so how did I trivalise the Holocaust? I wanted to write Private property above all and everything but I did not remember at first, so I used the more recognisable über alles (note that this was used before the Nazis and I do not know when or whether it was ever actually removed). So please, retract your false accuses. I oppose all forms of racism and discriminations and I do support the existence of the Israel state and the two-state solution. As for the claim that the name was used by anti-Communists, I was merely quoting The Four Deuces because I consider them to be a knowledgeable user. I am sure they can back up their claim with sources.--Davide King (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)