User talk:Trust Is All You Need/Archive 12

"Candidate members"

Could you please explain to me where the practice of having "candidate" members originates from? Is it because during the Bolshevik revolution the members of these central bodies of the party had a chance of dying, so "candidates" were proposed to fill in these vacancies if the 'full' members died? Or was the intent from the beginning for candidate members to have a "voice at the table but no vote"? Colipon+(Talk) 16:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Colipon: Difficult question, but I'll try to answer as good as possible! .. The CC, and the party central bodies in general, worked different under Lenin and pre-lenin (in the original RSDLP).. The problem is two-fold, since by the late-1920s (early 1930s), CC membership became based on the slot system (similarly to the CPC today). CC candidates were members who had speaking rights at plenums, but could not vote. This was the original function, but why this came to be, I don't know.. Earlier in its history they also had a third category; prospective member. Unlike the CPC of today, being a candidate member seldom meant being transferred to full membership in the 1930s and later.

that's a very good question! Candidate members, interchangeably called non-voting members by writers on Soviet politics, were CC members who could not vote. But they were CC members. In the CPC, from what I can discern, alternate members are not members of the CC (has that always been the case?)... Why some were appointed candidates and some not in the early years I don't know; this is a problem with most studies on the USSR (interests in institutions as you and I understand them was popularised during the late-1980s, because of this studies on Soviet institutions have been neglected and forgotten)... In the beginning candidate membership entailed having a "voice at the table but no vote", but by the 1930s members in the CC was based upon the job-slot system (similar to the CPC today).. But its difficult to answer, Lenin's plan was to rule the Soviet Union through the post of head of government (Stalin ruled the the USSR as head of government from 1941 onwards, having vacated his post as general secretary in 1934). This is why several leading early Bolsheviks never became CC members during Lenin's time (the ministers were independent figures and didn't need CC membership; of course it would have been a +).. Its similar to PB meetings in the early period. When the PB was established, the CC complained it would turn the body into a second-tier institutions, it therefore requested that the PB regularly report to it and that every CC members had the right to participate and attend sessions of the PB (but CC members did not have voting rights during PB sessions; this practiced ended by the late-1920s)... However, with increased repression within its own rank the title of candidate lost its meaning (so from then on it was based on the job-slot system, as is currently practiced in the CPC today).. This is were the nomenklatura comes in.

Short answer: it originally meant a voice at the table but no vote, but this changed with increased repression within the party apparatus. By the 1930s you got shot by uttering the wrong word so what it was after that I don't know. Unlike in the CPC, the majority of CC members never became full members post-1940), but during party congresses (as during Gorbachev) it was the only way to refill the CC full category with new members. For instance, Gorby expelled several conseratives and replenished the CC in the meanwhile (waiting for the 28th Party Congress) by transferring CC candidate members to full membership status. But there was no ranking; the candidate member which the PB saw fit was transferred to full membership status (so it was entirely subjective, unlike in the CPC were you have a system in place). --TIAYN (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ranking

In your knowledge of the communist parties of the world, how prevalent is the practice of "ranking" members according to political clout? I assume the Soviet Union did this and that is where the CPC got it from? Just to be clear I am talking about the protocol rank order sequence of the top leaders of the party. Do all Communist states partake in this practice? Seems like Vietnam ranks their Politburo members based on votes received rather than by clout, and I am not sure about Cuba. China does this to an obsessive degree of course, and so does, it seems, North Korea.
On a separate note, the ranking (hierarchy) system of the civil service of the People's Republic of China is very elaborate, and it seems to be modeled not on typically "communist state" practices as much it is rooted in the ancient Chinese practice of ranking officials (they were divided into 9 grades, 18 sub-grades, historically). One does not find such a rigid ranking system in Cuba or the Soviet Union, or even North Korea! Colipon+(Talk) 17:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Colipon: In How the Soviet Union is Governed it is stated that, during the first congresses during the revolution (that is, pre-Stalin), "the number of votes received by each candidate was announced and a rank of popularity thereby revealed.".. But this stopped with Stalin.. Rank was still in use under Brezhnev, but as in the CPC today. For instance, the 23rd Congress listed members hierarchically, but during the 1970s (when Brezhnev was at his hight of his powers) his name was usually listed first, and the other remaining PB members were listed alphabetically (so B first and then he rest in alphabetical order)... While its true that the Vietnamese currently rank their PB members, you won't find anything about ranking in the CPV during the Vietnam War. Under Stalin members were listed in alphabetical order.. This is not to say that a ranking did not exist; it did, for instance during early-to-mid 1930s (before the purge) Kaganovich was the party's no. 2 as Second Secretary (but as I've mentioned before, the post was never formalised and no list stated that K was a no. 2)... But there was a formal rank; for instance, when Stalin died Georgy Malenkov was the presumptive heir since he was First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers (Government First Deputy Prime Minister that is). Kosygin was formally no. 2 until he retired in 1980, but in reality he was not the no. 2 in the PB (Mikhail Suslov was). Another example, Stalin vacated hist post as general secretary in 1934, and was treated as first secretary (as in first-ranked).

The communist states did not have a civil service (at least how we define civil service), they had only bureaucracy. The gerontocracy which developed during the Brezhnev years happened because the Soviets (and the communists in general) did not understand institutions; the classical Marxist narrative gave little space to institutions and institution-building... For instance, Stalin since class struggle occurred under socialism (and would even increase during its early stage), institutions which safeguarded counter-revolutionaries (free-and-fair trails) could not be established if it went counter to the laws of history (institutions, in Soviet parlance simply called "laws", should always have the interest of the party in hand, since the party represented the class dictatorship). This idea developed under Lenin; law was means of repression, and law was supposed to be used by the state (the class dictatorship) to defend its own interests. Thats it... The institution-building which we see in China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam today in areas such as the civil service, the rule by law el cetra have all been influenced/taken from the West. --TIAYN (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

But this seems to be an Asian thing. Its similar to ordering the number of CCs. No Eastern European Communist Party ever ordered the CC according to party congresses. Their was never a 5th CC in East Germany or a 23rd CC in the Soviet Union, but there was a 6th CC in North Korea (until they decided to stop holding party congresses), and is the case in Laos, Vietnam and China today. The ranking system seems too to be an Asian thing... The Cubans list the first and second secretary first (in Cuba the Second Secretary is a position which exists on paper, unlike its former Soviet counterpart) and the rest of the PB membership is listed in alphabetical order... In the USSR collective leadership meant in theory, that every leader PB member was equal (everyone of course knew that was not the case, but that was the ideal). .--TIAYN (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Short answer; no (at least, not in the form as its practiced in China)

Sorry for the long answers, and sorry for the bad grammar (I'm tired). --TIAYN (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind the long answers. What are your personal opinions about this 'ranking' feature of the Chinese system? Why is it necessary to do this, do you suppose? The politburo standing committee ranking is extremely strict protocol; all the news items on a given day have to follow this sequence; but what is perhaps even more surprising is that this rank order sequence convention stretches all the way down to the county level and even for the deputy heads at hospitals and schools! Colipon+(Talk) 12:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Colipon: I honestly can't tell you, however, I probably went too far. The Soviets did have a ranking system. But, as with much else, Western observers don't seem to be interested in the system in retrospect... For instance, see this... I also remembered incorrectly, Kosygin was no. 2 until 1971 (he was demoted to 1971 in response to conservative opposition to very, very light market reforms), and Podgorny took his place until 1977 when he was suddenly demoted and removed from the Politburo altogether. But here's the main difference I'd assume; Podgorny was simply removed, and very few historians dwell on its importance of P's ouster in retrospect (no one is interested in it in retrospect it seems), however if Xi would all of a sudden remove Li Keqiang the rumour mill would never stop... Of course, there are similarities. For instance, several sources say Wang Qishan is the real no. 2 in Chinese politics (Suslov was interchangeable no. 3–4, but always the real no. 2 in party organisation, serving as second secretary, in reality the top-ranked secretary since the general secretary rarely attended the meetings of the Secretariat).. I don't think there is such a big difference between the Soviet and the Chinese ranking system in theory... But there are some, for instance while the PB members were listed hierarchically at party congresses news bulletin would list it alphabetically with Brezhnev on top (this could never happen in China) and, more importantly, in China people can only sit for 10 years and have age limits. More importantly, the Soviet system was leader dominated (China is of course too), but in the CPSU Brezhnev (and his cronies) held separate meetings before the PB meetings to form a majority so that, for instance, Kosygin could not gain any backing for his reform initiatives—this explains why PB and Secretariat meetings only lasted for 30 minutes more or less... But of course, Kosygin was no. 2 1964–1969 (and on paper until 1971); the Glassboro Summit Conference is a perfect example, he visited the US before Brezhnev and met personally with the US president before Brezhnev... But Kosygin was never no. 2 within the party (but of course, that may also be the case for Li...) ... So while the ranking system was the same, it was, since Chinese politics is more formalised (and more importantly, there are term limits) the have different effects. But most importantly, in the Soviet Union the GenSec controlled personnel appointments by virtue of his position as GenSec and head of the Secretariat—in China, the GenSec is not a member of the Secretariat (this is power separation at its most basic, the same has been done in Laos and Vietnam, but not Cuba)... What Brezhnev did was no appoint new members to the Secretariat (he could by virtue as GenSec) and then somehow get these people into the PB (which he could on the basis of "circular flow of power"; e.g. that the GenSec had the power to appoint and dismiss provinical secretaries and the provincial secretaries decided de facto the delegates to the next party congress, adn the next party congress approved the GenSec's wishes).. What i'm trying to say is this; Soviet politics was more informalized, which explains why Kosygin as no. 3 was actively shielded from parts of the decision-making process by Brezhnev's clique who openly disagreed on his on matters regarding economic reform..) In China I doubt, but I don't know, that Xi's meets with three others before PSC meetings and then attends the meeting telling the other three members that the PSC has already reached a decision. The Chinese ranking system has more to do with reality. --TIAYN (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you for the answer. The Chinese system is very interesting - at the national level, the chairs of the National People's Congress and the People's Consultative Conference (is this also a uniquely Chinese institution?) have also sat on the standing committee since 1992, though technically both of these positions are chiefly ceremonial in nature. It is notable that at the provincial level, People's Congress chairs are often one in the same as the party chief, and the local PCC chairman does not hold a seat on the provincial standing committee. Provincially standing committee members are supposedly ranked according to their date of entry into a provincial party standing committee, or if the date is the same, by the time at which they ascended to a sub-provincial level post. All deputy heads of departments or vice ministers are strictly ranked as well, partly based on their own experience, and partly based on the position they hold. Note that among Vice Premiers, Zhang Gaoli, by virtue of his PSC membership, is ranked first, while two-term Politburo member Liu Yandong is ranked second despite her portfolios being more 'junior' (sports, health, and so on). Wang Yang is also a one-term Politburo member with lower seniority than Liu, so he is ranked third, and Ma Kai is ranked last, since he entered the Politburo only in 2012. Colipon+(Talk) 16:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The CPPCC is unique (I can't think of a similar institution; its strange that they don't formalise the institution.. I mean its formally an advisory body; if this is the case, why hasn't Jiang or Hu been appointed to it? Of course, the answer is obvious; they are too good for it. But I mean, the point of the CPPCC is to advise the leadership, and you would end or reduce the informalization of politics (and strengthen you're personal leadership) if you actual formalised it. Right? ... Interesting, very interesting... As for the FL review; I honestly can't find any information regarding individual CC plenums.. --TIAYN (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Copy edit request for Vasily Anisimoff declined

I regret to inform you that your copy edit request for Vasily Anisimoff has been declined. See this conversation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative text on Star of David

Alternative text is meant only to tell a blind person what a sighted person would have seen. Since a sighted person would not see an explanation of the Star of David, a blind person does not need to be given one.

The other issue is that if the template appears 20 times on a page, the blind person will hear the alternate text 20 times. So if the alternate text had the long explanation, they would hear the explanation 20 times, which would be really annoying.

I'll add a documentation page to the Star of David template with a link to the Star of David Wikipedia page.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I've set {{Star of David}} so the default is the short text, but that it can be overridden with other text, and I've used your text as the example for overriding. I've also overridden the alternate text with your text in the key symbol on Central Committee elected by the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Finally, I'm looking for a way to automatically use the long form on first use on a page and the shorter version after that.

As for your question on the change log, other character symbols, such as {{double-dagger}} don't include a long description of the character, just the name of the character.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Thisisnotatest: OK. --TIAYN (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

== General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union You've gone beyond the 3RR rule, and I'll present that issue to the proper authorities about this issue. Urgup-tur (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Civil War

I note that you reverted my edit of the duration of the Chinese Civil War, and assume it was in good faith. However, I cannot understand how anyone could think that a 10-year civil war ended in 1950. Even with pauses, which were honored in the breach as much as anything, the CCP-KMT conflict began in the Spring of 1927 with the Shanghai Massacre, and ended in 1950, when the last of the Nationalist troops were chased into Burma. That's more than 27 years. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@DOR (HK): This is what the Chinese Civil War article says (in the infobox); "Date 1 August 1927[1] – 22 December 1936[2] (9 years, 4 months and 3 weeks) [and] 31 March 1946 – 1 May 1950 (4 years and 1 month)".. So according to that article, we are both wrong; it lasted for 13 years... Its difficult to say when it ended and when it started since no armistic treaty has ever been signed, and it had several "pause" moments in which the central KMT and PLA never attacked each other. --TIAYN (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

All that means is that the Chinese Civil War article is wrong. Consider this from Chinese_Civil_War#Communist_insurgency,

"The situation came to a head in late 1940 and early 1941 when clashes between Communist and KMT forces intensified. In December 1940 Chiang demanded that the CPC’s New Fourth Army evacuate Anhui and Jiangsu Provinces due to its provocation and harassment of KMT forces in this area. Under intense pressure, the New Fourth Army commanders complied. In 1941 they were ambushed by KMT forces during their evacuation, which led to several thousand deaths.[38] It also ended the Second United Front, which had been formed earlier to fight the Japanese.[38]"

and,

" In 1941 the Soviet Union, with its closer alliance to the CPC, also sent an imperative telegram to Mao warning that the civil war would also make the situation easier for the Japanese military. Due to the international community's efforts, there was a temporary and superficial peace."

finally,

"The first post-war peace negotiation was attended by both Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong in Chongqing from 28 August 1945 and concluded on 10 October 1945 with the signing of Double Tenth Agreement.[42]"

DOR (HK) (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5

Newsletter • October 2015

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

We did it!

In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.

Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.

Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.

The work continues!

There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.

How can the Wikimedia Foundation support WikiProjects?

The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Leader theory listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Leader theory. Since you had some involvement with the Leader theory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Source, please

In the Communist Party of China page, you added "and International Communist Seminar" to the CCP's international affiliations, without citing a source. Would you please provide a source, so that the reference is not inadvertently deleted? Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@DOR (HK): Do I really need to? International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties is not referenced... I don't know if it attended the latest conference, but it attended the one in 2013 and 2009. The party semi-regularly attends. --TIAYN (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason I raised the issue is that after many decades of closely studying CCP history, this is the first I've ever seen of that particular phrasing ("Seminar"). Is there another, perhaps more common term? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@DOR (HK): here... The Chinese name is 国际共产主义研讨会 (it has its own Wikipedia page). --TIAYN (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ny Tid (Norway) logo.gif

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Wisconsin Green Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wisconsin Green Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Green Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Green Party of New Jersey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Green Party of New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Party of New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

X-Files Mythology Edit War

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 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.

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6

Newsletter • January 2016

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

What comes next

Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.

During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.

We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:

• Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)
• One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.
• Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)

The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.

This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, TIAYN. I'm just posting to let you know that 22nd Presidium of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 22. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 18:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pilot (Millennium).jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

File:John Lyng.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Lyng.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pilot (Millennium).jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7

Newsletter • February 2016

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Current communist rulers listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Current communist rulers. Since you had some involvement with the Current communist rulers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8

Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon

• The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
• The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Authoritarian socialism, you may be blocked from editing. This is not the first time I have witnessed your brilliant attempts to hide your sneaky vandalism by replacing pages with redirects. WP:SNEAKY. I will be now checking and monitoring your edit history for similar incidents. Ceosad (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Apparently the Authoritarian socialism article was not the only one, as proven by this fake reversion of vandalism and the edit war you had on the same day. Ceosad (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ceosad: you got it wrong on both accounts.. Secondly, authoritarian socialism is not a scholar topic. It's a fantasy topic. None of the scholars in that article uses the term "authoritarian socialism", and if they do, they are referring to Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Juche el cetra. Use you're brains :) --TIAYN (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: In any case, just bring the Authoritarian socialism page to WP:AFD instead, if you really have to see it gone. Page blanking is not deletion. I have reverted the newest blanking of the article. Ceosad (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

WPK Central Auditing Commission

Does this group actually do anything, to your knowledge? Also where do you get your information on WPK organization? Seems like an awfully obscure topic, even for academics. Colipon+(Talk) 20:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) According to the Charter (1980), they "audit the finances and accounting work of the party".[1] In essence, they're the statutory auditor who are nominated directly by, and report to, the Congress/Conference. The Chairman, Auditing Commission and the Central Committee (CC) are the only ones elected by the Congress/Conference, everyone else is elected by the CC. As such, the Auditing Commission is independent of the CC, which it audits. (They audit "the party", but since all other party organs are elected by the CC, in practice that's whom they audit). Obscure yes, but I hope we can have an article for this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Colipon and Finnusertop: See Central Auditing Commission of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union... Simply put, it audits the party's finances. Nothing more, the WPK also have a Control Commission (which disciplines organs and cadres below the CC level)..

Its an important institution in all party-states, but its been barely analysed at all by academics (I'm now talking about all of them, the CAC in the USSR, in East Germany or the present-day one in the WPK..) ... Its seems to have garnered extremely little attention... ,as the 7th Congress made very clear; no one should disobey the leader, everyone should follow the leader's will and everyone should support and struggle the monolithic ideology and leadership of the WPK... What I'm trying to say, is this; those it really matter? It's North Korea. The only thing they've formalised is the leader principle, everything else is secondary. ... If you find any interesting topics on the CAC, please tell me! --TIAYN (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So what is your take on the 7th WPK Congress? Is it possible that Kim Jong Un is attempting to check the military by strengthening the party? Why did Kim Jong Il choose to host a "conference" instead of a "congress"? Colipon+(Talk) 15:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Colipon (talk · contribs) Honestly, I don't know. But everything in North Korea has to be grandiose, so convening the first congress in 36-years creates interest.... Some people write that he did it to legitimise his rule - formally the congress has to elect him leader of the party - but I doubt so. It never did Kim Jong-il any harm not doing it... Maybe its his way of saying he's bringing the party back in, but I doubt so... What I think is the following, Kim Il-sung convened party congresses, so Kim Jong-un does the same. Kim Il-sung is like George Washington, they love him down there simply because... why shouldn't they? It was better under him than under Kim Jong-il.As Michael Madden puts it; "North Korea is a patriarchal culture, but in a totalitarian system, being able to wield power as gatekeepers or financial functionaries is more powerful than sitting on a political bureau, you have realistic powers day-to-day"...

I used to think North Korea could change, but how could it? I mean, if they open up aren't the North Korean people bound to ask why it is the only socialist country which operates a hereditary dictatorship. Why its the only socialist country that doesn't bother to hold congresses... Or why the Great Leader, who officially never makes mistakes, needed to introduce market reforms in the first place? If they do anything, their system will collapse. --TIAYN (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

North Korea working group

You are invited to participate in the North Korea working group of WikiProject Korea, a workgroup dedicated to developing and improving articles about North Korea.

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Shenin.jpg.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Fastest serve listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fastest serve. Since you had some involvement with the Fastest serve redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 17th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President of China. 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) 09:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9

Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Flag of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Oscar Torp.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Trust Is All You Need. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification – December 2016

Hi, TIAYN. I'm just posting to let you know that Premier of the Soviet Union – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 26. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of She's Got a Way (Bryan Adams song)

The article She's Got a Way (Bryan Adams song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The song fails WP:notability and WP:notability (music). No sources substantially cover this song.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. George Ho (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BAShesgotaway.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DanLaBotzlogo.gif

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Leonid Brezhnev

Re your revert - 1. What is "badly written" there? 2. Should it be so, please expand and do not delete properly sourced important info, especially about an assassination attempt that almost changed world's history. Zezen (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Zezen: It's one sentence, and the article is a GA. You don't have a section with one sentence in it in a GA article... --TIAYN (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I get it: my edit was too short. Still, if somebody tried to kill President Brezhnev, let us work together on it instead of censoring this bit for GA's sake. There are dozens of ""Assassination of John F. Kennedy"" articles - I guess assassination attempt of his USSR counterpart merits at least a section therein.

So, here is my deal: I will restore it, as it is vital info, in the hope that somebody else (you?) reads this reffed article (and the related ones) and will update this section in my stead, as a fellow Wikipedian. Zezen (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10

Issue 10 of the WikiProject X newsletter is here!

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Vietnamese lists

Hello, TIAYN. Would you be interested to look into the latest edits at List of Presidents of Vietnam and List of Prime Ministers of Vietnam, made by Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk · contribs)? After all, you are the one who formatted them into what they looked like until today. The look of lists was your preferred version... Your opinion and input would be greatly appreciated. Cheers --Sundostund (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. To be honest the old table format was very confusing as it had 2 columns of No. and I have no idea what they meant. The list was also separated into different sections for Democratic Republic, Socialist Republic etc. which is hard to read as well. So I combined altogether into one single table with precise format and information. hope you will support my formatting. If you want me to make any changes please don't hesitate to tell me. I'm happy to adjust the table if necessary. Cheers Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk)

@Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam: We will see what TIAYN have to say about this - these lists were mostly his work, after all. As for me, I would prefer the format which exist at List of heads of state of Cambodia, for example. --Sundostund (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sundostund: That list of heads of state of Cambodia is pretty much similar to the list I made. If you disagree the use of color then I'll get rid of those colors Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk)

• @Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam: Sorry late response :P But no, I don't approve. Because those are FLs, and you're edits go blank against FL criteria. I have nothing against improvements, but I want them (as those WP community) to retain FL status. --TIAYN (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

is it the policy given by Wikipedia that maintains the uniformity of tables across Wikipedia? Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

besides can you take out one column of the Numbet section? Having 2 columns of Number section is really confusing. And can you also move the portrait to the left hand side of table, thus making my country's table more uniform with other countries' ones Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

TIAYN, I can understand your objections over changes on FLs (and personally, I was pretty sure you will oppose them), but is it really necessary to turn List of heads of state of Vietnam and List of heads of government of Vietnam into disambiguation pages? Wouldn't it be much better to have them as articles which presents all heads of state and heads of government of various Vietnamese entities since 1945? Beside, I have spent quite some time working on them yesterday (although, of course, I don't want some extra credit for that :))... Also, please have in mind that Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk · contribs) and myself were both pleased with those lists and we found them quite useful, which may amount to some sort of consensus. Please, think about this and tell me your opinion. Cheers --Sundostund (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I just remembered, TIAYN - please, look into recent changes at Leaders of South Vietnam, since you contributed quite a lot to that article as well as to others in question here, and I think it may be an FL article too. --Sundostund (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sundostund: I give in :) Yes, revert my edits on the list of heads of state and list of heads of government... I don't get why we need two articles.. It makes the list of leaders of South Vietnam irrelevant, and the list of prime ministers of Vietnam. I don't get why we need two articles on the same thing. But fine. :) Do you're think on heads of state and heads of government.--TIAYN (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful :) I just reverted them. As for reasons why we need those lists, I think I was clear above - its useful to have articles which presents all heads of state and heads of government of various Vietnamese entities since 1945 in a combined way, not just partial lists which presents only Southern leaders or only Northern/Communist leaders. I generally think that its much more helpful for users to find the relevant data in one place. Also, please tell me your opinion about recent edits at Leaders of South Vietnam - since you greatly contributed to that article as well, I'm interested to hear your thoughts about that. --Sundostund (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sundostund: I think it's fine! It looks nice :) However, I do think the military table looks a bit unorganised (and ugly). I would do without the colours, but taste. So a good list.! :) --TIAYN (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the same about the military table. I will try to organise it better, once I decide what would be the best way to do it. As for colours - I'm a huge fan of them, but I bet you already knew that :) --Sundostund (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest TIAYN and Sundostund, I think it's better to have a Vietnamese contributor to edit those articles about Vietnam's political topics as some information on English wikipedia is not accurate, especially there are significant discrepancies about terms of office, titles etc. between 2 wikipedias. I believe it will be good to have someone who is able to read Vietnamese sources, papers and documents (not from Vietnamese wikipedia as it can be wrong too). For example with Leaders of South Vietnam, the heads of state during military junta were very inaccurate. I had to spend a few hours reading up external documents to finalise the list as English wikipedia did not distinguish between Heads of State (de jure leaders) and Heads of military (de facto leaders). Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk)

I obviously agree with you that it would be much better if for more Vietnamese contributed to English Wikipedia... But I'm guessing (and jus guessing) that WP is illegal in Vietnam (as in China). --TIAYN (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is freely accessed and legal in Vietnam, not sure about China though!! Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk)

My current edits in General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam

Hi TIAYN, can you explain why you reversed my edits on General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam? I just made it more details as the old version did not include Trinh Dinh Cuu even though he held the position of Party Head for a short time. Besides Ho Chi Minh was only the acting General Secretary from 1956 to 1960, he was never an official General Secretary but holding position of Party Chairman instead. In addition during Le Duan's era, his title was First Secretary from 1960 to 1976. Therefore your old version is very misinformed & incorrect so I had to edit it, but not changing your FL formats at all. Can you explain please? Thank you Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk)

It's not inaccurate.

1. The article says it. Read the text. It says when the First Secretary was established, abolished and replaced. However, it had the same duties and powers, and hence, not an important change in itself.

2. People's Revolutionary Party of Vietnam was not the Communist Party of Vietnam. Two different organisations. The PRP may have been under the control of the CPV, but its not the same party.

3. Chairman of the party is not the same as General Secretary/First Secretary, and hence should not be included in the list. --TIAYN (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok then TIAYN, how about Trinh Dinh Cuu who was the Head of the Central Committee? Le Hong Phong took the position from 31/3/1935, not from 27/10/1931. Truong Chinh was only acting General Secretary from 9/11/1940 to 19/5/1941. And Ho Chi Minh was also acting General Secretary from 5/10/1956 to 10/9/1960. Will you add those information? Thank you Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk)

Sure! --TIAYN (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Arseny Zverev.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PMPer Borten.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Writing collaborators of Bryan Adams

The article Writing collaborators of Bryan Adams has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pointless article. Collaborations are best discussed elsewhere.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification – August 2017

Hi, TIAYN. I'm just posting to let you know that General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 14. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Soli logo.gif

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

19th CPC Congress

Can you please help me, if you have some free time, to update the refs on the 19th Congress article (or slash and burn the sections, I don't really care, I knew I had to re-write the whole thing once the personnel changes are announced anyway), so that it can get posted on ITN? I would do it myself but currently have some competing 'real life' priorities. Colipon+(Talk) 02:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Colipon: Sure! I can do it after work, but I can update it :) --TIAYN (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Trust Is All You Need. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there

Nice to see you back at Wikipedia. best, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11

Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 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. ApolloCarmb (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

stop

Your page move has been reverted. Now follow WP:BRDApolloCarmb (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep this up and you will find yourself blocked.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove of political positions for single-parties systems

Hello,

You say that we should not put any political position for some communist parties and both Syrian and Iraqi Baath party, arguing that they are single-governing parties ; I can understand your point of view but, however if we follow your logic, we would have to remove the "far-right" label from the Romanian Iron Guard, FET y de las JONS of Francisco Franco in Spain, from the National Union of Salazar in Portugal, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and so on because they also are single-governing parties (even Pinochet and Videla who aren't members of any political parties are widely recognized and labeled as far-right in Western Europe). If we only remove "far-left" from communist parties and not "far-right" from authoritarian/totalitarian fascist/nazi regimes, there would be de facto a double standard, it will not be coherent.

And you make a mistake : in Syria the Baath is one the only authorized party ; there also are the SSNP, Communist Party of Bakdash and some others, it's the same thing in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, even in North Korea there are two others parties near the Workers' Party of Korea : the Korean Social Democratic Party and Chondoist Chongu Party. --Martopa (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Martopa: You are correct that there exist other parties in Syria, but they are all subordinate to the Ba'ath (and they don't seem very independent of it).... In addition, both far-left and far-right groups, as defined by the West, supports Assad. So how can we define Ba'athism? You have also the fact that Ba'athism in Iraq went from state capitalist development to Islamism and privatization by the 1990s.

And yes, I support moving positions from those articles. But I don't know anything about fascism so... I rarely visit those articles

As for North Korea, those parties are not independent of the WPK. They literally say Kim is the rising sun, they don't formulate oppositionist policies and considering how totalitarian that system is I don't think they have much to say. I would think the majority of people would agree with me on North Korea with ease. --TIAYN (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense to remove "far-left" from the CPSU while we keep "far-right" at NSDAP.Miacek (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Martopa: We should remove far-right from the NSDAP.. however, you can counter that the NSDAP actually existed (for most of its existance) in competition with other parties. The CPSU didn't. However, I would remove it from the infobox. --TIAYN (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind stopping edit warring against multiple editors and seek out consensus at talk instead?Miacek (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Far-right groups supported Syrian Ba'ath only because they perceive Assad as a rampart against Islamists, however historically Arab nationalists (Nasserists like Gamal Abdel Nasser, Gaddafi, Algerian NLF of Bouteflika + Ba'athists) are left-wing, there is no doubt about this, because they are geopolitically allied with USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba ; they have a thirld wordist and anti-imperialist, anticolonialist, national liberation speech/rhetoric while European far-right is in favor of colonialism and regret colonial empires ; furthermore they are in favor of minority rights (Christians and some others) and women's rights like European left-wing/far-left who are very tolerant against immigrants, Muslims and other minorities ; while for Islamists it's the contrary (they can be compared in this point to Western far-right for their social/religous ultraconservatism, intolerance and violence against ehnic and religious minorities, women). Even Gaddafi has endorsed far-left communists/anarchists groups like French Action Directe, Red Brigades in Italy, Red Army Faction in Germany, and he supported Nelson Mandela, a "terrorist" for Jean-Marie Le Pen and Western far-right.

@Trust Is All You Need and Miacek: However, if you absolutely want to remove far-left for communist one-party state ruling for Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, USSR, it will be coherent too to remove far-right for Ferenc Szalasi's party in Hungary, Vidkun Quisling in Norway, Iron Guard of Antonescu in Romania, FET y de las JONS of Francisco Franco in Spain, National Union of Salazar in Portugal (in this case, the label is right-wing to far-right), fascist Italy, Nazi Germany ; because these parties were also one-party systems, to avoid variable geometry or double standards in a way of neutrality, do you not think ? --Martopa (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And it's not only North Korea which has been accused of been racist/far-right/fascist ; some newspaper's articles also accused China to be ultranationalist, to behave like Nazi Germany despite you deny that China behavior in Spratleys, Paracels, Senkaku is a proof of ultranationalism on CPC talk's page, according to these sources 1, 2, 3, 4, it's a fact widely proven that Chinese behavior in what they claim "South China Sea" is agressive, militarist, hegemonic and against peace. --Martopa (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

CPC

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Communist Party of China. Wingwraith (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: Grow up! --TIAYN (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You make another revert like this again and I will take you to the administrative noticeboard. The version of the article that I am restoring was what it was like for eons (i.e. the actual version for which there was consensus) before you came along with your mass reversions which you didn't even discuss on the talkpage beforehand. You have refused all my offers to engage constructively with you on the talkpage so here is, for the record, my final attempt to get you to resolve the content dispute between us before we escalate the dispute resolution process to the next stage: get consensus for your changes on the talkpage first BEFORE you implement them in the article. Wingwraith (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wingwraith (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Further to the above, you vandalize my report by turning it into a sub-section of your report against me again as you did here and I'll file another report against you. Stop trying to exaggerate the significance of your report against me by diminishing the significance of my report against you, my report is a stand-alone report that is unrelated to your report and will be addressed independently from the merits of your case. Wingwraith (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2018 (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. Thank you. Wingwraith (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello TIAYN. It seems you are continuing to revert the leads of various articles about Communist parties, for example for example here at Workers Party of Korea. Your behavior has previously been discussed at ANI and at AN3. You consistently remove various characterizations of the beliefs of the respective ruling parties. If you believe you have received consensus for the change anywhere, please link to the discussion. Otherwise, explain why you should not be blocked for a pattern of disruptive editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2018 (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. Thank you. Wingwraith (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. I'm also alerting you to the DS under WP:ARBEE (see below). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea/archive1 article edits

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wingwraith (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Soviet Communism is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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 that 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.

EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Why in gods name am I blocked? I havn't been edit warring at all. Neither at the WPK or the CPC article. I also find it unjust considering I didn't start the edit wars, and everyone but W guy agreed with me on Talk:Communist Party of China.

This is unbelievable!--TIAYN (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Utterly wrong

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Trust Is All You Need (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is utterly wrong

1. Wingwraith, it was decided on the administrative noticeboard, was baiting me. He reverted edits and accused my of sockpuppetry, and even called my shithole, fascist, communist and to fuck off.. Why in gods name am I blocked and not him? At least I used proper language.
2. I stopped edit warring on the Workers' Party of Korea article and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union article. My edits prove it.
3. As you can see at the bottom of the Talk:Communist Party of China, other users agree with me that I had a clear majority. DOH (HK) even wrote "I agree with TIAYN. Wingwraith, you have no support for your position and are simply being obstructionist. Get over it." ... and I'm the one being blocked? I protected the consensus, the majority position. He refused to enter a proper discussion and told me to fuck off, a shithole, a fascist and a communist.
4. Not only did I do the right thing on the CPC, I'm the one getting punished? Not Wingwraith? Whats the point of procedures if the guy with the majority gets blocked? And the guy forcing his view upon others, and refuses to listen, goes free?

I'm not saying I acted like an angel. I'm not saying I've been great. I'm saying this, its totally unreasonable that I get blocked when people who behave worse than me gets away with it. If you're going to block users it has to be proportionate and legitimate... and fair. This isn't fear to me, and this isn't fear to anyone who bothers to discuss.

This block goes counter to what you want. Why in gods name would I want to use the talk page in the future to resolve conflict, if a person who has 5 people supporting him, and a person who has one (an IP adresse) gets blocked? You literally have people saying i "Agree with TIAYN" at Talk:Communist Party of China.

1. I did not engage in an edit war at the CPSU or the WPK articles after you warned me, at all! I didn't. I reverted an edit by Wingwraith because he accused an editor of sockpuppetry without proof. I also had to do it at the Brezhnev article, when he added unreferenced material to the text. But I have not engaged in an edit war since nor started one. My edits prove that.
2. This block goes against all logic. I used the discussion page. I got the majority, and Wingwraith goes all crazy. Calls me a shithole, a fascist, a communist and to fuck off and I get blocked, and he doesn't? Even if the other users agree with me( the majority)? Its beyond belief.
3. I'm not perfect, and I should have acted as the bigger man, but I don't deserve it - especially since I'm the only one being blocked. --TIAYN (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request largely deals with the behavior of others and not your own. I also find the attitude you

have been displaying to be not appropriate.  As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TIAYN, I notice seven reverts by you at Workers' Party of Korea since 28 April. I see no effort by you to engage in structured dispute resolution (such as an RfC) on any of the Communist party pages. There have been several complaints about you at ANI and AN3, and it's hard to believe that all of those other people are wrong. If you were not blocked, I assume that the steady stream of complaints about you would continue indefinitely. You don't seem to have any plan of your own to get this settled. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What is an RfC? If it was to darn important you could have told me about it @EdJohnston:! Do you think I know every darn corner of Wikipedia?

Content solution? Did you see Talk:Communist Party of China? Have you even bothered to read it?

There are only two users who are complaining. Two! How is that a steady stream? Its the same users who are complaining so no, and its the involved parties.

And they do? So the don't deserve to get blocked because they have no plans, but I do? Do you listen to yourself?

I had a plan, see User:Trust Is All You Need/Socialism. I was going to settle the dispute by actually making productive edits sourced. I've ordered 10 bloody books, and I was going to work on it this bloody weekend. So yes, unlike the others, I actually had a plan, and it involved a) improving the Wikipedia and b) using reliable sources to show them that their views were factual inaccurate.

I had a bloody plan, they didn't. Very very unfair reasoning, very. Unblock me. --TIAYN (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

So your plan is, you will study your books carefully and then you will change the articles to what you are sure is correct? And, since you know you are right, you won't have to wait for anyone else to agree with you? EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: No. When did I say that? I was going to rewrite the socialist state articles. Which would again prove that socialist state and communist state were the same thing (easy part) and then start a merge proposal for authoritarian socialism and the socialist state. And have 1 article on the same topic instead of 3. --TIAYN (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Just as a heads up to the blocking / reviewing admin - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack? is what is referenced in the request above. SQL^{Query me!} 02:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment - @EdJohnston: It looks like the same forced changes are happening again over at Socialist state. I have asked for discussion before such large changes, but he refused. I would say he isn't learning very quickly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Unblock me

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Trust Is All You Need (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unblock me. I've learn the following of the bloc

1. You can call people to fuck off, shithole el cetra;
2. You can initiate discussion, and get a majority, and get blocked;
3. If you edit war and bait people you get away with it;
4. If you're uniformed you get away with it;
5. If you edit war you get away with it;

= I'll do all those things when I'm done. Thank you @EdJohnston: & @331dot: I've finally underestood what I did wrong. So please unblock me. Next time I'll engage in edit wars, swear, call people shitholes, say there is no majority when there is one, defend irrational behaviour and personal attacks, editwar and more. Its finally clear to me. I'm gonna be an asshole when I'm back. Because apparently following the rules get you blocked.

• Thank you very much for making this clear to me :) I never knew. I've learnt so much from this bloc and its been very constructive. Behaviour like this, such as Wingwraiths latest comment, is of course inline with proper procedure; "Incorrect, you would have known that I have support for my position(s) if you (cared to) read the above. Unless you want to end up incurring a block (linking to me) just like your fellow editor, I would suggest that you get more specific about your comment or just move the hell on already. Nobody needs these wiseacre one-liners that do nothing but add to the clusterfuck that is this talkpage"

--TIAYN (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. Removing talk page access and extending block for a week. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Further exercises in WP:POINT might warrant removal of talk page editing priviliege.Miacek (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not distrupting WP, I'm defending myself. Stop acting like a communist, you're whitewashing history @Miacek:! You and you're stalinist behaviour can burn (can't block me, thats what he accused me off, and that was fiinnnne). --TIAYN (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)--TIAYN (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  331dot (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2018 (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. Thank you. Wingwraith (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wingwraith (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)