User talk:Davide King

The contents of the User:Davide King page were merged into Talk:Libertarianism#Davide King's proposal. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.

		The Barnstar of Infinite Patience
		This barnstar is to award you for displaying a superpower level of infinite and invincible patience.

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for your continuous improvements to Communism. Awarded by Cdjp1 on 25 August 2021

Awesome work on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine! Larsobrien 06:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: https://InfoGalactic.com/info/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes_(mirrored_archive) ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

Wikileaks provides a good selection of writings between editors of Communism-related articles.[1] Most of the editors mentioned later changed their user names and are still editing. TFD (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Deuces, that was absolutely disgusting. How is it possible that it does not appear to be changed? E.g. Gestapo–NKVD conferences, Warsaw concentration camp hoax. Are they not, or at least come of them, the same users involved in the mail list? Davide King (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A hint: many of those users changed their names after that story, and it may be quite likely that you may be currently interacting with some of those users (the most plausible figure is three). Just keep that in mind and be cautious. That does not mean you need to suspect everybody, you can always figure out their old names. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interestingly, who in a clear mind could assert that "Protocols..." were not manufactured? Just a random thought, totally irrelevant to this thread, never mind.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert, they really do not appear to understand: "Some of the claims even look ridiculous. For example, as cited, 'The book's main thesis reads thus: our century's fundamental crime was not the Holocaust, but rather the existence of Communism. Through the manipulation of numbers ...'. OK. But, first of all, how is this a 'manipulation with numbers'. Secondly, why is that antisemitic? We need very short, logical and understandable description of the reception, not a scandal mongering, please." Davide King (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“It's always possible to wake someone from sleep, but no amount of noise will wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.”

There are some (very few) users whom I am not discussing, and on whom I am not commenting, unless a situation is extraordinary. There is no extraordinary situation yet. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert, very good quote, thanks! Have you seen their allegations that Engel-Di Mauro may be one of us or that we must be one of his current or former students?1 I am sure it was more towards me than you because you correctly pointed out their double standards about Rummel (no issue) and Engel-Di Mauro (fringe), even though I had no idea who he was until I found that article on Google Scholar and added at The Black Book of Communism (I agree with you on this, though Rummel really believed in it while Engel-Di Mauro did it mostly to show the double standard, and I also agree on Aquillion on this that as long as we are going to use and rely on the Black Book, it is a good source for balance and criticism of it, especially because their expertise seem to be relevant enough on famines — of course, Ó Gráda is top notch) which took it to RSN, which confirmed my addition. I do agree with Robert McClenon that AE is just going to be a distraction and take so much space but such false allegations should be thrown out immediately, not put forward without any evidence, and certainly not in a talk page of an article. Davide King (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are fine with including that reference? ~ cygnis insignis 07:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cygnis insignis, are you referring to Lester?1 While it is a blog, it is an university blog written by an expert and it is actually cited by Solares2, who is also an expert and is not self-published, which makes it due; in addition, it appears that Tombs and Reclaimed History have engaged in historical revisionism, especially about colonialism, and is politically partisan rather than independent/non-partisan as claimed, and Lester and Solares presents a mainstream view, so they are indeed due and fine for NPOV. This is my proposed paragraph. Davide King (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1064201411 ~ cygnis insignis 11:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment here. Ideally, it should be removed because we should really mainly on scholarly sources, and because it is about the proposed deletion of the article, not the topic itself. It should at least be moved down rather than used as false balance for Gerlach. Davide King (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that comment is what prompted the question. I’m now considering how coi might be a factor, and whether my response can be included for ‘balance’ ~ cygnis insignis 11:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean exactly? What is your response? We cannot use the AfD's closure rejecting Tombs' false allegations. As I said, it should simply be removed and it is certainly not going to make it for any "Good article" rewrite status because it is a news source (the lowest acceptable type of WP:RS), it is used as false balance for Gerlach, is about the AfD nomination, not the topic, and it is cherry picking a passing mention. Since some users are just going to edit warring about it, we should just move it down in the next section about ideology, as I did. If you want to remove it, you can do that, but there is going to be an edit war about it and I would not want you to be blocked for it because you are simply making us respect the policies. Davide King (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to illustrate the absurdity of its inclusion. I’ll take your warnings into consideration before seeking your view again, I misunderstood your position on how Wikipedia works ~ cygnis insignis 11:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "the absurdity of its inclusion." What did you misunderstand about how it works? I hope I helped you. Davide King (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cygnis insignis, there is also this: Some, such as the Chinese Communist Party, have attempted to suppress discussion and study of such killings.^[1]

As I wrote here, the news source is not about the topic and is referring only to Tiananmen ("China's Communist leaders have made any discussion of the brutal quelling of the student-led demonstrations -- in which hundreds, maybe thousands, were killed -- taboo, but dissidents say the public could yet hold them accountable.") It is just more editorializing and SYNTH. Davide King (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to avoid commenting on that, please excuse my not examining the comparison for that reason. Another matter, can I say that I will assume you appreciate my contributions without being notified each time; an example of a helpful 'thanks' being triggered is receiving one after what I hope is an improvement to another creator's earnest efforts in mainspace. ~ cygnis insignis 15:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I do understand and no worries. :) Davide King (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So synthesis is determined by notability now... By your logic if a scholar does not meet WP:GNG then we can exclude their source as synthesis. Did I get that right? That's a novel approach, you should try it at WP:RSN sometime, or maybe that's WP:ORN, I'm confused. Anyway, you have just undermined pages and pages of your own arguments against Rummel due to what Karlsson says; on the basis that Karlsson isn't notable according to WP:GNG so relying on Karlsson's criticisms of Rummel is synthesis, according to you. --Nug (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not get me right, though I may not have explained myself clearly enough. As you can see by the fact I ignored this because I am just really tired, I was simply trying to highlight that you have been flip floppy on the source, and I never said that it was the best source, or even a good one, just that it was the closest to what you propose, yet you dismissed it as non-notable back then and when it showed Courtois' and Rummel's problems, and it is still not notable. NPOV is a bigger issue than SYNTH anyway. I also never said the source said "controversial", it was my paraphrasing, and while I think you also gave a good summary, I do not understand how you cannot still see it as problematic, if "controversial" is the issue; you totally ignore that the comparison is "controversial" and politicized, so it only amplifies it further and cannot be core sources for NPOV.

I never said the authors were not notable but according to your notability criteria of citation counts their research review was not notable, hence the SYNTH issue remains. Just because something is published, it does not mean the SYNTH issue is solved if it is from an unreliable source or, as in this case, is not notable as you have argued before. Why do you think TFD said there were no sources on the topic other than Karlsson? It is what Aquillion said, that "such an amalgamation (as we have currently) effectively uses the list from A as synthesis to support the arguments presented in B; it's an inherently non-neutral article." That is the SYNTH, and what TFD, Siebert, and I meant when saying it attempts to prove the thesis of the Black Book, and is not something that the non-notable Karlsoon 2008 paper debunks or is alone enough to overcome. I am more interested in your change of mind about this source anyway, and you can justify such a change. Was TFD right all long back then to explain its lack of citation and thsu notability to you?

But I do think the issue may also be on our understanding of the topic; I am looking at universally recognized mass killings ("Karlsson isn't dismissing that mass killing occurred under communist regimes", me neither so what is the point? I think Karlsson may be a good source for comparative analysis of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, including their mass killings; just because I do not support your version or vision of the article, it does not mean I do not support any at all), hence why I search for "Communist mass killings" or "Mass killings" "Communist regimes", while you are searching "Communist crimes" (as you did here), yet all three mostly shows articles about individual Communist countries. In fact, I get this at page 2: "The narrative of the heroic anti-fascist struggle has been delegitimized along with the communist regimes, and the trauma of communist crimes is placed at the core of remembrance strategies. The resulting divided memory ... ." This is the proper context, and is how I understand the topic, while you and other users appear to understanding state "reappropriation" of memories, hence why I think TFD said there are users that are believers and is what I believe they are referring to. When this appears to be the case, there can be no productive discussion. Certainly, this one was better and I 'thanked' you for it, and I wish we could have the same about MKuCR.

It is a shame because we have agreed on CounterPunch and at Talk:Soviet and Communist studies you have a good argument that I can support, we just cannot, and are not going to, agree on Mass killings under communist regimes or whatever is supposed to be. Even though I am trying to disengage and leave more space to others, it does not mean I am not interested to reply to you — I just do not want that to be used as an excuse to accuse me of bludgenoning, which I believe you did go that way; plus, the fact you continue to reply shows that you are at least interested enough to reply me back, I just do not think it is a productive way to hold it at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes, and you did not seem to engage with me at your talk page either. So unless we find a better avenue to discuss this, I think that it is better that we just end this and call it quits.

Davide King (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning from Coreca, I am writing to greet you and to know how you are. I'm fine enough for now. I am writing to ask you for help with the voice that has now become a draft, Dado Coletti, which you will surely know. If I understand correctly, he has some requirements that do not apply to here. Could you help me to reinforce, expand and improve the article? I don't know which way to turn. For the rest, I thank you and greet you. See you soon and thanks again.--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading through the sources I posted and working (offline) on revisions to the Terminology section, and pretty much ignoring everything else. At this point, the scope is set by the RFC, and I don't really see the value in discussing anything other than soliciting sources (and objections to sources), as we've done. The RM is a distraction, not worth my time to pay attention to it. I doubt there is anything worthwhile to discuss until somebody makes an edit. I'm probably going to be editing the Terminology section today or tomorrow. Levivich 15:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of much of the discussion. My view was that there were insufficient sources to write a neutral article. Paul Siebert says a neutral article could be written, so I will leave it to him to change the article. The other major contributor seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

I also see little need for the move discussion. It's better to leave it to the end.

TFD (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I deleted the "Terminology" section, because its existence is hardly compatible with the "B-type" article's structure. In general, my impression from sources is that we cannot discuss "the" correlation (or a lack thereof) between Communism and mass killings. This topic seems to be totally different from, e.g. Holodomor, and it requires a different approach. Thus, whereas there is an agreement among scholars on what is Holodomor, what was its scale and nature, but there are some debates (in a form of round tables, journal publications etc) whether Holodomor was a genocide, and what is a role of Communist leadership in it.

In contrast, there is absolutely no agreement among scholars about MKuCR: some of them (a majority) do not consider them as a single topic, some of them discuss just a subset of them, and it is absolutely no consensus on what categories of deaths should be considered as mass killing victims. Moreover, there is even no open disputes about the topic as a whole, for different schools of thought are working in isolation from others. That is especially true for "genocide scholars". Thus, I found no references to Rummel in the Courtois part of the Black Book.

In connection to that, we cannot speak about some single correlation between some well defined "mass killings" and some well defined "Communism", for different authors discuss different subsets of mass deaths and find different correlations (sometimes, positive sometimes, negative), of see no correlation at all, and these correlations are linked to different "Communisms" (which range from Malia's "generic Communism" to only "Stalinism"). Therefore, no single "terminology" section, no single "Estimate" section, and no single "Causes" section can be in a new article. Estimates, terminology and causes are tightly linked, and most authors consider different subsets of the events, for which they may propose different estimates (which depend not only on accuracy of figures, but on which categories the author take into account), and different causes. The content should be organized as:

"The author X combines the events A, B, C, D into a single category, which they call "Y". According to their estimates, the number of victims was "Z", and the author X concluded that Y was linked to Communism as follows (... explanation of the theory...)"

Therefore, it would be correct to remove "Terminology" completely, and then to re-add relevant parts into the article with a new structure. What do you think about that? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Levivich, The Four Deuces, I agree and that is why I avoided commented, though I do think some of their repeated claims do need to be challenged for other users reading (I was just tired of doing this). I also agree about the neutral issue and the only NPOV article would be the victims of Communism narrative; of course, I would be fine with not using that name (Communism and mass killing and the like would be fine), but that should be the structure and the topic. I also think that it is time to start editing (I command Levivich for thinking of doing this), remove all stuff about A and C, and start reworking the lead about the relationship between communism, or more accurately 'Communist states', and mass killing(s), and the memory politics behind it. Davide King (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Davide will forgive me for this unorthodox use of his talk page (feel free to delete it if it's not useful), but the most effective thing I can think of doing to answer about terminology is to just share with you all my collection of quotes from the sources about terminology. This is part of what I think should be summarized, in wikivoice as much as possible, in the article. I'm not finished collecting quotes, and haven't yet started attempting to summarize it. But I think if you just skim this, the relevancy becomes obvious.

The concept of genocide is ambiguous in scope. Sometimes it is taken to include 

In our view, Rummel’s definition 

Basically, yes, we need to explain to the reader the difference between crimes against humanity and genocide, why some scholars don't like the term "genocide" and have used different terms (specifically: politicide, democide, classicide), and why various scholars think each of these terms are better than the others to describe mass killings by Communist Party regimes. Levivich 00:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot explain this per synthesis, we can only report explanations provided in sources about the topic, i.e., that are about MKuCR and not isolated countries or comparisons of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. For example, the article Nuremberg trials provides the definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Principle VI of the Nuremberg principles. Had the U.N. set up a "Crimes of Communism" tribunal, we would have been able to do something similar. So that article says or should say Nazis were found guilty under these offenses as defined in the principles. It should not say they had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. And bear in mind that there is no academic consensus on how these terms should be defined. TFD (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, The Four Deuces, Paul Siebert — you are all free to use this as a safe space from bludgeoning and lack of understanding about the topic and scholarship. In regards to terminology, I think it may be fine to clarify this, though it should be very concise and essentially would still require removal and total rewrite of the section; I suggest to work on whether to include this, and if so, to agree on the phrasing and structure rather than re-adding the previous section, which is not an improvement. Davide King (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since my mind is on it anyway, here's what I think a terminology section ought to convey, in a nutshell:

• War crime, crime against humanity, and genocide are the "big three" international crimes, now punishable by ICC
  • War crime was in Treaty of Versailles (first time?)
  • Crime against humanity was in Treaty of Lausanne and is what the Nazis were charged with at Nuremburg, and unlike "war crimes" doesn't require "war"
  • Genocide is something Lemkin came up with in 1944 to describe "the crime without a name", which, according to Lemkin, is the mass killing of a particular group. The UN adopted it but changed the definition to limit it to racial/ethnic groups and not just any group, arguably due to Soviet pressure, so that "genocide" would apply to Nazis but not to Soviet mass killings of political or class or other groups. Since then, scholars have many definitions of "genocide" (somebody says Scott Straus did a review and I think it was 21 definitions up to that point).
• "Democide", aka "death by government" or the killing of a person/people by a government, was first defined by Abel in a 1951 paper but everyone says Rummel coined it in the 1990s; he certainly popularized it. Some definitions require it to be a group of people, not just an individual, and the size of the group varies (50k for Valentino, 100k for someone else IIRC)
• "Politicide" is Harff's term coined in the 1980s to describe mass killing of a political group.
• "Classicide" is Mann's term coined in 2005 to describe mass killing of a class (e.g. social or economic).
• Some scholars use each of these terms to describe mass killings by Communist Parties, and have different arguments for why each is a better term to describe those particular mass killings, including some who prefer the generic "mass killing" (though, still, they have different definitions of how many is "mass").
• "Red Holocaust" and "Communist genocide" are propaganda terms from Romania and Czechoslovakia (IIRC) used to propagate double genocide theory
• "Body count" (estimates of mass killings) will be heavily influenced by the exact definition used Levivich 01:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, genocide and crime against humanity are legal terms: they are literally crimes. In contrast, "democide" or "politicide" is just a statistical category: the former was proposed by Rummel as a tool to collect the global database of all deaths inflicted by a government on its own population. Simolarly, "politicide" is a subset of democide that was used to establish correlation between some concrete kind of violence and the regime's type. Furthermore, "classicide" is a sociological category that was aimed to describe the event that was sociologically similar to "ethnic cleansing" (the idea was that perversion of liberal democracy leads to ethnic cleansing whereas perversion of socialist democracy leads to classicide). So we have different categories of terms (not like "kinetic energy" vs "potential energy", but like "energy" and "momentum"), which describe different subcategories, and none of them is applicable to MKuCR as a whole. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by none of them is applicable to MKuCR as a whole, because, e.g., Jones, Semelin, Midlarsky, and others, all describe those terms in relation to mass killings under communist regimes. (search for "communist" in the quotes above for examples) Levivich 01:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure they do it for Communism as a whole, rather than Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, which is what I believe Siebert is referring to. I could be wrong though. Davide King (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- not for communism but for certain Communist Party regimes. Levivich 01:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can explain.

"Politicide" was applied to such events as Great Purge or Campaign to suppress counter-revolutionaries, but not to Great Chinese famine. That means it was applied to events that lead to a small fraction of those "100 million victims"

"Classicide" was applied mostly to Cambodia, and, to much lesser extent, to China and USSR

Actually, only "Democide" is universally applicable to all deaths, but this term is tautological (as Mann rightly noticed). "All premature deaths under Communism fall under a definition of "democide", which is defined as all death caused, directly or indirectly, by action of some government".

And so on, and so forth.

As a result we have a perfect synthesis: the author A called Cambodian mass killings "classicide", the author B called Great purge "politicide", the author C called famine "Communist mass killings", the author D claimed Communists killed 100+ million, and the author E claimed that democide correlates with Communism. If we combine all of that together, we get a nice story about 100 million mass killings (ref author D) that are directly linked to linked to Communism (ref author E), and the only disagreement is if all of that should be called "classicide" per A, or it was "politicide" per B, or it was "Communist mass killings" per C. In other words, we have a totally misleading and biased narrative. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this analysis and is why majority of scholarly sources do not do it for Communism as a whole but limit themselves to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a few other examples. Incidentally, I believe this is why TFD thinks we cannot write a NPOV article about it, and the only solution is explain the 100 million victims of Communism narrative, while contrasting them with scholarly analysis about communism and mass killing that contextualize rather than generalized as Courtois, Rummel, et al. did. Davide King (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: War Crimes. While the recognition of war crimes under international law may date only as far back as 1919, countries had prosecuted war criminals before then. In English common law, enemy aliens could not be prosecuted in civilian courts. However, as prisoners of war, they could be prosecuted under military tribunals, as explained in Calvin's Case 1608. Hence, Upper Canada prosecuted American invaders in 1838 and the U.S. prosecuted Confederate soldiers for war crimes, for example Henry Wirz. The Wikipedia article provides an earlier example of Peter von Hagenbach (1474). TFD (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Animal welfare and rights in Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Urho Kekkonen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autocrat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Fixed it — thanks very much to Rodw. Davide King (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russia invaded Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Russia invaded Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Much appreciation for your dedicated and continued copy editing efforts on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article! Benjamin112 ☎ 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I just want to ask what CE means in your edits? Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing, as sometimes I do not know how to summarize and copy editing is what I do most of the time, or at least I try to do. Davide King (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Julius Randle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dunk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it thanks to Nintendoswitchfan. I thought that it was a redirect, my bad. Davide King (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 1–2 finish and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 29#1–2 finish until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. SSSB (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. You are such a thorough user. Will you be helping me in Formula One Grand Prix articles for this season and for those to come as it has been the case so far? Island92 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, Island92. What are your thoughts on this? I see that you edited it (thank you for that) but never removed it, so I wonder what are your thoughts about it. Davide King (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I agree with @SSSB:. There was no change in the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix entry list during the Grand Prix weekend, despite the fact Mick Schumacher was ruled out prior to the race due to qualifying crash. Thus that efn is useless for the section. The drivers and teams were the same as the season entry list with no additional stand-in drivers for the race for both Grands Prix (SAU & AUS), seeing that there was no one who replaced Mick in the race in Saudi Arabia.--Island92 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Orleans Jazz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it here. Davide King (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russia invaded Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Russia invaded Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back in December you made the following edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes&diff=1060258181&oldid=1060251965

that includes this typo (notice the period):

"Karlsson describes Rummel's 61,911,000.121 estimate for the Soviet Union as being"

That typo is still in the current version. Not sure if 121 was was supposed to be a reference like [121] or what. —Megiddo1013 01:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems you made the same mistake a few weeks earlier here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolph_Rummel&diff=1056086737&oldid=1055778913

—Megiddo1013 05:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my bad. I forgot to remove the text's own reference number, thank you Megiddo1013 for noticing this. Davide King (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why did you created a redirect page mixed-market economy? See logs for it here [2] , I will look forward for your reply and would continue the discussion. Thanks Sneha04 ^💬 07:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha04: Sure, because it has been used in several pages and have a direct link rather than having to use [[Mixed economy|mixed-market economy]] or [[Mixed economy#Mix of free markets and state intervention|mixed-market economy]] . Davide King (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your tireless work in copyediting the article for the Robb Elementary School shooting! At least, I assume that's what you must be doing. Unless "CE" stands for something else and I'm just not hip on the Wikipedia lingo. (Also, thanks for the thanks for my edits. I know no one but me can see them, but I appreciate it.) benǝʇᴉɯ 15:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still interested in the article, I just found this. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davide

Please leave {{Bare URL inline}} inside the <ref> .. </ref> tags. Moving it to after the close ref (as you did here[3]) means that bots and tools don't recognise it, so it won't get removed even if the ref is filled. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl — My bad! I thought the reverse was true. Thank you for making me aware of this now. Davide King (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robb Elementary School shooting. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In this case, a consensus has already been reached at Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting#Inclusion of conspiracy theories.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 48Pills (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

48Pills — very funny when you are the one who reverted twice now (first the long-standing consensus, and then to remove it all), and while it may be shorten, it is you who violated the consensus by completely removing it. As I said, on my edit summary, consensus was to not have a full section and to describe it briefly, while you removed it outright, all of it. Davide King (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why you insist on adding everything that was in the originally reverted section?? 48Pills (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

48Pills — Because that is the status quo version that was there without issues. I only re-added a very short intro that was added by another user, who created a separate section about it, and so I reverted that but kept the addition. More to the point, why did you insist of removing literally everything from it rather than just the latest, very brief addition? Davide King (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge) Hi Davide King, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That huge table was added by him, and probably contains intentional errors. He is a newbie at en:, but was editwarring at fr: as well, and has been blocked this morning there as a sock puppet.[4] (delete after reading) KittenKlub (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to overlink, as you did here. I had removed the overlinking but you added it back in that edit, so I had to remove the overlinking, again. With linking, you link once in the lead, and then once after the lead (tables and boxes are excluded). All of those things you linked are already linked in the History section. --JDC808 ♫ 11:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! Davide King (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted the paragraph construction of your dissent text re: the Jackson opinion to match that of the preceding majority opinion and consolidated a note that was fragmented. Also, you deleted material relevant to "the law of the case" in the "See Also" section; that was restored. Your link to the 2022 abortion protests was offset (as it is not part of the "law of the case" but remains in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send you a list of anticipated changes later in the week. See direction from User:X-Editor for guidance. I'll cc him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avica1998 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The part you just added about Alito sitting on Casey may be better in the bg where Barrett's stance on abortion is spelled out. It would take some wordsmithing to incorporate (i am on a phone keyboard so can't easily do it) --Masem (t) 13:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mentioned it, it makes sense — thanks! Davide King (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, much praise to your edits to various crime articles. I was wondering if you could rewrite this sentence on the interrogation section on the Lee Harvey Oswald article that was discussed on the talk page. The article says that Oswald told Holmes he was “working on an upper floor when the shooting occurred, then went downstairs”. Looking though Harry Holmes testimony, especially on page 306, it is clear what Holmes meant where Oswald said he encountered the officer: ...as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions... Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule. Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule? Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part. Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor? Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor. Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember? Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola.

Holmes clarifies that Oswald was talking about encountering the officer at the vestibule on the first floor by the front entrance. Holmes describes two set of doors which were in the building vestibule (which were a front lobby between two set of doors). Based on this, the paragraph regarding Holmes on the “Police interrogation” section could be rewritten to say “Holmes (who attended the interrogation at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz) said that Oswald said he was at the first floor vestibule by the front entrance and wanted to see what the “commotion” was when he encountered an officer.” 62.254.8.232 (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I made adjustments to those categories because he did not lead the NBA in those categories in 1959-60 or other years. Go to Basketball Reference to confirm my changes. He didnt even come close to leading in field goal percentage or free throw percentage in 1959-60. Thank you for your time. If I overlooked something, let me know please. Have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding is not used for that, it is used to highlight the highest career result for each statistic; there is even a table/legend above — the * with a bluish color is the one used for leading statistics. Davide King (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, you are absolutely correct. As a long-time Wikipedian I should have caught that immediately. The data in bold was his highs for his career, not the league high. We all make mistakes and I made one here. You have a good one.Theairportman33531 (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay! Thank you very much for your kidness :) Davide King (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davide -- I'm Francisco from WME. I'm reaching out in case you'd be interested in chatting with me for 30 or 45 minutes. I'm doing research around editing activities on different styles of Wiki articles. I've seen you around articles with vandalism and breaking news in them, so I'd like to ask about your methods. What do you think? If you're interested, please reach out to me at my contacts on my meta page linked above :) FranCapoArg (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davide. I've noticed some of your edits through my watchlist where you've added oxford commas (like example, example, and example) to articles that do not use them consistently already, I looked around and found WP:Oxford comma which says there's no preference if it's used or not, so it seems a bit unnecessary to change what style to use when it's subjective, similar to what variety of English is used on subjects unrelated to a certain variety or different era styles. I get it if it's your preference (I happen to generally not prefer them) but like I said, just doesn't seem necessary to me unless that's what's already mostly used on the article. Appreciate your otherwise very solid copy editing though. Is there a specific reason you add them? TylerBurden (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TylerBurden, first of all, thanks for letting me known this. As English is not my first language, I've gone back and forth between using it and not using it. Sometimes articles I edit may not be very consistent, so perhaps I saw an Oxford comma and thought that was the style chosen for the article when it could just have an inconsistent article; of course, sometimes I may have also been wrong not noticing the article is consistently not using, and other times, depending on the style I favour on a given period, I may simply add it because in one period I may be favouring one style over the other. Since you let me know this, I've tried to be more careful about it and follow the article's chosen style or simply not adding it since I agree that it can be unnecessary. Again, thank you. :-) Davide King (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable and no problem, yea best thing to do is to check what style is used consistently. Cheers. TylerBurden (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Davide King! I recently proposed the article Classicide, to which you largely contributed, for the Meta-Wiki project Translation of the week. Thus, it would be really helpful if you could vote here for the proposal to succeed so that other Wikipedias are encouraged to translate it into their language. Thank you in advance! --Brunnaiz (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbara Ehrenreich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inequality in the United States.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was done on purpose. A primary topic may have been found a proper article be written. Davide King (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 September 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Swedish general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 04:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Davide King, Thanks for your great contributions on the page for the 2022 Italian general election on this busy election night. I'm headed to bed, but I have the strangest feeling you aren't. Your ongoing quick and accurate edits are noticed and appreciated. Thank you again! LocalWonk (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 September 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Italian general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow agree with the current lead, but, as someone interested in political scientist, i think it misses the peculiarites of Meloni's right-wing movement.

1)the fact that her party descends via three parties (PNF > MSI > AN >FdI) from Mussolini's fascist party.

2)the use of "patriot" to define herself and the militants of her party.

3)Her "eurorealism" or "soft euroscepticism". The concept of a "confederal Europe of sovereign nations" is the key proposal she has on the EU. It may be contradictory, but she repeates it over and over.

4)Her feminationalism or girlbossism. There are studies on these traits of Meloni, even in the English language.

5)Her opposition to neocolonialism, chiefly because she sees it as the cause of the European migrant crisis. This is a very peculiar trait of her in the right-wing criticism of immigration.

6)Her opposition to Covid restrictions (especially early on during the pandemic).

7)Her staunch criticism of China and communist regimes, she is in favor of leaving the Belt and Road initiative for example.

It's purely an academic interest of mine. These are the things i want to add with my edits. I think it's a reasonable, well-informed, non-POV upgrade.

Barjimoa (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Barjimoa for taking the time to writing me here. My main issue is that the lead is supposed to summarize and I think your edits fit the body more; I have since added the Taylor & Francis source and that she rejects the Eurosceptic label. We may add that she rejects this in the lead, as we do for 'far right' but I'm not sure how you would fit all the other stuff in the lead. They could be a good addition for the body, where we could divide it into "Domestic", "Foreign", and "Others" to discuss in great details but using summary style and no more than a few too long paragraphs. Davide King (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but i think i can find a way to fit into the lead without going into details. And btw i think we should shorten the paragraph on her political carreer. Barjimoa (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barjimoa, I think your latest edit were fine. Could you please help to also discuss this in summary style with a few refs in the body too? I believe there're a few more than decent refs about her feminism that we could expand and other stuff you've mentioned. Davide King (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a study in english on Meloni's feminationalism. (https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/772998/1586260/A12Can%20feminism%20be%20right_OPEN.pdf). I wrote "right-wing feminism" as i thought it redirected to it , but now i see it redirects to conservative feminism, which i think it's problematic cause Meloni doesn't define herself as a classic feminist; in fact she denies it, altough she obviously took some feminist rethoric. So perhaps i should replace it with feminationalism, even though it's an academic term.Barjimoa (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Davide King (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barjimoa, that "feminonationalism" is an academic term isn't necessarily a bad thing; the link should be enough for those not aware of it. I encourage you to expand it in the body, perhaps in a "Relationship with feminism" section, where we summarize all this you told me. Her criticism of China and neo-colonialism should also be briefly mentioned with sources at "Foreign policy" and "Immigration and multiculturalism". Davide King (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

) I just thought "described" gave them more credit than they were due, above that of pointing fingers and calling names :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnecessarily (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for your efforts in improving the article Giorgia Meloni. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Cdjp1 (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Giorgia Meloni. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that trying to put yourself in other people's shoes is not just useful, but fundamental. You falsely accused me so many times, and I sincerely don't understand why, so after the edit war we had, I tried to understand you more, both as a person and as a wikipedian, giving a look at your userpage and edits, and I've been quite surprised. Reading your infobox amid the discussion, I immediately noticed we have some things in common: we're both Southern Italians, both born in '96, and we also share the irreligion, the same sexual orientation, similar political views and similar interests and - the most important - the same personality type. Being an INTP, I can understand what you feel like, what moves you, and I can assume good faith... but please, understand that you should not focus so much on your point of view. On Giorgia Meloni, you wrote "such like-minded right-wing politicians only complain about it and make a controversy when an asylum seeker or immigrant commits a crime or rape" and that totally looks like a prejudice against right-wing politicians. Being a leftist (socialist) myself, I can even understand your disapproval of her party, but accusing people based on just their political position is just not right. I hope you understand this. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Est. 2021, I absolutely agree that "trying to put yourself in other people's shoes is not just useful, but fundamental", and again I apologize. I swear, it was in good faith and likely in the heat of the moment, I'm truly sorry about that, I got confused and it was my mistake, I hope you can forgive me and move on because I think this message of yours was really helpful, and I thank you for this. In response to, "understand that you should not focus so much on your point of view", remember that was the talk page and I didn't put that in the article, like I didn't put in the article something like this: "She only focus and complain about crimes committed by immigrant."

Said this, my comment came from what I observed and read from reliable sources; I also think I probably didn't explain myself good enough because you misunderstood the point because it wasn't my intention to accuse "people based on just their political position". It's very funny actually, I thought that you were on the right and were trying to whithewash her or moderate her too much that in my view is not supported by reliable sources, and that's probably why I may have been too aggressive towards you, and for this I apologize. For the record, I would do the same in the other direction where it would be too extreme, e.g. see my rejection of the IP asking that we call her 'fascist' as fact and also my disagreement with the IP on civil unions, as per reliable sources she did appear to moderate her stance on civil unions and pleadge to not abrogate the law. I don't discriminate on politics, I only want that our policies and reliable sources are respected and followed, so when someone appears to be whitewashing or make appear someone more extreme than they are, it pisses me off and upset me. As you said, whatever I personally think of her and her party, it doesn't matter.

What matters to me is that the article is in line with our policies and reliable sources, and in the case of Meloni that neither dismiss outright reliable sources discussing her neo-fascist or far-right roots, nor goes too extreme in the other way by calling her a fascist as a fact. I also dislike false balances and bothsideism, and those misudnerstanding NPOV to mean unbiased rather than properly reflect what reliable sources says and give prominence to each majority and minority viewpoints in accordance to the prevalance among reliable sources. In the case of Meloni, they do discuss and cite her neo-fascist or far-right roots, which is what our article does too, but they also don't call her fascist outright, which our article also doesn't do. But I'm even more confused now after you told me more about yourself because we're indeed similar in many ways and thus I don't understand our dispute. It wasn't a proposal to say, as fact, that Meloni only focus on immigrants committing a crime. I was just saying that some right-wing politicians and parties, in particular those more radical and right-wing populists, especially focus on crimes committed by immigrants.

How many times have we listened to television or read online from both sides of the spectrum such accusses to each other, and I've listened and read to politicians and reliable sources making the same point that some on the right focus too much on the crime if it was committed by an immigrant, just like some on the left and centre may also focus too much on something; I didn't mean to state that as fact or even add it to the article, I just thought that was the connection the sources did and that's why I structured it that way. Look in the United States how many fakes new came from the far right and 4-chan pushing things like false flags antifa operations or that something was committed by a black person or an immigrant, when neither was true, but some right-wing politicians and commentators believed them because they especially focus on crimes committed for example by immigrants. That's what I mean, like this is something that really triggers some on the right, and of course there're things that trigger those on the left or on the centre, e.g. I've heard or read some on the right say that the left only cares about minorities, or that if a crime was committed by a white person, they would focus much more than if it was committed by a minority. I'm not sure I explained what I meant in a good way but I hope you get what I'm saying.

Of course, I agree with you that it shouldn't matter whether something, whether it was a crime or a rape, was committed by a native or an immigrant, I'd condemn it anyway and I wish everyone would do so and condemn it regardless. Unfortunately, in real life this isn't always what happened (at least to me) and that was what I was referring to and talking about; it was more in general, a generalization (perhaps too much), rather than limited to Meloni and the like. Davide King (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Workers' Barnstar
		This user has shown great editing skills in improving articles related to Communism or Socialism.
		this WikiAward was given to Davide King by Cdjp1 (talk) on 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Cdjp1 (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utente Davide, le fonti riguardo Giorgia Meloni già stanno dopo il mio contributo perchè io ho eliminato due fonti che risultano inaffidabili e dichiaranti il falso, invece nella versione che ti ostini a inserire si dichiara che Meloni dichiarò il falso riguardo il titolo di studio e questa è una schifosissima fandonia supportata da fonti inventate da giornalisti prezzolati da politicanti di fazioni avverse! Forza bruta (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Forza bruta, cosa c'è di falso esattamente in quelle due fonti? "Ricapitolando: non è vero che Meloni ha frequentato un liceo linguistico, come ha ammesso lei stessa in altre circostanze. Ha però frequentato un istituto tecnico superiore, con indirizzo linguistico." Se il problema è "This created a controversy about whether she lied about her diploma", bastava modificarlo leggermente senza implicare che abbia mentito, piuttosto che togliere fonti come hai fatto tu. Davide King (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

non bisogna scrivere un articolo sul titolo di studio che ha Meloni: le fonti che stanno nella mia versione sono sufficienti e le due fonti rimosse da me sono mendaci. Adesso devo spegnere il computer, ciao--Forza bruta (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 October 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Brazilian general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. El_C 04:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Davide_King reported by User:Triggerhippie4 (Result: ). Thank you. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David King. You've been warned for edit warring at 2022 Israeli legislative election per the outcome of the AN3 complaint. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly trout for this edit, which, in removing the markup <section end=lead />, caused four sub-articles to transclude the entirety of the main article for 10 months. MediaWiki should probably throw an error in that sort of case, but apparently it doesn't, and apparently no one noticed till me! So, enjoy the free fish. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, @Tamzin! As you wrote, I didn't get any error and everything looked fine, so I didn't think much about it :D

Anyway, this edit also apparently removed <section end=lead /><section begin=links /> I don't know if that changed anything or made it worse.

Thank you for adding the hidden note to not remove them. Davide King (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so perhaps it was re-added sometime after your removal; I only landed on you as the "culprit" through WikiBlame, but it searches back-to-front, I think. The whole situation with splitting those lists seems to still need some work. The "links" part of the section transclusion doesn't seem to have ever worked, leading to harvref errors on some pages... I'll try to get to sorting that out soon. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought that you might be interested in this discussion that we are having right now on Danish People's Party talk page. It's about which ideologies should be included in its infobox. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering why you keep on removing the link to the 1934 elections that I added in the lede. You seem really insistent about it but I don’t know of any policy that suggests it shouldn’t be in there. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpotisch, I think our policies are clear that our links must be ... well, clear. I know it may sounds obvious we are linking to the election results rather than the year but we should make it clear; one link was about the midterm, another was about the gubernatorial elections, and it was not clear from text by just linking the year where the reader would be linked. Then there is also the issue of overlinking and consistency. In fact, all these links are properly linked in the body. If we're going to pipe a link, it's better to just unlink it to avoid overlinking and linking it later either through the main link or redirect. Davide King (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still don’t really get where you’re coming Freon. The role of the lede is to emphasize noteworthy facts from the body, and plenty of other elections are already linked in the lede, so I don’t see why it’s problematic to include it. Furthermore, you removed the 1934 links even when I only linked to the midterm (and not also the gov elections). Freon where I stand, the lede is clearly heavily highlighting how historically unprecedented this year was, so I don’t think it is excessive to link to 1934, especially considering that there are like three different ways that that election was the last historical precedent for this one. Cpotisch (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see WP:OVERLINKING. That other article do the same mistakes, it is not really a good argument. "First of all, keep links as simple as possible ... Unnecessary piping makes the wikitext harder to read ... Keep piped links as transparent as possible" (WP:NOPIPE). Finally, we literally have Template:United States elections at the end where every election is already linked. As I wrote, if we must link them, we must at least link them properly. Davide King (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained how I haven't been "link[ing] them properly", though, or why it isn't "simple" enough for your tastes. I still don't really understand what you're taking issue with, here. Cpotisch (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my "tastes" [sic], it's our rules, which says "keep links as simple as possible ... Unnecessary piping makes the wikitext harder to read ... Keep piped links as transparent as possible."

Your version:

• 2022 is the first midterm since [[1934 United States elections|1934]] in which the president's party did not lose control of a single state legislative chamber. This also marked the first midterm since 1934 in which Democrats made a net gain of governorships under a Democratic president, and the first since [[1986 United States gubernatorial elections|1986]] in which either party gained governorships while holding the presidency.

Proper linking:

• 2022 is the first midterm since the [[1934 U.S. elections]] in which the president's party did not lose control of a single state legislative chamber. This also marked the first midterm since 1934 in which Democrats made a net gain of governorships under a Democratic president, and the first since the [[1986 U.S. elections]] in which either party gained governorships while holding the presidency.

Alternative:

• ... since the [[1986 U.S. gubernatorial elections]] in which either party made gains while holding the presidency.

This is proper linking, and makes it clear that we're linking to 1934 United States elections and 1986 United States elections/1986 United States gubernatorial elections rather than 1934/1934 in the United States or 1986/1986 in the United States. Davide King (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davide King : Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Davide King,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Davide King,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davide King, you're a long term contributor whose contributions I respect, but could you please up your game on the use of edit summaries, to help your fellow editors? Your edit summary usage stats are impeccable, and list you as 100% usage, but that is misleading. Checking your last 100 contributions, 97% of them are 'ce', and it looks like it goes way back beyond just those. This is no better than no edit summary at all. Some examples of how this could be improved:

• rev. 1134229334 at LGBT – arguably *is* ce, but unfortunately, the diff program displays a giant mess and it's really hard to see the changes. At first glance, it looks like you added and deleted massive amounts of material, and it takes quite some time to see what you actually did. A better edit summary might be: "added and dropped some paragraph breaks; no change to content." That alone would've saved me some time.
• rev. 1134430535 at Christian socialism – better is " /* Facts */ Per [[WP:NOPIPE]]."
• rev. 1134424781 at Workplace Religious Freedom Act – , honestly, after studying the diff for a while, I still have no idea; the diff program doesn't make it easy, and I gave up trying to figure out what changed here. Help!
• rev. 1134424131 at Christian socialism – not 'ce'; better would be: " /* 21st century */ more narrowly targeted wikilink"
• rev. 1134425321 at Employment Division v. Smith – better is "No punct. between refs; improve ref."
• rev. 1134422702 at Vladimir Herzog – better is "Per WP:NOPIPE."
• rev. 1134422099 at List of ROH World Tag Team Champions – better is "/* top */ Tag for AE and mdy dates."

Please can you use descriptive summaries going forward? Thanks for everything you do for the project. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot, so sorry about that! Now that you gave me some examples, it's baffling that I didn't think using those edit summaries and how they didn't come up in my mind when I first did them (when I had them in my mind and were very short, I used to literally show differences, e.g. between words, or show what I added) — if I had probably thought for a few more second, I could have come up with a proper summary but I simply assumed that it was still some form of copy editing (e.g. sometimes I used "ce wl[s]"), or that it would be easily to understand from reviewing diffs, but you're right that sometimes it looks confusing, even though I didn't remove anything and just moved or better positioned sentences and/or paragraphs to improve readability and avoid too short and too long paragraphs. I will try to be more careful on this. For example, I would now summarize 1134424781 as "better arranged paragraphs to avoid having a few of them with just a sentence." I thought "ce" would do the trick but I realize now that this is one of the example where it isn't clear what exactly I edited (I don't know why this happens and if it can be improved). Davide King (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this Davide, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Handy tip: one way I helped "train myself" to always use them, is I set set my preferences to remind me when I forget. To do this, go to Preferences > Editing, then under bold heading Editor, check the box for 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'. If you forget, it will give you another chance. If you really want to save with no summary, just click the 'Publish' button a second time, and you're done. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as I know that your edits are fine, but not all edits are part of criticism of TLOU HBO series. CastJared (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the January 2023 election of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives was the longest speaker election since December 1859 – February 1860? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is my edit correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1134988471 5.91.25.107 (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently re-read the article Keynesian beauty contest and the ordering of the "See also" section surprised me so much that I had to check if someone intentionally made it worse recently and that was in fact the case with this edit, which I reverted

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keynesian_beauty_contest&diff=prev&oldid=1105067249&diffmode=source

If you read the article, it should be obvious why "Tactical voting" which is basically the same concept is more relevant than any other things in the list.

What is the point of alphabetically sorting "See also"? This is not a dictionary. People aren't searching the See also section to check if some specific article they already know the name of is listed, they're reading it to find out which other concepts are related to the article, so the most relevant article should be the first thing they read. Also since people won't always read the entire list it makes more sense to have the first few things they might read be the most relevant.

I can understand doing this for articles that have tons of items in "See also" and where there's not an obvious sorting of relevance/importance, but in this case sorting it alphabetically just removes useful information for no gain. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Democratic Party (Italy) leadership election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2016–17 Central Italy earthquakes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davide King. Thank you for your work on Gianluigi Gabetti. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Very nice job on the article, keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. MOS:ELLIPSIS allows square brackets around an ellipsis to make clear that it isn't original to the material being quoted. My thoughts are that it's much clearer to use brackets, which is why I reverted your recent edit. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf, well, it says occasionally, not it must be preferred, and the case in which you reverted doesn't fit, since it's a matter of preference; however, you cited MOS:ELLIPSIS, which says: "Occasionally, square brackets are placed around an ellipsis to make clear that it isn't original to the material being quoted, for example if the quoted passage itself contains an ellipsis (She retorted: "How do I feel? How do you think I ... This is too much! [...] Take me home!"). As far as I know, this is not the case in the quotes I edited. So your revert is not really based on policy, and it's just you that prefers the use of square brackets, which ironically enough was what I used to do too for elipsis, then I read the MoS part about it and thought it was preferred to use ... rather than [...] so I don't know if that changed? Either way, my reading of the policy is that ... is to be preferred over [...], which must be reduced to being used occasionally and only to make clear that it isn't original to the material being quoted (e.g. "She attended [secondary] school]"), and if the quoted passage itself contains an ellipsis, which does not appear to be the case, or I may add if the source itself uses [...] Davide King (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Davide King, yesterday I wrote on John Elkann talk page about the Sports section and the last paragraph in the Early life section. As you wrote that content, I'd like to have your perspective. Can you please have a look? Thank you! :) Alucespenta84 (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited I know that I know nothing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socratic paradox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the communist state article! :) TheUzbek (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have, so that you know, re-structured the communist state article to clarify specifically the unitary state power of the legislatures and how a ruling communist party monopolises state power. I think the best way to improve the article is to merge the "Ruling party" section with the legislature since the ruling party has to legitimate power without a majority in the legislature. A section should also be written about how the ruling party, through its control of the legislatures, organises election that re-produces a majority in it. I have also changed the heading "Political system" to "The state system of unitary state power" since, in communist systems state system also encompasses the economic system.

I would think a good structure would be:

1. The state system of unitary state power
   1. Legislatures as the highest organ of state power
      1. Unitary state power principle
      2. Communist party control of legislature
      3. Representativity and functions
   2. Government as the highest administrative agency of state power
      1. Clarify that the government are utterly subservient to the legislatures (and through the legislature, the Party)
   3. Judicial organs
      1. clarify that these organs are utterly subservient to the legislatures (and through the legislature, the Party)
   4. Military
      1. OK sections, but fails to mention that the legislature elects the leading state authority of the armed forces.
   5. Head of state and supervisory institutions
      1. Missing.

Do you agree? Do you want to help? --TheUzbek (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is engaging in a edit war on this page. : Before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Podujana_Peramuna&oldid=1098047078 After https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Podujana_Peramuna&oldid=1162608279 proof https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Podujana_Peramuna&diff=prev&oldid=1162608279 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMQ735 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davide King!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 10:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]