Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 13 May 2018

This user has a zero tolerance policy towards trolls on Misplaced Pages.

3RR at Party for Freedom

Your recent editing history at Party for Freedom shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

At least I give an explanation for my reverts. Do you revert according to your moods now?

Edit warring =

Your recent editing history at David Horowitz Freedom Center shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

CPC TP

In light of our recent encounters on the edit-warring admin noticeboard concerning a certain editor, your comments to the discussion that's under the "Socialism authoritarianism political position" section of the article mentioned above would be welcomed. Wingwraith (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lisette Kampus

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lisette Kampus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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 deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages'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. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This wikipedia has gone crazy.Miacek (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Uwe Backes

The article Uwe Backes has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Misplaced Pages policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Damselfly7 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh: . What next? Propose Karl Popper for deletion?Miacek (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

National conservatism : Great Russia / Rodina

Hello,

You say to an anonymous user some days ago that Great Russia must not be included in National conservatism article because it's a fascist party, which is effectively true (to be more precise, a number of party's members have close ties with neo-fascist or even neo-nazi groups, particularly visible during street demonstrations). Nonetheless, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the corresponding article of Great Russia in Russian language here ru:Великая Россия (партия) mention in its infobox national conservatism (along with patriotism, russian nationalism, orthodox traditionalism) as an ideology of the party. So why not including this party in National conservatism article ? However, Rodina appears in this article while some observers labeled Rodina as neo-nazi, furthermore Dmitri Rogozin who is an important figure of Rodina was also the founder of Great Russia (which counts among its members some people that also belong to Rodina). --Martopa (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I do think that adding openly fascist type organizations such as Velikaya Rossiya and Jobbik, as I've explained here makes no sense, it taints moderate national conservative parties and furthermore, whitewashes the extremist character of such parties. Russian Misplaced Pages cannot always be relied on, e.g. it's impossible to remove the ridiculous notions there that United Russia is a liberal (!!!) conservative party. Velikaya Rossiya is widely seens as an ultranationalist, xenophobic and even fascist party by the pro-Western liberals: .Miacek (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So, should we remove Rodina seeing that this party is also described as extremist/neo-nazi ? A few years earlier, Rodina was even banned by justice for incitement to racial hatred. Currently, Jobbik seems to be less radical than few years ago, it even formed electoral alliances in recent local elections with left-wing parties to defeat Fidesz's candidate, so it can't be comparable to Greek Golden Dawn or Italian New Force. On the other hand, Austrian FPÖ and French National Front appears in National conservatism article as they are "moderate". Nevertheless, in Wesrtern Europe, everybody (aside from supporters of National Front or FPÖ themselves who find "far-right" pejorative, it's the same thing for far-left parties, nobody wants to appear as extremist) considers these two parties as extremist, racist, far-right ; furthermore FPÖ was historically founded by former neo-nazis. --Martopa (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree on Rodina, disagree on FPÖ and FN. FPÖ was founded by former NSDAP members but it used to be semi-liberal for decades, FPD in Germany also had strong ex-NSDAP presence and for some time was considered the most right-wing among German mainstream parties, until it shifted towards social liberalism. The Verfassungsschutzbericht for Austria has to my knowledge never mentioned FPÖ, it does mention and monitor parties it considers far-right or far-left, and it's not just Verfassungsschutzbericht alone: it simply represents the scholarly consensus in Austria. With FN it is more difficult, it was founded as a far-right party and acted like that under the old Le Pen, but has shifted more to the center under its new leader.Miacek (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Constitutional Democratic Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National Salvation Front

Igor Gräzin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Republican Party

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Red flag

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ukochany kraj

...a wikipedysta daje dwoje rąk. Teraz siegam po majteczki w kropeczki. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Dziękuję bardzo!Miacek (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Loveshy

Saw your edit and removal to Incel, thought you might find Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Love-shyness (2nd nomination) useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. Even THIS has been deleted. I was pleasantly surprised that my article on the fringe phenomenon G0y was not nominated for deletion, however, English Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to be particularly tolerant on heterosexual variety. Oh well... Miacek (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think loveshyness was an exclusively heterosexual concept. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I've read some of Gilmartin and he identified loveshyness as an exclusively heterosexual phenomenon. He pointed out that gay courtship is fundamentally different from straight one in that even shy men there have a chance, such as getting courtship initiated by more extroverted dudes.Miacek (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Because women never initiate courtship with shy men? Actually, nevermind, this is going to end up going down a rabbit hole on a topic where we quite clearly disagree. If you disagree with the love-shyness deletion or think there are sufficient sources such that the article should be recreated, WP:DRV is the place to go. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You clearly haven't even glanced into the book. I suggest that you do. As for DRV, indeed, the article should be undeleted given the sheer amount of coverage the concept has in scholarly sources .Miacek (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)