User talk:Zozs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I know that I've edited a lot of your work but this can be normal on controversial articles like 2014 Venezuelan protests. I experienced this when I started too but don't take this personally. It is good to have another editor on the article but if you could provide more sources that would be great. Good luck with future editing! --Zfigueroa (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly welcome, and of course, I take the work of both of us as legitimate and attempting to move to what we perceive to be a better version of the article in question. However, what I and others, as stated several times in the talk page, can see is a clear and strong bias in favor the opposition. I will stop temporarily simply reverting because such edit warring would be in the violation of the Wikipedia rules. Allow me to mention though, a few problems:
Why does it need a citation that government supporters support the government's economic policy which is the main thing in question? Would that not be obvious? Also, there is no source for "poverty beginning to rise", the article you cited is neither reliable nor has data that suggests that poverty is rising. And it is merely an opinion that "inflation is hurting the poor the most". If this was a common opinion then it would have to be displayed as something that is disputed ("allegedly"). Can you cite that the sustainability of Chavez's programs is "in question", and if so, state which groups are questioning it and why?
I welcome an attempt to work towards neutrality without allowing any personal political opinions to step in. Zozs (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no opinions from me. Just try not to make this personal. If you can provide facts that would be great. From the edits you have done I haven't seen any.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Shadowjams. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to 2014 Venezuelan protests, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


For the graph you wanted to take out, it shows the year before Chavez was in office (1998) to compare to the rest of his terms. You can already see how inflation was going down in either graph given. However, I specified more on his terms rather than those of previous presidents because the article is about the economy under Chavez's government.--Zfigueroa (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Ok, I have some work for you to do if you're up to it. I created the Colectivo (Venezuela) article and all of the sources I had are not NPOV. It is a pretty biased article and I'm somewhat embarrassed but the article was needed. If you can find reliable sources (not Venezuelanalysis, blogs, or opinion articles) and add more information about colectivos that would be great. The only reason I say not to use VA is because it will only make the neutrality of the article worse and hasn't settled well with users as a reliable source. Thanks for your contributions so far!--Zfigueroa (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


I see you edited the Venezuela protests article just now. Do you mind commenting on the talk page for my recent section? It's always better having a third opinion.  Mbinebri  talk ← 04:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not recommend canvassing on the 2014 Venezuelan protests article.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I doubt that user Mbinebri was canvassing, but rather notifying one of the few active editors of the article on a discussion which was going on. At most, it could be said that he was asking one of the very few people who is able to defend a neutral view on the subject. I see this accusation of canvassing as unfair. Additionally, user Mbinebri also asked you to participate in the discussion even though it seems that your opinion is opposite mine, basically there are three active editors on the article, me, him, and you, and he notified all of them who are not himself about a new discussion on the article. User Mbinebri clearly was only trying to promote discussion to reach a better article, not "canvassing". Zozs (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just making sure. I just learned about this not too long ago when I was accused of it while working on the info box. I also had it happen to me a few times too. I was just hoping we could be a little patient and wait for more users to assist us. That is why I made the neutrality section on the talk page. Sorry about all of this, I just want us to be on the same track no matter what opinions we have.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I just saw his reversion comment on my talk page as well.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Do you like them on the protest articles? I just want an opinion. Thanks for deleting the extras too, it was my first time making one of those.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, in fact I wonder if they can be used more? Zozs (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Just for the timeline. It's nice since there is so much information throughout the months plus the article should be a single place where people can find all information about the protests. It makes it easier instead of having to search for a timeline.--Zfigueroa (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Venezuelan coup[edit]

Hello there! I've noticed you reverted my recent edits to that article. I am currently working on it, and have about 15 pages of researched material I'll be adding, so I'd appreciate you refrain from reverting my edits until you see the whole picture. It takes considerable time for me to edit the article while I focus on other projects, and it's tremendously disheartening to come back and find all was deleted. I would like to note that I've been editing Wikipedia articles for over 2 years, with over 35000 edits, so please focus on disruptive editing instead of bothering serious contributors. Kind regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: My edits were obviously not biased (all of them substantiated), and the information I removed was unreferenced as well as non-neutral. I am working towards removing the non-neutral tag the article carries, just so you know. As for your comment that my edits were no improvement, I beg to differ, especially since they were just the beginning of major additions. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...[edit] you speak Spanish? I'm curious because in the protest violence sections you added to the Venezuela protest article, you used all Spanish-language sources. Personally, my French is much better than my Spanish, which makes searching for sources for the article tough. That said, awhile ago I came across an article saying protestors had attacked the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I can't re-find the source. If you can possibly find it, I think it would be good content for the article.  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I speak Spanish at a native level but can't find that. Sorry. Try using Google Translator, dictionaries, etc... Zozs (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


Don't be afraid to ask for my help with graphs. Anything you want me to make? The only thing I would need is a reliable source.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bolivarian propaganda deletion[edit]

I think we've come to a decision Zozs. It's been a week now.--Zfigueroa (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"We've come to a decision"? No. Article for deletion discussions are decided by quality of arguments, not by the amount of people on each side, according to official Wikipedia policy. Even by counting people it's 4 people arguing against the current version of the article (which includes Riothero) and 7 arguing for it, most of which saying stuff which doesn't really make sense. This is "consensus"? Not really. Zozs (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Zozs you're the only one who continuously pursues the deletion. This is all according to your personal opinion now and has nothing to do with Wikipedia's standards.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
First sentence: Perhaps true, though irrelevant. Second sentence: False. Your point? If you want to request to close to discussion you can do it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Zozs (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for cleaning up the redundancy and other stuff on the BP article. I'm still waiting to see what graphs you need help with by the way...--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I only wanted to know which software you're using. I don't actually need any graphs made. Zozs (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh ok. Numbers is what I use.--Zfigueroa (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

2002 Venezuela Coup attempt picture[edit]

Is the picture that we placed in the info box from 2002. If it were from the "Si" (Yes) marches, I figured we would see the Si signs and maybe more red? Plus the image is very similar to other images from the event. On the talk page of the article I placed links to other photos that should be in the article as well. Just wanted to know what you thought since there's only one or two pictures in the article.--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would the "sí" signs be "more red"? It is the pro-Chavez side that should be expected to be red, not the anti-Chavez side. The 2004 referendum asked: should Chavez be recalled as President? Those voting "sí" were anti-Chavez, while those voting "no" were pro-Chavez. It makes perfect sense that, in some cases, the "no" side would be red and the "sí" side would be blue (see the photos in the articles).--Riothero (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah I was confused. The only "Sí" signs I came across were like this, this and others. I guess those were from 2009 though. Thanks for the explanation!--Zfigueroa (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edit at Karl Marx[edit]

In your recent edit at this article you removed the word 'socialist' from this sentence "Revolutionary governments self-described as socialist and Marxist took power in a variety of countries in the 20th century, leading to the formation of such socialists states as the Soviet Union in 1922 and the People's Republic of China in 1949. I reverted your edit because reliable sources support the use of 'socialist' in describing the formation of these states.

Please consider the essay WP:BRD: Boldly make an edit, the edit is Revrted, Discuss the edit]]. This does not mean you should replace your challenged edit. Please self revert and join in a discussion on this article's talk page. You have removed the long standing use of 'socialist' in this sentence, without discussion or a citation supporting your change. Wikipedia is not a place for political discussion, this should really be a discussion of how reliable sources have described the founding of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. - Neonorange (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You do have a point to make which is worth making! Just learn the rules here and frame up a discusson. Wikidgood (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Karl Marx shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. RolandR (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Economic policy of the Nicolás Maduro government[edit]

Here is the article I was talking about. Go ahead and add more because it seems pretty bare.--Zfigueroa (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please remove sentence in blocked article[edit]

Greetings, (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

South Yemen[edit]

Hi Zozs. Noticed you have been dealing with User:Trust Is All You Need's semantics at Talk:Communism. Disappointed to see he's now resorting to personal attacks. Wondering if you could give me a hand dealing with him over at Talk:South Yemen? Keep up the good fight. GrahamNoyes (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't[edit]

Stuff like this [1] is against Wikipedia rules, specifically WP:CANVASS and WP:TAGTEAM. You get a pa pass because possibly, you were not aware of this. You can't ask somebody to revert for you, just because you yourself have budget up against the WP:3RR rule.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a violation of CANVASS because he already had just viewed the article and posted his own opinion regarding the subject, and TAGTEAM is just an essay rather than a guideline. Basically, I was just asking him to actually implement the change which he already had favored in the talk page. But anyway, this wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't for your shady edit warring and editing techniques. The modus operandi you have been using is in violation of multiple Wikipedia guidelines. Zozs (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, go ahead and keep on with it if that's what you want. Can't say you haven't been warned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Russian Constituent Assembly, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than engaging in WP:BRD, you are engaging in bold → revert → revert. Replacing unsourced content with your own unsourced content is tendentious editing practice. All I am asking of you is to take your claims to the relevant talk page and discuss it with other editors involved in the article, or that you provide reliable sources that back up your change. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest Metroscopia poll[edit]

I did remove it because it its clearly stated in the poll's graph that it is "Direct vote intention + Sympathy" (Intención de voto directa más simpatía). Furthermore, it goes on to clearly state (it even highlights it in bold) that "No se trata en todo caso de un voto estimado" (It is not, in any case, a vote estimation), and in José Pablo Ferrándiz (Metroscopia Vicepresident) Twitter's account he does says that "vote estimation will not be published".

See it here:

An specific table for IDV + Sympathy has been already created, so the poll belongs there (it is, thus, not excluded from the article), but not in the main polling table, as the data it shows is not comparable to the others as they are different things. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I update my comment to state that Metroscopia has just published a vote estimation based on this data. Here you have the link:
Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Podemos (Spanish political party), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PNV and El Mundo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Regarding this edit please check my talk page for a message Thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Podemos (Spanish political party), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lola Sánchez. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Actually I lied, it's for me. Aren't you jealous? MousEtopher (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I am interested in articles related to Leftism[edit]

Do you require help on such articles at the moment? I am new to Wikipedia, but I am eager to help out. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juan Carlos Monedero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Podemos. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Communism lede[edit]

Fellow Leftist! Let us reach consensus on said lede on the article's talk! :D --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, though my political views are not to be inferred from the fact that I edit the Communism article. I also edit the articles of some far-right parties (in the same manner); doesn't mean I sympathize with them. Zozs (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Dictatorship of the proletariat[edit]

Hi, I have reverted your recent edition in Dictatorship of the proletariat. While it's generally correct, you cannot place broad statements such as "the dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently democratic, and cannot take the form of single-party rule" in an article that speaks about both theory and practice of marxism. When you write "is democratic" it's a very definite statement which is obviously false because Soviet Union definitely wasn't democratic, yet it claimed to implement "dictatorship of the proletariat". While there's definitely place for different opinnions in the article I suggest that you precede such statements with "according to author X..." to make them compliant with WP:NPOV. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello again! You are removing half of the article, force significant changes in the key points... and complain about "removal of sourced informatiom"? Please stop forcing your changes until a consensus is reached - this is how it's done in Wikipedia.

You're kind to thank me for the edit I made to the article "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"--restructuring the last sentence of the last ¶ of the first section, just to make it easier for a reader to seize the writer's apparent meaning. (Most of my Wikipedia edits are at the proofreading level, just meant to fix faulty or awkward language.) But when I saw your note of thanks, wondered "What on earth did I do in that edit?" and went back to see that point in the article, surprise: The original awkward sentence was still there. Evidently someone disliked my edit and restored the version that I had found challengingly awkward. So it remains as-was. I'm loath to tamper with it again, since there seems to be some contentiousness over that entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcrunyon (talkcontribs) 01:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but I still tend to disagree. Bolsheviks, such as Lenin and Bucharin, thoroughly studied the concept of the dictatorship and were attemping to closely follow Marx's recipe when implementing it[2]. Their method of implementing it was revolutionary terror, and they used citations from Marx to justify it. Thus saying that "it was purely theoretical concept" is simply wrong. It could be, if no one ever tried to implement it. But bolsheviks did, and it was no longer theoretical. You might argue that they implemented it incorrectly, and that's part of the debate that is currently presented in the article. It was quite obvious for anyone living at that time, for example Bertrand Russell, when he wrote "The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism"[3], where he discussed the dictatorship of proletariat as well. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind you adding these sourced statements from The Human Rights Reader or other sources. Please add them to the article, instead of replacing large part of the article with your changes. Especially that the sources you use are rather new - 1978 and 2007 - and might be yet another reinterpretation of Marxism created after USSR. While being valid sources, they have no priority over interpretations created in early 20th century and cannot replace them. If someone now came to a conclusion that it would be maybe better if DOTP is democratic, it doesn't make the old interpretations favoring red terror disappear. They did happen and need to be mentioned. Both may co-exist in the same article.

And before using any analogies to religions as argument here, did you actually bother to check these articles? For example Catholic_Church#Social_and_cultural_issues or Islam#Criticism? There are tons of critical commentary on implementation of the religious doctrines in each of these articles. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jobbik, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Romani and Gypsy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles you have edited are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Please do not edit war in a number of pages covered by these sanctions, as you did, for example here: [4],[5], [6],[7] and so on [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) It is you who arbitrarily reverts edits, in a tag-teaming fashion along with other editors; e.g., someone contributes sourced content, a known edit stalker arbitrarily removes it with no reason and no discussion in talk page, first person adds it again, then someone else comes along and removes it again because of the simple reason "don't edit war" (when he's doing it only because it's HIS preferred version, engaging in edit warring himself) - this is completely unacceptable.
(2) I haven't violated the three revert rule. I have simply refused to let another editor and his tag team, who as proven by edit history constantly follow me across all articles and revert me when some sourced text does no favour to their political fanaticism, remove sourced content without any discussion on talk page. It is the behaviour of others here that is simply inexcusable.
(3) How is the article "Red Terror" under discretionary sanctions applying to certain articles on Eastern Europe? Which of these have I violated? Zozs (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
(1) Unsubstantiated accusations of tag-teaming may qualify as violations of WP:NPA and be a reason for sanctions. (2) No one said that you violated 3RR rule, but slow motion edit wars are still edit wars. You have been warned. (3) Article Red terror is about Russia, which is covered by ARBEE. Some edits in Communism-related pages can also be covered by ARBEE. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
(1) Clearly you have no defense. I didn't say it's tag teaming, I said it's behaviour similar to tag teaming. (3) Where is it specifically said that these sanctions cover the article "Red Terror"? Zozs (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Common sense. If an article was covered will be decided by admins on WP:AE if someone reports you. Not every article covered by discretionary sanctions has a banner notifying that it was covered. However, all subjects clearly related to Russia or other Eastern Europe countries are obviously covered. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
For example, this revert is covered by EE sanctions because the modified text tells about Soviet Union and East Germany. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't let them get you down, Zozs. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The abusive behaviour by other users definitely has to stop. Zozs (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from personal accusations per WP:NPA. This is bad faith assumption and unsupported accusations of WP:OR. You both? [9]. Sorry, but I have absolutely nothing to do with another user you are talking about. I do not know who he is. Maybe he was justly blocked, maybe not, I have no idea. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There was no personal attack from me. Please stick to replying to actual points instead of saying "that's an accusation!". Zozs (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
In the diff above you said: "All of you know my terminology makes sense and yours doesn't, which is why you won't "fix" my edit to use your terminology.". Not only this is untrue, but also contradicts this official guideline. As about replying to your points on article talk page, this has been now replied twice. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. Thank you. Pishcal 17:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)