User talk:Trakking: Difference between revisions

Hello and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a
  reliable sources
  .
• No
  abuse of multiple accounts
  .
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The

Please note that this page is subject to a 24-hour

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 articles about

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Trakking (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert your 1RR violation here. The addition of that navbox was reverted, you readded it, it was reverted by myself, and now you've readded it again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You never provided any argument for reverting that addition whatsoever. As for my adding it, the other thinkers on the list have the navbox appended on their respective articles. What makes Jordan Peterson an exception? Trakking (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just letting you know that you broke

WP:1RR on an article with active discretionary sanctions. That is a red line violation, which is why there is a big edit notice that says You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. I'm asking again that you self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

With a gun to my head, I will do it. But I sense someone is being a troublemaker—threatening without providing arguments. Sad. -Trakking (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for self-reverting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back another day. Trakking (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the page is still under discretionary sanctions, and edit warring, even without breaking 1RR, will likely not be looked on fondly. I suggest you discuss adding the navbox on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are solid sources that confirm the statements I presented. National socialism is NOT a distinct Right-wing ideology. And no serious political philosopher or political scientist would identify Tocqueville as a Leftist. I won't get into the debate about the Nazi question, because the ideology is a syncretic hybrid of all sorts of theories and ideas. But as for Tocqueville there's nothing to debate. Just look at list of his influences / people he influenced: almost all are political Rightists. Trakking (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal analysis isn't admissible on Wikipedia. The topic has been extensively discussed on the relevant talkpages - maybe not at de Tocqueville's talkpage, but certainly on the talkpages pertaining to the political spectrum. Please stop citing your own analysis as a basis for removal. Acroterion (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there are solid sources that support my claims. And once again, we may skip the debate as it is too messy a topic. However, it clearly stated on the page for Nazism that the nazis often were anti-Right and that they incorporated elements of the Left. So how could they possibly be distinct representatives of Right-wing politics? It is incorrect and misleading. Trakking (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to discuss those sources, rather than your analysis, on the relevant talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mark substantial edits as minor as you did here, here and other places. Read Help:Minor edit for an explanation of what a minor edit is. TFD (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, you seem to be still excusing your removal of the term "far-right", which linked to Far-right politics, by saying Nazism is not right-wing. Did you not read my edit summary when I reverted you? For your convenience, I'll quote it here: "Except nobody characterized it as "Right-Wing". The term you removed was far-right. Please follow the link and you'll see "far-right" has very little to do with Christianity, Monarchy, Aristocracy, property rights, subsidiarity, traditional family life, or high culture." To summarize: far-right and right-wing are not the same thing. Bishonen | tålk 05:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

That was several days ago, but okay…

The term "Far-Right" is extremely misleading when applied to Nazism, since that ideology exhibits few stances that are typical of the political Right. True "Far-Rightist" movements were Die Konservative Revolution in Germany, Action Françoise in France and Unghögern in Sweden. They were Right-wing ideologies (Monarchist, Christian etc.) combined with extremism. Fascism was a syncretic movement that combined Leftist stances with Rightist stances (Monarchist, Historical etc.). National socialism (Nazism), however, was primarily Left-wing (socialist) in its radicalism, collectivism, centralism, industrialism, utopianism etc. There are solid sources that confirm this. I won't change anything more, but this is the correct characterization of the ideology. Trakking (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"True far-rightist" movements according to you, and as opposed to what reliable sources say? See, again, our article Far-right politics and its sources. As Acroterion says above, your personal analysis isn't admissible on Wikipedia, "several days ago" or not. Bishonen | tålk 09:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I am fine with most of the article and its sources. It's only Nazism (National Socialism) that I would like to exclude from its representation. Even in the article for Nazism it states clearly that the nazis often were enemies of the established Right-wing order. Some conservative politicians were even assassinated by the nazis (Edgar Jung for example). And there were Right-wingers who plotted to assassinate Hitler (such as Claus von Stauffenberg). A famous Right-wing opponent of the Nazi regime was the conservative politician Carl Friedrich Goerdeler. But yes, the debate would have to be had at first at Talk, of course. Trakking (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is admissible as a basis for content, since it is purely your personal analysis. And the notion that the Nazis were completely unified and devoid of violent internal dissent or had benign intentions toward other rightists is naive - they purged the SA at the very beginning. Acroterion (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in to agree with Bishonen and Acroterion. Don't bother to do this again, you'll just be reverted. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You described Action Francaise as far right on this talk page (it was) but object to that descriptor in the de Maistre article. Doesn’t make sense. 199.224.24.20 (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one problem with the epithet "far-right" is that it is often used as a pejorative. And also, it is non-descriptive. Capitalism is usually considered a right-wing ideology, yet many far-rightists object to it (for example). Action Françoise were known for their monarchist stances: this is the most appropriate way of labeling them, especially in relationship to Joseph de Maistre who was the French arch-Monarchist par excellence. Trakking (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political descriptions are never value-neutral, it may carry a negative valence but still conveys their politics better than "monarchist," imho.2600:1016:B01F:21CA:F92B:F4F8:EE3A:ADDE (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've left a comment on Template talk:Romanticism about what seems to be the gender bias in Template:Romanticism. As someone involved in the template, I'd value your thoughts. Dsp13 (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Nazism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave perfectly valid reasons for my edit. Stop trolling. Trakking (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection

.

Being involved in an edit war can result in being

Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please note that Jordan Peterson is subject to the 1-revert-rule. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. I made a post in the talk page. Please tell me what you think. Trakking (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection

.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The reverter did not provide any explanation for his reverts, even though I wrote two messages to him in Talk. What am I supposed to do? He refuses to discuss the additions. Trakking (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also advised them to start talking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial topic alerts - gender and sexuality, biographies of living people, post-1992 politics of the United States

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them which has been designated a

contentious topic

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Le Figaro Magazine

Your edits will be reverted bc you deleted a well sourced sentence. Thanks for your edit summary, but it doesn't say who you did. Egeymi (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove any information, I organized it into headings. Trakking (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Francisco Franco. 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. Generalrelative (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Advice

Hey there, mate. I also suggest you to read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for

civility

I see that I have made you upset [1]. However my actions in removing the

canvassing. First and foremost, I ask that you revert your revert. JPratas is of course free to re-add the substantive part of their comment with the personal attack removed. But it is far from appropriate to refer to other editors as pollution, just as it is inappropriate to refer to me as "the fascist thought police" [3]. Generalrelative (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Fine with me. But why not simply replace the word "polluted" with something more neutral instead of removing the entire comment? Trakking (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, and good question. The answer is that editors are not permitted to alter one another's comments in a way that gives the impression someone said something they didn't say. It would be up to JPratas to rewrite their comment. I pinged them above, so they should be aware of this conversation when they're next on-Wiki. Much appreciated, Generalrelative (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trakking!

Hello again! Good morning from Brazil, UTC-3. This is Gustavo - I have a Swedish name, haha! I am a heavy reader on Conservatism since 2006, when I was still 16. My main source was professor Olavo de Carvalho (1947-2022).

This is the third time today that I ṕost this, so that you can find it. I would like to contribute with you about the topic Conservatism. I see that you like it, as I do. But Wikipedia forbids interpersonal talks, as it is not a chat.

I have a FB account: «f a c e b o o k (dot) c o m / g s 7 g m» (remove the spaces and substitute the "dot"). The account has a typical Chinese church, a pagoda, in ROC (Taiwan) as the paperwall. I also have an e-mail. «g u s g a m a (at) p r o t o n m a i l (dot) c o m». Would you like me to get into contact first? Or do you prefer to email or message me before? Thank you again! Gondolabúrguer (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings my friend and fellow contributor. Gustav (sometimes spelled Gustaf) is a classic and timeless name in Swedish culture, traditionally a favourite among Swedish monarchs!

Brazil has a rich conservative tradition, as I understand it. And obviously, your old motherland Portugal was a beautiful bastion of conservatism in Europe for many years under the ecclesiastical statesman António de Oliveira Salazar.

I feel like a Catholic at heart. Many of the people I get along with have been from Catholic countries (Hungary, Portugal, Poland etc.) and many of my intellectual heroes are Catholics such as Frenchman Joseph de Maistre and Austrian Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. But it is difficult to feel like a Catholic in a nation as non-Catholic, non-Christian, and even anti-religious as Sweden has been in modern times. If I could, I would move to some beautiful Catholic nation, for example Spain, Portugal or Austria, but then I would have to learn the local language and adapt to a new country etc. which would take time and effort.

My Facebook account is inactivated for the moment and I have barely used it in many years, but I will reactivate it and add you tomorrow. Thank you for your support and your devotion. Trakking (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I’d enjoy talking with you. Didn’t have the possibility today. Tomorrow I’ll get in contact! Trakking (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Describing those who disagree with you as "left-wing activists"

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Conservatism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

You have written on an article talk page You should have more objective expertise on the topic than Rick Norwood and Generalrelative, who both are left-wing activists [4]. This type of characterization is not allowed here, per our policy on

WP:NPA. If you persist in behaving in this way, you may be subject to sanctions including loss of editing privileges. Generalrelative (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, you were actively pushing for a left-wing perspective, so I characterized you as left-wing activists. It was somewhat jokingly and somewhat seriously meant. It was primarily aimed at Nick, who has been criticized by other users for not providing sources for added content on left-wing politics. And his "proof" for his edit was purely anecdotal: he had heard the term reactionary mentioned several times on left-wing news media… You finally provided him with an actual source, but it was written by a left-wing activist and had been heavily criticized by academics. The sources I provided were simply superior in credibility. No hard feelings. Trakking (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as

contentious

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Just making sure that you're aware that American Politics post 1992 is also a contentious topic area. Generalrelative (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Thank you for the continued interest in the major topic of Conservatism. Wikipedia needs persons like you! Let me tell you a personal story about the topic Conservatism. In 2005, still a teenager, I met an exorcist and Catholic priest (d. 2014), who opened my eyes about the absurdity of the modern culture, in special the demonic character of it. Then, I started reading about Conservatism. He was not, though, a writer. He was a diocesan exorcist. And a starter for me. My intellectual reference was professor OLAVO DE CARVALHO (1947-04-27 - 2022-01-24), who helped millions of Brazilians, Angolans and Portuguese open their eyes about: depression, loss of faith, drug addiction, moral relativism, international concentration of power, impoverishment of the language, inversion of sexuality, association of mega-corporations and the state etc. He is a major source of information. Wrote tens of books and recorded 586 classes for his Online Course of Philosophy (2009-03-14 to 2022-01-01). One thing that could change Swedish culture: the translation of Olavo's works to Swedish. Seriously. (I could help that.) [Off: today, a movie about Olavo will be launched: "Olavo Tem Razão" (="Olavo is right"), a popular phrase used since 2013 by the new Conservative movement in Brazil. Check, for example, the images of the movement for the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, 2015 and 2016. People handled signs with that phrase. Before Olavo's rising - in the 1990s -, there was only a fragile and small Right-winged fraction of society in Brazil.] Check also the Californian (USA) Political Scientist JEFFREY NYQUIST, still active. He is a major contributor to Conservative studies. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism sidebar question

When did I "carelessly" remove Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics from the Fascism sidebar template, and you say here? I'm not saying I didn't but I do not recall it. If I was careless, I'd like to know. Generalrelative (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not even care to examine my previous edit before reverting it: I readded the term anti-capitalism from Alejandro's edit and added an influential work as well. Trakking (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused by this response. Your edit summary was readdition of an influential work that generalrelative carelessly removed; the capitalism part can be discussed. In that edit you added Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics to the sidebar template and nothing more. I have no objections to that edit.

Re-adding Anti-capitalism was edit warring against consensus. There is a longstanding consensus on Fascism and fascism-related pages like Economics of fascism that fascism was in no way consistently pro- nor anti-capitalist. There was tremendous variance, for example, between what early fascists said and what fascists tended to do once in power. But that is a discussion for the article talk pages. Generalrelative (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With "previous edit" I refer to the edit I made that you reverted. Imperium was added in it. But you did not even examine what you reverted, as you've proven with your comment—which was careless. Trakking (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, now I see. Thanks for explaining. I hadn't looked beyond your edit summary, which only referred to the Anti-capitalism part. My apologies. Generalrelative (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the word "anti-capitalism" does not come close to 81 characters… Trakking (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to help me on "Talk:Far-left politics"?

I recently discussed the inclusion of a new image to represent the Far-left in the

talk) 22:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]