User talk:Korrektor1917

Welcome!

Hi Korrektor1917! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! –Vipz (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar usernames

Hi Korrektor1917. Additions on the article National Bolshevism which you removed seem to have come from @Kalmus1917. Did you see these history logs before creating an account and intentionally choose a similar username (K<...>1917)? –Vipz (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Purely coincidental. Korrektor1917 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Guancha, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello — the reason is because I believe this is a purposely inflammatory accusation to make against the news agency when it is only coming from one source that does not adequately back up its accusation. It is equivalent to putting an unsubstantiated accusation of sexual assault at the top of a random celebrity’s wiki page, when the source of such an accusation is likely making this claim for politically motivated reasons. Therefore I do not believe this is an appropriate or accurate designation, but a politically charged and biased one. Korrektor1917 (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on American Communist Party. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Aoidh (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I believe Madamepestilence and others are barraging the ACP Wikipedia page with purposely misleading information that is based solely on ideological grievances. For instance, the ACP Website and its statements do not mention "MAGA Communism," nor does it define itself as "far-right." This page is subject to a vicious barrage of attacks that has included outright libel and sexually perverse statements. Users like Madamepestilence and others are not basing their edits on the Party's statements, but on their own speculation.

At most, the mention of two plenary member's affiliation with the slogan "MAGA Communism" should be sufficient. However, a section outlining "controversies" surrounding MAGA Communism, which cites hitjobs and does not use direct sources, is not relevant for this page. The repeated spamming of this "controversy" section by Madamepestilence and others is clearly not based on any research, but on their own dislike of formative members of this party. I am requesting that these users be permanently barred from making contributions to this page given the demonstrably ideological, rather than factual, edits to the page. Korrektor1917 (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Aleksandr Dugin, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please indicate what was unconstructive about my edits. Korrektor1917 (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, can I suggest you take a look at WP:BLP as well as WP:RS for how we write and reference articles on Wikipedia. We don't rely on what people say or write about themselves. It might help if you take a look at the talk page for the article.

If you want to change something in the lede I suggest you post a message on the talk page. Hope this helps, Knitsey (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is mentioned is the use of high-quality sources, which you are not using. I also find it very strange that you are removing my changes en masse, without any particular reason given for deleting any one of them. It seems like you are instead approaching this with an ideological bent. The description of Dugin as a Eurasianist, rather than a "far-right philosopher," is (1) accurate, from a scholarly point of view, and (2) uncontroversial. In the same manner that what people say about themselves cannot be used as a descriptor, it is relevant when they have directly contradicted the statements cited in other citations (which I should mention are not scholarly). Korrektor1917 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aleksandr Dugin. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Grayfell (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Grayfell (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on your Talk Page asking why it is that there is an uneven enforcement of editorial comments on the Dugin article. Strangely, this message is gone after I had refreshed the page to confirm it was posted. Perhaps here you can tell me why the confusing, contradictory article on Dugin, which incorrectly calls him a "far-right" thinker and a "fascist," is more accurate than one which correctly refers to Dugin as a Eurasianist and cites to Dugin himself on the allegations of "fascism." Korrektor1917 (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page would be the place to change the existing consensus. I have created a new section for you at Talk:Aleksandr Dugin#Whitewashing to remove "far-right", (and since I had to do that for you, I got to pick the name for that subsection). Since you have already been blocked for edit warring in the recent past, you already know the consequences of this kind of disruptive behavior. Since multiple editors have reverted you, my talk page (or any other user's talk page) would not be the appropriate place to try and explain the multiple problems with your approach. That is why the article's talk page should be used instead of edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous "edit war" was with people who included scatological and pornographic references on the now-defunct "American Communist Party" wikipedia page. The current "edit war" I have is with people, like you, who believe a political hit job is fitting for a biography of an important thinker. You are free to comment on the "Whitewashing to remove 'far-right'" section, but your intent was already clear when you referred to it as "Whitewashing" when all I have done is removed your Langley-ordered edits. Korrektor1917 (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, per the warning that has been posted multiple times on this page: Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. You already know this, or at least, you should by now. Grayfell (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not edit-warring for users to mass-delete sections of cited material without giving a proper justification why, but it is when users carefully add sections that improve the clarity and quality of a piece. Got it. Definitely has nothing to do with your political motivations!

By the way, weren't you just making the case that a WaPo opinion piece suffices as citation material for characterizing a prominent thinker's views? Korrektor1917 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Korrektor1917 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: ). Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that you should learn what a reliable source is. Tara Isabella Burton, a women's fiction author, is not a Dugin expert and should not be cited as a scholarly source when describing Dugin's views. I would highly suggest you employ this resource: https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Dummies-Martin/dp/111892472X. Thank you. Korrektor1917 (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Aleksandr Dugin. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]