User talk:Davide King

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Hi Davide

Please leave {{Bare URL inline}} inside the <ref> .. </ref> tags. Moving it to after the close ref (as you did here) 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. (delete after reading) KittenKlub (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

@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)

) 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)

		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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

		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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

   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)

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

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

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deutsche Reichspartei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DRP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This may sound like an ask, but if you have time, do you think you could move the ideologies into their own section? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, can you, for a moment, take the time to stop pressing the "edit" + "publish" buttons and read something of what I am telling you? You keep bashing your head against the wall of issues that were already solved both in GA reviews and in long discussions on formatting and manual of style through a wide number of articles, yet you keep enforcing (at many times incorrect) edits for no reason! (You mention policies that don't actually support your claims). Impru20^talk 22:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

And it's curious because we can actually reach good compromises like this one! Impru20^talk 23:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Neo-communism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 1 § Neo-communism until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Aldo Moro, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Red Brigades, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The article about Javier Milei is experiencing vandalism by political activists, and in particular by user Uniru288 as of 2023-08-15. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&action=history. As you (Davide King) are actively moderating it, and in a non-biased way, this should be discussed.

The article as a whole is quite misleading, and does not highlight his political views, but rather highlighting out of context misrepresentations. It is filled with political bias, and should remain neutral, free from slander, and provide a balanced point of view. You further claim that citations from media with a political bias are reliable secondary sources about a political figure they disagree with. Then you claim that primary sources must be used with care.

Lets make sure we understand each other.

According to Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources are encouraged for citations, especially when making direct quotations, which the article is full of. Secondary sources does not mean "good" or "reliable", it depends what type of source it is. Political opposition is not a reliable source for a political article. Media outlets are typically referencing other media articles, so the original article should be used, which is in most cases from Argentinian media. This can not be used as factual information, and represented as such. It is not a problem to include references from media, the problem is to claim these being factual, and without providing any trustworthy reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources

Please note that the article makes claims that in many cases are both incorrect and misleading. Lets list a short sample. E.g.,

"Milei is a follower of the ex-Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and the ex-United States president Donald Trump.[59]"

This is false, Milei does not have any political or personal affiliation with either, and has explicitly stated a neutral point of view towards them. He is in general positive towards politicians that are anti-communist, but its misleading to expand this claim that he is a follower of Trump or Bolsonaro.

"Several of Milei's political positions have caused controversy,[21] such as ... the rejection of sexual education in schools,[23]" "He relies on Cultural Marxism to oppose ... sexual education in schools;[23] he compared public education to brainwashing.[70]"

This is a misrepresentation. His claim is that certain classes in education is being used for indoctrination of political ideology. There are numerous reports of that from parents etc, and is not a conspiracy theory. I can provide sources if you think its necessary.

Labels such as "far-right", "right-wing", "populist", "ultraconservative" etc does not belong in a Wikipedia article as fact. These are non-descriptive labels used as slander, and does not provide a neutral description of actual viewpoints. At best this can be cited as a reference, stating who are using such labels.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.69.198.165 (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

RE: this

I refer to the Wikipedia guidelines here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Articles should not state things as facts, when they are opinions. Even if they are the opinions of several secondary sources, they should be presented as such.

This is not about using Wikipedia to right great wrongs, it is about the article being used for political activism. Articles should remain neutral.

There is no problem using media articles, but there is a big problem when they are being presented as fact. Your argument is that because something was written by a secondary source, it is automatically a fact and can be stated as such. I did not claim that we should trust what someone says, I claimed you can not take misrepresentations from a media article, and rewrite them in Wikipedia as factual. You can use them using standard journalist practice with "according to", "reported by" or similar wording, and strive to make the Wikipedia representation of the source neutral.

I also did not say media is inherently biased in an irrational and unreasonable way, this is not a correct interpretation of my critique. The readers of a Wikipedia article should be presented with a neutral article, and make their own judgements. They do not need someone to make interpretations for them and rewriting media articles as facts.

Finally, the claim is also that the citations fail verification. The two examples above are from the very same articles used as sources.

1. The Wikipedia article claims he is a follower/supporter of Trump and Bolsonaro, and uses a media article as evidence. This is not correct, the very same media article explicitly quotes Milei as having a neutral view of them. This appears to me like the very definition of misuse. You can use a media article, stating that such media has reported him as supporting Trump/Bolsonaro, but this is not even what is written in the article, is is an interpretation of the article with a political bias. The original interview he did is with the Brazilian O Globo, where they asked if his project was inspired by Trump and Bolsonaro, and his response was "Everyone who is against socialism or communism is on the side I am on" (Todos los que estuvieran contra el socialismo o el comunismo están del lado en el que estoy), and "My alignment with Trump and Bolsonaro is almost natural" (Mi alineamiento con Trump y Bolsonaro es casi natural).

2. The Wikipedia article further claims he opposes sexual education in schools, using another media article as evidence. This is not correct, the article provides quotes from Milei, where he states that "Educación Sexual Integral" is being used for political activism, and therefore will cancel it. The source does not support the claim he is against sexual education in schools.

The Wikipedia article is filled with this type of misuse, especially because its all being presented as fact. The amount of work required to correct this article is quite large, especially with the constant vandalism happening. This particular person is controversial, very critical of socialism and communism, and is thus experiencing significant attack from these kind of political activists. This kind of political activism does not belong on Wikipedia. This is the very reason things needs to be written with caution, making it clear for the reader which things are facts, which things are opinions etc. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears we are more or less in agreement regarding Wikipedia guidelines, and I agree with most of your comments, I will reply where i see deviation;

The Wikipedia article did state "is a ...", "supports ..." as factual claims in the recent edits the last couple of days, but its improving. I would prefer to be more explicit about who are using the various terms, in particular in this situation because the Argentinian news have been actively used against him in the political campaign (which are often the sources used directly in the Wikipedia article, or the sources that international sources are using), but i can concede on this point since it may not apply generally to Wikipedia. Describing someone as a "radical", "far", "ultra", does not seem appropriate for a political candidate with the most amount of votes in an election (>30% of the voting population), mainstream would be an equally descriptive word (which is why i say using these terms are non-descriptive and slander), but it is correct that he has been called those things by many secondary sources, and there is no problem stating that.

Regarding "neutral" vs "natural", this is my mistake, i will try to explain. My interpretation of the whole paragraph reads as they are united in support against communism, not that he supports them. I read "neutral" by mistake since they come from very different political philosophies, but they do share a common theme which is anti-communist which makes it easy to conflate them. This point is lost in the Wikipedia article, and focuses exclusively on associating him with national conservatives, which is not part of his political philosophy.

Regarding "Educación Sexual Integral", there are important details lost here. It is not an opposition to sexual education, he is opposed to socialism and communism, which he believes is being taught in these classes. His opposition has nothing to do with sexual education itself, it is that the state decides what should be taught in these classes he opposes, because in this case he believes the state in Argentina is using it for indoctrinating children with their political agenda. Removing a state controlled sexual education class will solve this problem, and schools would be free to define their own curriculum for sexual education. I believe the source states this as well.

The theme across all these are anti-communist, which is not really explained in the article. Instead the angle implies he is an extremist, national conservative, who will stage a coup, and supports rape. While it is not explicitly written this way, I oppose this style of writing, as it does not provide a neutral description of what he said or what his policies are. This is cherry-picking very particular things, without providing context, in order to increase the negativity and controversy. The sources in question are basing their commentary on what he said, but in many references his actual words are not quoted or available, these should be available in the used sources in order to limit the chinese whispers problem.

Another strange addition is this "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" reference. Milei uses Cultural Marxism frequently, against socialist and communist activism in society. He is an outspoken anti-communist, obviously he opposes communist ideas, and the promotion of communist ideas. Labeling that as a conspiracy theory seems absurd. The Wikipedia article about the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" states things like it being antisemitic, which makes no sense since Milei is supportive of Jews. Anyway, this is another discussion entirely, but socialist and communist activism can not be called a conspiracy theory. The reference in question does not support the claim that he supports a "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" as described on Wikipedia, only that he uses the term "Cultural Marxism". He signed the Madrid Charter, which forms an opposition to groups such as the São Paulo Forum and the Puebla Group. The existence of these groups can not be called a conspiracy theory. How is this level of distortion even handled on Wikipedia? 193.69.198.165 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok great, we are converging towards something, so that is good. I will again comment on the deviations;

Milei's political background comes from philosophers like Rothbard, Mises, Hayek etc. He has quotes them on many occasions. He has a clear philosophical viewpoint, and is very consistent with it. He has also written several books related to this and his work as an economy professor. This is in contrast to politicians like Trump and Bolsonaro, which has no clear philosophical foundation. In addition, he is an Argentinian catholic, so being labeled as a conservative seems to follow. This mix seems to confuse people, but there are big fundamental differences between these politicians. There are also many overlaps, and agreements between them on many policies, but this is only when their opinions matches those of his philosophy. This why i find it very odd to state that he "supports them". Regardless, we can stick with secondary source commentary.

Anti-communist should not be interpreted as political affiliation with openly declared communist parties, but a philosophical one. Socialist/communist ideology, including Marxism, post-Marxism, modern day socialism and derviatives etc, is what is being referred to. At the foundation socialism/communism ideas does not believe in individual property rights, and out from that springs a wide range of consequences in economic and social policy. The essence here is the fundament which all the ideologies are built on. This is probably not clear in layman terms, but its not intended as a superficial phrase, it refers to deep philosophical disagreements.

Your question, "What does sexual education have to do with socialism and communism?", is the right one. At a glance i agree that this seems absurd. I can try to explain where this is coming from. The class in Argentina is "integral", it includes a range of social education topics, which is from Mileis point of view unrelated to sexual education and from his point of view derivatives of communist/socialist ideology. It is also mandatory, for public and private schools, and included in several other classes "integral" as part of e.g. english education. This may appear like a conspiracy theory, but i would call it fundamental disagreements on a philosophical level. If a person disagrees with what is being taught (at a deep fundamental philosophical level), and this is enforced by law on all kids in a country, it seems natural for this person to talk about an ideological agenda being forced upon people. He uses terms like Cultural Marxism to label this, correctly or incorrectly used.

You can read the ESI curriculum online if you like; https://www.argentina.gob.ar/educacion/esi

The topic of debate would be if the ESI curriculum is related to post-Marxism, Cultural Marxism or similar, I'm not sure the exact phrase he used. But it is Mileis opinion that it is, but this is a topic of debate of its own. This point of view is not represented.

The main other topic seems to be about abortion and generally about wording/phrasing. He is against abortion, there is no dispute here, but there are many ways of presenting this. His viewpoint is very clear again, he considers abortion to be murder, regardles of the situation of which it occurs. Even in the case he does support abortion, which is to protect the mothers life, he would still consider it murder. This is not an uncommon opinion in Argentina, because the country has deep catholic roots. My point is, it does not appear like a neutral presentation to use the cherry-picked example of rape, as this applies to everyone who believes that life starts at conception and the wording seems biased towards those who support abortion. His comments can ofcourse be quoted, because he said so explicitly, when he was asked explicitly, but from my perspective it appears cherry-picked. A more moderate phrasing could be "He belives abortion is murder, regardless of circumstance, including cases of rape." With that being said, I'm not familiar with him having any plans of changing abortion laws, he does not believe in state regulation. These are his private personal opinions, but I might be wrong. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to comment on the "left" terminology specifically. Personally i try to avoid using such terms, since they are non-descriptive. ~100 years ago, the "left" was the liberals, and the "right" was the conservatives. These days, everything seems to be either left, or far-right, and who knows what it even means. It "dumbs down" the discourse to a polarization between two oppositions, when reality is far more complex. I don't have a problem with citing that sources are using these terms, but there are many sources and many terms being used, so its unclear what decides which ones should be used.

Milei's opposition is against communist/socialist fundamentals, "left" could mean anything. In the case of the São Paulo Forum, the founders are Lula da Silva and Fidel Castro, which are explicitly socialist and communist. Not sure why its controversial or a conspiracy theory to state that this forum is being used to promote socialist and communist ideologies, when its created for this very purpose? Seems like a straw man tactic? The Madrid Forum is created as an opposition, because they believe these ideas are dangerous. There has been a long and violent conflict with communism in South America since the late 1920ies or 1930ies. There are many communists and socialists who are promoting their ideology in South America today, as everyone else are. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

As expected, the anti abortion policies seems to be fabrications. The 3 sources where this is mentioned are contradicted by chequeado. I can not find any primary source where he states he will end legal abortion, its quite the opposite. The most recent one, which is barely a week old, he directly refutes it. Allowing the majority to decide means his political agenda is neutral, but he will hold a referendum because the law was introduced without one. Whatever his personal opinions may be on this matter, seems unrelated to his political program - besides allowing the majority to decide what they want. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Ref your comments in the edits of the article;

• Then you removed The Economist due to subscription but add El Pais that also requires subscription to support the claim reliable sources struggle to define his views (which is contradicted by the pletefhora of sources calling him far-right or right-wing populist...), when that same source says he emodied South America Trumpian politics. It doesn't contradict the claim that he is far-right. It even further confirms his anti-abortion views...
• Juan Ramón Rallo is an economist (incidentally sharing Milei's views...), not a political scientist. And it is an opinion piece, the same reason for which the IP instead removed The WaPo article that you didn't like... Unlike Rallo, the WaPo article, even if an opinion piece, reflected the consensus of reliable sources about social issues. Additionaly, several of the sources used by the IP are not considered reliable for facts (e.g. The American Conservative), so they cannot be used as you did
• sorry IP but many of your edits were problematic, particularly removal of sourced content (I've read The Economist behind paywall and it supported what it said, I'll add the archive-url that shows it in full); also the para about controversies is about controversial positions; for example, his support for gender identify freedom isn't controversial, the other positions are; in general ce and reword to distinguish between controversial position and those that causes confusions

The opinion piece from The Economist was removed because it was in a section that had nothing to do with social issues, it was also behind a paywall which made it impossible to verify. The sentence also makes statements of facts, when its an opinion article. I.e. it stated as fact: "Many of the people drawn in by Milei are right-wingers who are attracted to his opposition to government policies, such as legalizing abortion and creating a quota for trans people in government jobs". It also does not add anything to the article, as these topics have already been covered in the article.

On the other hand, the opinion piece that was added from Juan Ramón Rallo, and the two conservative media articles were stated as criticisms (opinions), not facts. Juan Ramón Rallo is a well renown academic and author in the same field as Milei (economic and political), so he happens to know these topics very well. You can't claim that only the people who disagree with Milei can be included in the article?

Regarding El Pais, it was not behind a paywall for me, so i guess this depends on the location of the reader? The article clearly state his policies as difficult to classify. See the Javier Milei's Talk page for further discussions on that topic. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your review/edit of the article. The flow is better now and your updates of the wikilinks quite useful. - DonCalo (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Ref this

This edit is actually not supported in the sources. The sources referenced do not state leftist organizations, but "communist" or "extreme left". Can you explain? 193.69.198.165 (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

How do I add the "This is a Wikipedia user page. […] Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at […]" template to my user page(s)?
Also, thanks for thanking me on that one edit. Rava77 (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rava77, try using Template:User page mini. I hope that helps, even I do not remember how I exactly I did because I did not find the template on my page but it should be that one. Davide King (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I try. (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I tried, and it works, but only on :en: - no such luck on de.wikipedia. Hopefully there is a template with a different name. (I already asked that on de.wikipedia.org ) --Rava77 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The template also not works on commons.wikimedia.org --Rava77 (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

:( Davide King (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Davide King After the discussion made on Javier Milei talk page, I added clarifications on the libertarianism article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&diff=prev&oldid=1173262285 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@93.45.229.98, thank you, that was a good edit. If you were a registrated user, I would have "thanked" for them. :-) Davide King (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Javier Milei. Thank you. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Davide King. You have new messages at Talk:Javier_Milei#Main_summary_of_Milei%E2%80%99s_page_severely_undue.
Message added 13:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~~~~ Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Davide King. You have new messages at Talk:Javier_Milei#New_structure_for_article.
Message added 12:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~~~~ Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andrea and Gianni Agnelli Juve Ajax 1996.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 14:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Edoardo Agnelli (Turin, circa 1990).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 14:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been gaslit so much lately after having to defend my removal of a blogspot link promoting the butcher of riga (Herberts Cukurs) and Mark Weber it's just so good to know that there are sane people who don't think I'm imagining things and agree to basic things like Mark Weber and Herberts Cukurs are the bad guys. It's good to see that at least English Wikipedia editors take Holocaust denialism seriously and oppose it strongly. I never expected to be in this huge battle and was absolutely shocked than anyone on Wikipedia would persistently defend Cukurs and the blog with Webers stuff but it is so good to see other people on Wikipedia standing up to the Nazis and Holocaust deniers instead of praising them.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Digital wealth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7 § Digital wealth until a consensus is reached. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ciao Davide King

Impressed with the contributions you are making & wondered whether you could review Michael Mainelli who became Lord Mayor of London this week. The article about him in Italian Wiki remains a Bozza. Oughtn't this be released now that he is Lord Mayor?

Grazie mille.

Primm1234 (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Check this out, if you haven't seen it: . Marokwitz (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that you've already received three copyeditor's barnstars recently, so I'll spare you another one. Just wanted to thank you for the work you've done on the article about syndicalism! :D --Grnrchst (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Communism

I assume your edit on Jackson Hinkle was done without much thought, and that’s okay I’m not offended. I’ve certainly edited articles without too much thought and have been wrong in the past.

But if Wikipedia has an ideology labeled as “left and far left” in the article, any individuals who are labeled as “right wing communists” need to be relabeled, or the communism article needs to be changed. It’s a matter of consistency. Sources written by those who are not political science experts are not valid arguments to the contrary. Nate Rybner 18:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner (talk • contribs)

@Naterybner, are you referring to this edit? First of all, nowehere does our Jackson Hinkle article says that he is a "right-wing communist"; this appears to be your own original research that is not supported by reliable sources Second of all, Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources, and what our article says about him is merely reflecting what those sources have said. Thirdly, do you think North Korea is a democratic republic because its official name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Finally, do you think the Nazis were socialists and left-wing because they called themselves National Socialists? Indeed, for things like these, we should rely on political science experts, who by the way generally agree that the Nazis were extremist right-wingers and co-opted socialist rethoric to gain power. Did you also miss the important MAGA caveat in MAGA Communism? I think you gave communism way too much weight than it warrants, as reliable sources have seen it more as a meme than anything serious. In fact, if you actually read the whole article, you would have found this quote from an expert, saying: "But what's interesting about the 'MAGA Communism' phrase is that it doesn't necessarily mean communism in the literal sense of, say, demanding collective ownership. I think it's meant to be a kind of cultural invocation—a defense from that which the elites want you to believe. It suggests something about how people's political moorings are unsettled, and the search to find new bearings." So there is no contradiction. Davide King (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I moved Javier Milei 2023 presidential campaign to Javier Milei 2023 presidential campaign because I thought it would be more WP:CONSISTENT with other presidential campaign articles such as Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, Vladimir Putin 2018 presidential campaign, and others. If you have a problem with the new title, you are always free to revert me if you wish. The Night Watch (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem, in fact thank you! I thought I was the one being consistent but I misremembered. Thank you for fixing this. :-) Davide King (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Fictional history has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7 § Fictional history until a consensus is reached. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Controversies involving Javier Milei is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Fifth Arab–Israeli War has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Fifth Arab–Israeli War until a consensus is reached. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm getting a better understanding of the problem, and why there is so much disagreement. It seems many editors believe that notable content from reliable sources must be written in Wikivoice, and if the content is not disputed by other reliable sources, then the content should be written as fact. This is not a widely accepted definition of fact outside of Wikipedia, and changes the meaning of Wikipedia policy.

Further, it creates contention, since Wikipedia is now taking a position on contentious topics. The Wikipedia position is essentially the consensus amongst editors, what reliable sources have written about a topic. The result is that Wikipedia is a consensus based opinion source, stating Wikipedia's views factually, and these views are a distillation of the reliable sources used in each article. In most topics this is not a problem, since the consensus is uncontroversial and will not be a common topic of debate in society.

I don't think this works for political content. For most other topics it wouldn't be a problem, but politics are inherently disputed topics. No wonder it causes all this mess?

Some issues arise:

• Many topics will only be covered by one type of reliable source, e.g. if media coverage is the only source of information on a topic, Wikipedia articles will reflect the biases or perspectives prevalent in the media. This gives you limited perspectives and an echo chamber effect.
• Sensationalism is often not countered or disputed by other reliable sources directly, so editors will insist that Wikipedia should present these narratives as fact.
• Journalism contains frequent errors, thats just a natural part of it, and these are often not corrected, because its not what attracts readers. This is easily propagated through international media, because they use each other as sources, because there is editorial oversight, and the information is supposed to be verified.
• Media is often used to spread bias or propaganda, this is where things become complicated when applying critical thinking and assess if the information is correct or not. This obviously depends on the country and specifics, but e.g. US media is predominantly liberals/democrats, so there is a bias towards this perspective.
• The consensus driven approach is good, but there is a risk that with lack of diversity of opinion amongst editors, this will essentially just reinforce a soapbox.

My worry is that these policies, while helpful for general encyclopedic content, becomes very harmful to the public discourse on political topics. E.g. the political polarization going on in the US can not end well, and Wikipedia is right in the middle of it. There is a big risk they will elect Donald Trump as a result of the polarization, not because of his policies. You can compare it to what happened in Argentina, Massa had such an aggressive anti-Milei campaign, it resulted in many people voting for Milei, who otherwise wouldn't have.

I also wonder, now that more and more news and content is shifting away from traditional media, into social media, X/Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc are becoming the main sources of information. Yet these are not included in Wikipedia at all, but it may be difficult to resolve this problem in a way that works.

Since we are moving so far off-topic in the other discussions, i thought this was more relevant to discuss here, if you had any thoughts on it. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Pedantic Aristotle, that is indeed part of the misunderstaning. I am not sure I agree with your characterization and whether it is accurate but yes, for example, Wikipedia states as fact that "Trump refused to concede after losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud". It is also true that this is not a problem with most other topics, and indeed "politics are inherently disputed topics". But I am not sure even if we wre to attribute everything, there would no longer be dispute or problems. I think that it is precisely because "politics are inherently disputed topics" that they will be disputed no matter what. Even I dislike, perhaps a part from a few exceptions where it makes sense, the "Subject ... is a 'far-left'-'far-right'" in the first sentence and prefer a propoer sentence to describe someone politics. For example, the lead of "Adolf Hitler", which is categorized as a "Good article", makes no mention of "far-right" in the lead but I think the prose is clear. Yet there are many people who believe that Hitler was a far-left socialist, so perhaps "far-right" should be added?

In general, I too am concerned about polarization and wondered about this but I think you are being a bit too catastrophic, and I would hope that if Trump were to win, it will be for plenty of reasons over what we see at Wikipedia. I think it would also be helpful if you could provide some clear examples, so I could give you a better answer.

• I can see your point here and understand from where you are coming for. That is usually what happens at the beginning of an article, when little to no academic books or articles are available. Thankfully, with time and as more and better sources come out and with the effort of everyone involved, that becomes a non-issue as the better "Good" or "Featured" articles I have read mostly rely on the WP:BESTSOURCES (e.g. books by reliable publishers or academic articles and books).
• Tabloids, which are the main news sources who engage in sensationalism, are genereally not only considered not reliable but mostly generally unreliable. Do we have a different understanding of sensationalism, too? I would not call WP:RELIABLESOURCES, such as those listed at WP:RSP, as sensational just because they are news outlets.
• In fact, news WP:SOURCES that we consider generally reliable are precisely these that issue retractions when they get something wrong, have fact checking, and have editorial oversight. So I do not understand your point here, especially since I would prefer using academic books or articles but when all we have are news sources, it is better than nothing.
• Media that spreads propaganda is by default considered generally unreliable and some of them are even blacklisted. All sources are WP:BIASED, what matters is that they are reliable. It is not our fault if so many American conservative news sources have peddled to propaganda or conspiracy theories; there are also several fringe left-wing sources that are not reliable, we do not discriminate.

I am not sure about news and content "shifting away from traditional media", since reliable news sources have their own website that we can cite. And again, the better articles will rely on the best sources, e.g. academic ones over news outlets, so I do not think that is a problem. In general, Wikipedia is not good to right great wrongs, and "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do." Perhaps you should take your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, make a WP:PROPOSAL, or see if you can gain consensus for a change of wording that would help fix issues.
Davide King (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Davide King,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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

I was about to fetch sources for an article you created (Sergio Zavoli), when I noticed your intriguing username. Any connection to the opera Davide Re by Amintore Galli? IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your edit to 1997 European Grand Prix has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You know well that unsourced edits are reverted, Egeymi (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Bader–Ofer method has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18 § Bader–Ofer method until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Naturalistic pantheism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naturalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Davide King. Thank you for your work on Christine Mackinday. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 02:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

last time I checked, MoS explicitily said that one-sentence paragraphs (as in the lead) are to be avoided, also it would be good if you could keep the other edits that were okay rather than just revert it all

Kinda snotty to say "last time I checked".

Good? In what sense? IMO the most important and bad changes were in the lede and that later changes were relatively small so you could remake them with little effort. But, IMO important that the lede is not two blobs of unrelated sentences.

I think reverting a revert is also considered poor style.

If MoS explicitily says that one-sentence paragraphs (as in the lead) are to be avoided, then no problem. Should is a suggestion. It implies that there might be conflicting aspects that are more important. I'd say that having well-formed paragraphs outweighs the single-line paragraph rule. ... A better way to solve the issue is to make the sentences work together. That will require more thought. More effort than pressing the delete key a few times. :) I think what you did was done for a good reason, but with a lack of skill with writing. WP is about good writing; not just following rules.

One thing I learned about writing is that you follow the rules. Except with not following the rules is better.

Please don't let quality suffer due to rote rule-following.

And don't say mean stuff like "last time I checked". Maturity makes you more attractive. Stevebroshar (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Right-wing media has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 10 § Right-wing media until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Trump's politics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24 § Trump's politics until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Anti-LGBTQ+ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13 § Anti-LGBTQ+ until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Leaked draft opinion in Dobbs Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps it's just me, but when I see an edit summary of "ce" (meaning "copyediting"), I don't expect that to be an edit that adds maintenance templates (here Template:Use American English and Template:Use mdy dates) with no edits to copy. Of course it's not a big deal, but it changes how other editors review your edit (kind of the main point of an edit summary), so I would much rather see "added maintenance templates" or whatever. That said, I am not really all that familiar with the Engvar family of templates and when (and how) they should be added to articles, so perhaps I am missing a subtlety… Would you please use a more fulsome edit summary in these cases? Thank you. jhawkinson (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jhawkinson, sorry for the late response, I have been busy and I have only the time to make some edits and could not take part to discussions. Thank you for your message, I am trying to fix that and be more clear with the edit summaries. I did kind of consider it part of copy editing (I am not English native, and I do not know how to summarize my edits, I did not even know what "ce" meant when I saw it used by other users), as they keep the date format consistent for the references used, and even when I do actual, more proper copy edits, I also add maintenance tags. For the language and dates, I usually add the one whether the topic is more relevant to the United States or the United Kingdom, etc. If global (and when there is no clear consistency, as otherwise I simply add the tag if the article is already consistenly formatted in a certain way), I would use Oxford English or English variance and dmy dates but recently I am mostly adding mdy or dmy dates. This is the Engvar template.
Davide King (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Davide. It's not a great thing to use an abbreviation (ce) without knowing what it means, since that can lead to all kinds of confusion. I appreciate your desire to be more clear and hope it works well. Maintenance tags are definitely not part of copyediting, which is changing the actual text of the article. (Indeed, it's not really great to say "ce" when you can say something more specific. But if you move around 20 commas and recast a few sentences, many people will use "copyediting" because it's challenging to summarize the actual changes and they are low-import.) I'm aware of what the Engvar templates are, I'm just very unclear on when to use them. I don't think it's appropriate for you to add one to each article you edit, but I'm uncertain of that and the template instructions don't make it clear. But that's a question for another day. Thanks again for your willingness to listen! jhawkinson (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know something about that, since I was the one who did not understand what that mean (lol) but I do not recall having much issues and I thought that everyone else understood what that meant since you are the first one to make me notice this. I also use "ce" or "wls" (wikilinks) simply because I am trying to save some time (I know it does not take much to write it in full, I am just so used to it) and make more edits. But if you move around 20 commas and recast a few sentences, many people will use "copyediting" because it's challenging to summarize the actual changes and they are low-import.) That is what I do most of the time (plus some formatting, such as space or merge or separate too short or too long paragraphs to improve readability and aesthetics) and I did not leave any edit summary because I did not know how to call that or how to summarize it. I do not know about maintenance templates, I always saw them in many articles, so I thought it was a given and that if they are not there, they simply need to be added (I also add the short description template when the is not one, even if just to add "none") and I do not recall being reverted for adding them, so I never thought it was unnecessary, I always thought it was an improvement. As for Engvar templates, I do not know, I imagine they are added to articles were the topic is beyond the United States or the United Kingdom (if I recall correctly, I have seen it used in some Bangladesh, Canada, or India-related articles). Thanks to you and sorry if I caused any issue!
Davide King (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Juventus FC (Torino, 1997) - Giraudo, Lippi, U. Agnelli, Moggi, Bettega.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 07:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fiorenzuola 1992-93.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if you could be able to edit the Lee Oswald death section. The section currently reads; "At 11:21 a.m. CST, Dallas nightclub operator Jack Ruby approached Oswald from the side of the crowd and shot him once in the abdomen at close range. As the shot rang out, a police detective recognized Ruby and exclaimed: "Jack, you son of a bitch!" The crowd outside the headquarters applauded when they heard that Oswald had been shot. An unconscious Oswald was taken by ambulance to Parkland Memorial Hospital – the same hospital where Kennedy was pronounced dead two days earlier". The detective who called out Ruby's name and the outside crowd reaction is superfluous to the Oswald article. It could be rewritten to include Oswald's last recorded words and his reaction after being shot; Something like, "As Oswald ascended in the elevator to the basement, his last recorded words were, "I want to see the American Civil Liberties Union."^[1] And, have this added, "As the shot rang out, Oswald screamed "Oh!" in pain and his hands clutched at his stomach as he moaned while slumping to the floor.^[2][3] As Ruby was subdued by police, Oswald was carried back into the basement level jail office. Detective Billy Combest asked Oswald, "Do you have anything you want to tell us now?" Oswald shook his head."^{[4]: 184–185} In addition, the death section currently reads LHO was unconscious when in the ambulance; but Frederick Bieberdorf, a medical student who rode with Oswald in the ambulance, stated that Oswald fought him as he tried to provide medical assistance during the ride. He was probably in an altered conscious state (maybe) and unless I'm misunderstanding Beiberdorf's wording he is applying cardiac massage on route to the Hospital. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "thrashing about" and resisting efforts to support his life may have been his own body's reflex actions. Of course I'm no Doctor so he certainly could have been "fighting" with them but because Oswald expired not long after the journey to hospital it would make sense that he was in the stages of "dying" on route to Parkland. The final section could be rewritten as;

“Drifting in and out of consciousness, Oswald was placed in an ambulance and was driven to Parkland Memorial Hospital, the same hospital where President Kennedy had died just two days earlier. Frederick Bieberdorf, a medical student on duty, rode in the ambulance, said that several blocks before reaching the hospital, Oswald started thrashing about, resisting Beiberdorf's efforts of heart massage and attempting to free an oxygen mask over his mouth.^[5]” This is already on the talk page for the article, but I thought you could do it. 80.45.146.138 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC) 80.45.146.138 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Davide King. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Institute of Economic Affairs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cash for access.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The comments made by Bugliosi and others about midnight press conference are pertininent, and WP:NPOV requires that we present various sides of a story, if there are good sources. Bugliosi is an excellent source, and this can be included in the last paragraph “arrest at Texas threatre section” on the Oswald page.

“A reporter asked Oswald, "Did you kill the President?" and Oswald answered, "No, I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet." Oswald continued, "The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall (at this point, Oswald's voice cracked nervously) asked me that question."^[1] Another reporter told Oswald that he had been charged. Oswald asked "Sir?" and when the reporter affirmed again that he had been charged, Oswald reacted with a look of astonishment.”^[2] 92.40.219.104 (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC) 92.40.219.104 (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Woodrow Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woodrow Wilson High School.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, why this edit? Regards.-- Carnby (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Carnby, sorry for the late reply. What does it not convince you? You are right that perhaps I should have used dmy dates, since the context is European; however, for some reason, the article was using mdy dates (e.g. the birthdate), and I added the template simply to keep consistent the date formatting of references. I did not want to unilaterally change that, or I simply did not realize it at first. Davide King (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Packing the court has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 21 § Packing the court until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The redirect False or misleading statements has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 7 § False or misleading statements until a consensus is reached. — Anonymous 03:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Free Democratic Party (Germany), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National-liberal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Sardinian family has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 25 § Sardinian family until a consensus is reached. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AS Roma - Luciano Spinosi, Luciano Moggi and Roberto Pruzzo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗plicit 00:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged File:Juventus FC (1999) - Luciano Moggi, cropped.jpg, File:Moggi and Ferlaino.jpg, and File:SSC Napoli - Luciano Moggi and Diego Armando Maradona.jpg for similar issues. hinnk (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Rome wasn't built in a day, but you've helped build the page of the Roman Pope Leo XIV article from a mere 19,000 bytes to over 70,000 bytes of prose in under 24 hours. Thank you for your contributions! Departure– (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Was wondering who was behind that blowup. Great work! Panini! • 🥪 22:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your meticulous efforts at the new pope's article as mentioned above! However, I noticed that you've been unintentionally reverting others' past edits. For example, Special:Diff/1289743629 reverts @VampaVampa's Special:Diff/1289742891, and Special:Diff/1289743271 reverts Special:Diff/1289743160 while (as AlanScottWalker pointed out) not being a copyedit. It can feel tiring, but what I usually do is glance the last parts of history to see who made an edit that I would like to remove, with the added benefit of reading an edit summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu, my bad! That is weird because I did not get the "Edit conflict" message, so I did not realize I had accidentally reverted other edits that were perfectly fine; however, in the case of VampaVampa, it really was a series of excessive wikilinks, and as for the second one I thought that since it is not a full quote, it was fine to not use a cite (and is it really so important as to make it into the lead anyway?), since it was already in the body and kept a consistent lead. I totally feel you because in other occasions I did get the "Edit conflict" message and it is really frustrating when that happens. Davide King (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It's alright! I don't really understand the quote citation thing either; I'm discussing that on the article talk page right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Davide King, "it really was a series of excessive wikilinks" - can you explain what constitutes excessive wikilinking, with reference to guidelines if such exist? I cannot see an issue with a concatenation of wikilinks when they are separated with commas, and the benefit to the reader of being able to refer to specific events is tangible. VampaVampa (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Please note that some of the primaries being cited are not presidential primaries, so the blanket link to presidential primaries is confusing in the absence of links to specific events. VampaVampa (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, WP:OVERLINKING ("Links may be excessive even if they are informative"). There may also be an issue of WP:LINKCLARITY since, as you said, some were presidential primaries and others gubernatorial ones, so by just stating the years, the reader may be confused. I am open to wikilink them if we can find a better way to do so. Perhaps we should link to Primary elections in the United States and each political party. Davide King (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! If the main issue is with the links becoming too short to be comfortable to follow on a fingertap-navigated device, I would opt for enumerating the primaries in full wording: "including the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, the 2010 Democratic gubernatorial primary, the 2012 Republican presidential primary, the 2014 Republican gubernatorial primary, and the 2016 Republican presidential primary" and wikilinking each - is that acceptable to you? VampaVampa (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, yes, that is exactly what I meant! I favour link clarity even if it means it may make the text slightly longer. Davide King (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Great, happy that we can agree and apologies if I made the process more of a fuss than necessary. I will make the edit unless you have already started on it. VampaVampa (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, there is some confusion to the moment when they are referring to either DARNELL or Wiegman film or both, although Anna Paulina Luna Task Force seem to said they would indeed write to NBC for the release of the original Darnell film, so perhaps both Darnell and Wiegman films can be written into Other investigations and dissenting theories section on the Oswald article as recent events such as “in March 2025, Luna alleged, during a congressional hearing for the further release of documents related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, that efforts were underway to release a film taken by Dave Wiegman Jr. of NBC capturing the unidentified "prayer man" filmed during the assassination, theorized by some to have been Lee Harvey Oswald.^[1]” 2.99.29.31 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC) 2.99.29.31 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

On 30 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edinson Edgardo Farfán Córdova, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bishop of Chiclayo Edinson Edgardo Farfán Córdova described his predecessor Pope Leo XIV as smelling like sheep? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edinson Edgardo Farfán Córdova. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Edinson Edgardo Farfán Córdova), 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Free-market socialist has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 6 § Free-market socialist until a consensus is reached. मल्ल (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Giovanni Cobolli Gigli.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Gianni Agnelli and Gianluigi Gabetti.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Moggi, cropped.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Umberto and Giovannino Agnelli - 1993.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political violence in the 2024 United States presidential election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICE.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Persecution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Turkestan Republic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The redirect White House Liaison has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 23 § White House Liaison until a consensus is reached. Longhornsg (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Francesco Giubilei, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Giubilei until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Authoritarian socialism, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authoritarian socialism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

In this edit, was there any source for the year other than the image description, which appears to have stated it was taken no later than 1917. cc @The Blade of the Northern Lights. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Casino capitalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 11 § Casino capitalism until a consensus is reached. ApexParagon (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Highlight reel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 3 § Highlight reel until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Luther Blissett (pseudonym), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A ISBN error. References show this error when the ISBN value or formatting is invalid. Please edit the article to ensure the value is correct, that only one ISBN is used, that the proper optional separators are used, and that no other text is included. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Davide,

I am new editor in Wikipedia. I wanted to add text to an article titled Israeli Support for Hamas, but it is protected and I can't edit it until after I edit 500 aticles. I was wondering If you would be willing to add the text I wanted to add. It is an important evidence that was not mentioned in the article.

Please send me your email, or I can send the text with the reference here.

Thank you,

Husam Amer Husam Amer (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Davide King, thank you for the work you've put into improving the Kiesza page, but I would really appreciate it if you could stop reverting edits I make to it in my capacity as a certified English-language copy editor. You've done this on more than one occasion now, and it's becoming highly annoying, especially as you haven't made any attempt to communicate with me about it, instead just quietly reverting the text back to your preferred version. Going forward, if you disagree with a grammar or stylistic change I make, please take it up on the talk page instead of sneakily going behind my back and reverting it back to what you think is correct. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pitch invasion, a link pointing to the disambiguation page All-Ireland Final was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karol Nawrocki, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-communist resistance in Poland was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Davide King. Thank you for your work on Alsace-Lorraine Soviet Republic. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add footnotes to back up each claim with a reliable source. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why you felt it necessary to make this edit or this edit, but the previous order was fine as it was. Also, you marked them as minor changes, but should not have been. Assadzadeh (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Assadzadeh, sorry about that. I respectfully disagree that the "order doesn't make sense", in fact I think it was the previous and current order does not make sense as it appears to have no criteria (what is it? I may have missed it), and I simply did it alphabetically. As I did not remove or add anything, I thought that it was indeed a minor edit. My bad. Thanks for letting me know, I legitimately thought they were an improvement and was in good faith. Davide King (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I often edit articles as well to list items alphabetically, so I understand your motivation. However, in this case since the articles are about World Series and NBA champions, respectively, then other articles about these series should get top billing, such as "World Series MVP Award" and "World Series sweeps" for baseball and "NBA Finals MVP Award" and "NBA players with most championships" for basketball, not "pre-World Series baseball champions" or "ABA champions" and "NBL champions". The latter isn't even related to the NBA, although somehow has been included. Assadzadeh (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conservatism in Japan, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Korean comfort women was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)