User talk:Davide King

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Traditionalist conservatism in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Religious right (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

your userbox

it makes so much sense now why you constantly are on stalin pages after looking at your user. please take your leftcom hands away from the keyboard, step out of your armchair, and do things in real life please PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

PresidenteGonzalo, personal attacks aren't the way to go. Firstly, my userboxes haven't been updated in years now. Secondly, several of your edits have been reverted by other users too. Thirdly, just because you may personally think something as a fact, it doesn't justify you in changing that without providing any source; or worse yet, simply changing the phrase to fit your thoughts or opinion on the matter while keeping the source like you have done here isn't good. If you have problems, you need to take it to the talk page and get consensus there, not edit warring or attacking other users; you also need reliable sources.--Davide King (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

lmao what, thats probably the most justified edit I have ever made on this website, no matter what your opinion is of it, "stalinism" is not a non-marxist ideology, its inclusion among nationalism is completely unfounded. Stalin wrote the book on leninism and im not sure anyone disagrees that the soviet union was a socialist state PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This made it easier for the JCP to fall under nationalist and Stalinist influences in the 1920s is literally what the given source says, PresidenteGonzalo. Ironically, it's mostly capitalists and Marxist–Leninists that agree the Soviet Union and other states were socialist, albeit for vastly different reasons. As correctly stated and pointed out by The Four Deuces here, [t]he same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only Marxist-Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way and there's a debate about it, whether you agree with it or not. Just like there're reliable sources that describe Stalinism as a deviation of Marxism, etc. whilst right-wingers argue it was the natural evolution of Marxism in practice, etc.--Davide King (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh okay so thats how this is. you're a clown with no understanding of marxism (if you did then you'd of read "on authority" and would shut your fucking mouth) and you're now trying to exert authority over all marxist pages. I know exactly how this goes because its the same with all power users on this god forsaken website, the sources that support your position are "reliable sources" and the sources that support mine will be considered biased and unreliable and if I challenge you then you'll accuse me of edit-warring and use your likely multiple admin friends to beat me into a pulp for daring to do so.

you're not left wing, PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You made a strawman out of my commemt and bascally insulted me ingenerously. Where did I ever write that the sources that support your position are "reliable sources" and the sources that support mine will be considered biased and unreliable? I'm open minded and have no problem admitting in being wrong and changing my mind, etc. Maybe you should try doing the same. As I said, ever thought you may be the one who is biased or wrong about this? I always think about the possibility of being biased or wrong, hence why I remain open minded and willing to change my mind and apologise or recognise my mistake, etc. From your comments, it doesn't look to be the same for you. I could tell the same thing about you and write that you act like you're the God authority of Marxism. What did I say that was wrong? Isn't true that it's mainly anti-communists and Marxist–Leninists that the Soviet Union et all were socialist? The issue between Marxist–Leninists and other socialists is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way and I'm interested in this debate. When I defend real progress and good things in the Soviet Union, I may get called a Stalinist; when I give good faith criticism, I become a bourgeois, or a clown with no understanding of marxism in your case and opinion.

What does "On Authority" has to do with all this anyway? I've read it and agree with it. Where does it come from there that I have to support the claim the Soviet Union et all were socialist and all its left-wing criticism was just bourgeois, even when there're debates on whether the working class was in actual control?

As for this, you misunderstood it. Neither the text does say that Stalinism is non-Marxist, but it does mention Stalinism, which you removed without any explanation. Furthermore, it's simply not true that the mention of stalinism as non-marxist is incorrect according to every known dictionary definition of marxism, for many Marxists are critcial of Stalinism and Marxism–Leninism, whether you like it or not. You're clearly biased in favor of Marxism–Leninism or Maoism; and yet I'm the one who is? [T]he edit was only removed due to the editor's personal quarrel with myself is an outright lie (ever thought you're the one who may be actually biased in the opposite direction?). I simply reverted that because the sources does mention Stalinism and you misunderstood both the source and text to mean that Stalinism isn't Marxist; neither the text or source say that.--Davide King (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

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.

Template:Z33 — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hope you are safe

Hey Davide, I just realized I kinda know someone (you) in an area heavily affected by COVID-19 (as I hear all of Italy is quarantined now), and I just wanted to extend my well-wishes to you and hope that you are and remain safe from it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hope all is well and goes well for you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Minjung Party

I want to invite you to the discussion about Minjung Party. There has been a dispute about party's ideology and political spectrum. Can you join the talk and reveal your opinion of the issue? Jeff6045 (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

doi and isbn to cite book template

• Have you ever used Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books or DOI Wikipedia reference generator? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• I also suggest you read User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. The page has 11 Harv errors, plus various other types of errors of varying degrees of importance. But Harv errors are important. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• ... and maybe WP:CITEBOMB. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the US

I'm starting by just mentioning it briefly here without making the full argument. The usage of the Right-Libertarian term is in dispute and headed for an RFC. In the midst of that you make a major injection of the term into an additional article where it is even more out of place. When your addition was reverted (and the change certainly has no consensus) you edit warred to force it in. I'm not implying that you violated the bright-line 3RR rule. This certainly can't stand this way. You should self-revert. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, see this. It looks like you're never happy. In that case, I actually treated it exactly as a term! I even started it by writing Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism is a categorization used by some political analysts, academics and media sources in the United States to contrast related yet distinct approaches to libertarian philosophy because in that case is about terminology. You were also simply wrong in arguing that the terms are not used in the US; and you're wrong about the 3RR rule, for I did revert it twice and Pfhorrest was the one to revert it to my version. You're making this issue much bigger than it really is, if at all.--Davide King (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you (mis)read what I wrote including the only bolded word in the post? "I wrote "I'm not implying that you violated the bright-line 3RR rule" and you are writing as if I said the opposite. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't like how you wrote that I edit warred to force it in (and yes, it sounded like you implied I violated some rule) when Pfhorrest supported my additions and reverted it. Either way, your reasoning made no sense, for it's especially in the United States where the terminology is used and relevant. That discussion has been going on for almost a year now, there was no consensus for your proposals, or that it was such a big issue to require massive changes (I believe much of the issue itself has been addressed with better wording and other edits which gave more weight to the term and came closer to address your position) and I think it's about time it ends. Either way, I didn't see anything wrong with my edit (so unless you're implying Right-libertarianism should be deleted, I don't get where you're coming from) exactly because it treated them as terms (do you deny even the terms themselves now?) and I believe that section was even closer to you; and it shouldn't be reverted because it's not relevant to Right-libertarianism (again, unless you're implying it should be deleted or that the terms aren't real) as argued by Pfhorrest (the dispute elsewhere is not about whether left and right libertarianism are things at all) and it's actually used and very relevant to libertarianism in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Davide, I mentioned at the beginning that I was keeping it brief and do not want to replicate/ make the whole discussion here. My post was about process. You added it at this article while it being under dispute at another article. There's not only no consensus to re-add the insertion, there is not even any discussion. It is currently in the article because you and Pfhorrest just re-inserted the material 3 times in one day. The article currently in in the damaged state with the disputed addition because y'all hammered it back in three times in one day. From a process point, this is not right and can't stand. Can you self-revert? My next step would be to put all of this at the article and identify that it as temporarily being in the damaged/disputed state because of that aggressive re-insertion process for the disputed change. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I honestly find all this baffling and absurd, for I properly cited the whole section. I could understand if I just added it as an unreferenced section, but I actually did reference it. The whole dispute right now is literally whether the first two phrases at Right-libertarianism should be inverted. Now do you even dispute left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are real things, even just as terms?--Davide King (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

My comments here are limited to the Wikipedia process side. I don't think it would be good to start / duplicate the main discussion here. But one quick note....what you are describing as the argument/goal (phrases inverted) of one side isn't that, it is merely the significant pragmatic compromise offered to put this to bed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better to discuss it here, if we're going to repeat the same things and argument, going in circle on that talk page. If that's the case, then I agree with Aquillon's argument that if you concede the article should exist, most of your arguments fall apart and there isn't much to discuss at such lengths. That compromise simply isn't going to work, for the main body backed by sources describes a philosophy/theory/type and the term itself refers to that; and the term issue is addressed in the second sentence and it can't get more pertinent than that.--Davide King (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

For those who know me here, I'm really only vehement about the proper wiki-process side. And so for me the process issue brought up above is most urgent and important. I also have some mild concerns about some of your conversational wiki-tactics which is a bit of a process issue which stokes things a bit, but that is only that. What I care zero about here is real-world advocacy-type POV. Fortunately I don't think that the dispute here is fueled by any such issues. I think it's mostly a matter of everybody simply wanting to make the best possible coverage and there are disagreements on how to do that.North8000 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Where were you, then, when JLMadrigal literally did the same thing, edit-warred with your changes at Right-libertarianism? At least I sourced my own section; JLMadrigal didn't provide any source to support those changes; and in that case it was even worse since we were literally discussing that at length and did it multiple times (you actually did the same too); it was the main dispute.--Davide King (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. My so-called controversial “wiki-tactics” merely means following the guidelines (not making up processes as you did for months) and what reliable sources say about the topic. I certainly wasn't the one writing that another user should be “blocked”; arguing that only “libertarians” should discuss this; showing a lack of understanding about the topic and writing outright falsehood; etc.--Davide King (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

???? I never said anything like that about anybody. BTW, if you want an example, it's what you just did. Vaguely implying that those that disagree with you are violating guidelines. But again, for me the big current issue is just the process issue at libertarianism in the US. Could you self-revert on that? North8000 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't write you did any of that; it was JLMadrigal who did all that. I didn't imply that and I certainly didn't do that merely because you disagree with me, but rather because I believe your lead proposal doesn't satisfy the requisite as the main body is much more than just a term and so we should first establish what the main topic is. So the discussion is going nowhere as it doesn't change the main body which supports the current lead.--Davide King (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

My next step would be to get into this at the article. I thought this would be a nice way to skip that. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I did just that. Briefly, noting that the current temporary damaged state of the article is based on edit-warring in disputed and un-discussed material. This explains how the article got to its current temporary damaged state because I declined to pursue any further reversions of insertion of the disputed material. It is NOT saying that you violated the bright line 3RRR rule, and is not raising or pursuing any sanctions related to wiki-behavior. That is not my dance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

pls stop editing for a while

Pls stop editing for a while. I am trying to remove all the unused sources but am doing it programmatically. If you alter the line count of the sources, it all becomes wrong. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

pls fix the final seven (7) by hand. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)