User talk:Socialistguy

Hello, Danotto94, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are not one of the many socks and meats from the Zeitgeist group [1] and [2]I encourage you to get the hang of editing. That means not putting 'primary' information from Zeitgeist Faq's material or other 'primary' sources information into the article and reading the talk page history of the article to understand the recent and fairly recent history of the article. I see you are a single purpose editor and that does not bode well because it might imply you are here as a promoter or special interest person. All that is o.k. to some level but it has to be sourced outside of itself. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just did a little checking and see you are actually 'working' for Zeitgeist and Venus project information as a public promoter. [3] Its actually o.k. but as a single agenda editor with an i.p. most likely I can spare you a lot of problems by telling you that your approach of adding primary sourced info. is not going to work. There are neutral editors on the article are used to the article being bombarded with editors that are proponents. My advice to you is to edit other articles till you understand how things work here. Get a feeling for what a primary source is and try to understand that the article is not a mouthpiece of information for your group. Thanks Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I want to do is add more information. I'm not getting paid to work for them. It's all my voluntary will. What do you suggest I do?

You have an automatic conflict of interest because you are a social activist for said group and public persona. I made suggestions to you above about how to get around that. Number one you have to find sources for your information outside of your group from reputable media. Do not add more primary sourced material. As said learn the ropes by editing a few unrelated articles and looking at guideline policy. Don't try to force your opinions by edit warring information either. If you can find information that is sourced, o.k.- Otherwise you can not come here to advertise the information from your group. Make some commentary on the talk page of the article about some questions you have. That is the appropriate place. Read the talk page history even the archived parts to get an idea of past debate. You have to work by consensus on the article. Whether you are paid or not does not matter with a conflict of interest. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't correct other people's grammar on article talk pages. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or if that part was yours then please remember to always sign your posts. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources. Blogs like Zerohedge.com and countercurrents.org fail our standards for reliable sourcing. When citing an Op-ed or other opinion piece, label it as such and do not present their claims as objective facts. And never add any new information without citing a source, especially personal commentary about the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RightCowLeftCoast. Your recent edit to the page 7th Summit of the Americas appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: I personally attended the event but I'll see if I can find a source. I also have photo and video proof. Danotto94 (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Holodomor are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages.
Please note that, even if someone else is using an article's talk page as a soapbox, it's advisable that you refrain from engaging them (i.e., don't feed the trolls). Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy thanks for the reminder. May I use my talk page to continue the debate or must I contact the user privately? socialistguy - when you make/review edits, please make sure they're neutral and cover/acknowledge multiple POVs. Thank you (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to engage that particular user (yes, I've noted that the contributor is continuing their soapboxing), I'd suggest that you bring it to your personal talk page: A) for the sake of transparency; B) contacting the user via email will reveal your email account to them and, if your email account is attached to other social sites, this affords that contributor the opportunity to track you, and your personal opinions, elsewhere in cyberspace.

For the sake of your own privacy, engage directly via Wikipedia. Should the 'discussion' escalate outside of the WP:OWNTALK guidelines (i.e., your own talk page should also be proscribed to discussing article content and not forum/blog style tirades), it becomes a matter of personal discretion as to whether you and the other user are confident enough to stray outside of Wikipedia. If you chose to do so, however, this has the potential to lead to WP:HARASSment problems for one or the other of you. Any complaints lodged by either contributor at the WP:ANI would reflect the fact that you chose to engage, affording you little to no protection. Personally, I consider discretion is the better part of valour and avoid email correspondence unless it is for sharing texts or other discussions directly concerning content matters (and, then, only with fellow Wikipedians I've encountered over a long period of time, and feel assured that they won't abuse such contact). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: All contributors/editors have a contribution history page (i.e., here's mine). It is not 'harassment' to check on the contributor's history where you are uncertain as to recurring editing patterns and general behaviour. In fact, it's extremely useful to get an idea as to whether it is even worth the effort of engaging with another contributor based on their prior engagement with Wikipedia and other contributors. For me, personally, I don't go looking for trouble outside of the scope of article content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read WP:SIGLENGTH and WP:SIGPROB. The current signature you're using - being socialistguy - when you make/review edits, please make sure they're neutral and cover/acknowledge multiple POVs. Thank you - is really distractingly lengthy. You can retain it if you wish, but I'd suggest that it won't be long before other editors complain about it. It's better to keep your signature as uncluttered as possible. If you really want to change the appearance of your signature in order that it be more distinctive, you might want to try doing so using these instructions. --Iryna 'just improvising by toying with my signature here to give you an idea of why it's distracting' Harpy (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy I took it off but I don't find long signatures distracting if their purpose is to be informative like typical Wiki reminders. Socialistguy (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) edited 14:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Socialistguy (talk)[reply]

You may not but, as you can see, others do. Red links are prominent in themselves. If you were to add something to your user page in order to get rid of the red link, it would become a standard blue link... which is equally distracting because it looks as if it's part of your comment and a link to the relevant information you're trying to draw attention to. The point of a signature isn't that of serving as a reminder regarding any pet policy or guideline: you're dealing with editors who know their policies and guidelines back to front. It ends up as being a double-barrel problem because it can be construed as being condescending and take up unnecessary space.

As already suggested, if you wish to customise your signature in order to make it unique, please refer to WP:CUSTOMSIG. Thanks for your attention and serious consideration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, can you please edit your signature to simply your name or something, this is ridiculous. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's really intolerable. If Socialistguy still hasn't taken advice given WP:AGF, I think the next step is to take it to the WP:ANI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no West, there are 50+ nations with different POVs. Even if the USA is powerful, there exist strong anti-American ideology.

But yes - the West lied - regarding Communist crimes, Katyn and Holodomor being typical examples. A World Apart (book) was published in France in 1995, 50 years after the war, even 9 years after the Russian edition.

Holodomor is a part of Soviet famine of 1932–33. Russia prefers to forget communist famines in Russia and the article about Famine in Kazakhstan of 1932–33 is surprisingly short. I prefer multinational historiography of the Bloodlands type, unfortunately Russia imposes Soviet POV and many former Western Sovietologists are now Putinists.Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kazimierz Pużak was a socialist persecuted by the Soviet Union and Communist Poland.Xx236 (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ciołkosz was a socialist, not welcome in socialist Poland.Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Slimgur, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wgolf It's not to advertise slimgur. Is it really not important enough? Voat uses it AFAIK. socialistguy - when you make/review edits, please make sure they're neutral and cover/acknowledge multiple POVs. Thank you (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not write that. You did. Not me. Look at the history. You wrote that. Not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwkrager (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you did, it was an IP editor. The "the" was initially there because it was followed by "United Kingdom" ("the United Kingdom"). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After I replied on my talk page, I see you already went to REFUND. Just to be clear, your 1st Amendment Rights do not live at Wikipedia. It is a corporation, non-profit, and technically they can decide to only have articles on anime if they so choose. Fortunately, they've chosen to just allow the community to manage the website, but still, there is no right to free speech here. The deletions were 100% square with our speedy deletion criteria G4 WP:CSD#G4. That said, it is still possible to create the article at WP:AFC for example, and then get it to pass WP:NPOV, WP:RS and of course WP:GNG. I don't suggest copying text verbatim from the old version, which is likely mirrored around the web, as that would be copyright infringement. If you get it through, it may still be subject to AFD but if it passes the criteria, it passes and is more immune from other deletion processes. If it doesn't pass, then it didn't belong anyway. And to be clear, Wikipedia is full of Socialists, Communists and all kinds of other "ists", so to assume the article was deleted due to it being "Capitalist" would be a mistake. Some of us simply do our jobs, unpaid and volunteer as they are. I didn't read the context of the whole article, so I have no opinion on the concept. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, thanks for the prompt reply. Do you know of an experienced user who can help me verify if a draft I have satisfies all the criteria, even if I think it's so, based on the criteria descriptions? Socialistguy (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the WP:AFC system, it is subject to review anytime you ask. It is slow, but it works. It will require signing off by an admin before it is allowed into mainspace, as the article names have been "salted". Non-admins won't be able to move it, only admins. Most admin (including me) are fairly lenient as long as it isn't a total copy of the previous and it actually has a snowball's chance at surviving WP:AFD. If an admin refuses, you can ask another, just be honest and say you asked the first admin and he refused. If the 2nd refuses, you might have to go back to REFUND with the new article, but that isn't slow. Actually, with the new article, it is fairly fast if it is up to snuff. Just as with me here, most admin (and experienced users, for that matter) are usually willing to help if you ask politely along the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings SG. I am also following this issue closely, and will support it's restoration. Keep in touch. I would recommend that we bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate WikiProjects (i.e. human rights, socialism, alternative views, anti-war, etcetera.) Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youknowwhatimsayin, in what pages exactly do I bring it to their attention? Socialistguy (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can start with:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative Views
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations

It will take some sheparding and follow up, but it is doable. But we need to refrain from anything accuatory, and try to appeal to fair-mindedness, and established policies. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youknowwhatimsayin, I saw those pages, but I don't know where exactly to post. Maybe you can post and show me the link so I learn how it works? Socialistguy (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with posting in appropriate places, but around here, quality usually speaks for itself, so if the article meets the standards, most people will want the article to exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015_August_31. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Communism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Referring to nominal Marxist-Leninist states as "nominally (but aren't) Marxist-Leninist" is blatant POV. There may be some debate on the extent to which "actually existing socialist" states could be called Marxist-Leninist but that debate should not take place in a sentence in an encyclopedia article presenting information as fact. That they are nominally Marxist-Leninist is demonstrably true and uncontroversial; that they actually "aren't", not so much. Anarkinsey (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Communist state page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]