Trakking

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Jordan Peterson, have removed content without a good reason to do so. Content on Wikipedia should not be removed just because you disagree with it or because you think it's wrong, unless the claim is not verifiable. Instead, you should consider expanding the article with noteworthy and verifiable information of your own, citing reliable sources when you do so. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• 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 living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or 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 Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please note that this page is subject to a 24-hour WP:1RR restriction, which you have (presumably inadvertently) violated. Please self-revert, and avoid edit warring in future. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

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

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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

  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

 

Your recent editing history at Jordan Peterson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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 blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the 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

 

Your recent editing history at Template:Conservatism in Canada shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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

 

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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using 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

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

  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

  Hello, I'm GenoV84. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Organicism. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the 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

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

I see that I have made you upset [1]. However my actions in removing the personal attack from JPratas (calling other editors "polluting") [2]and in referring you to previously established consensus are in line with our policies. If you disagree with me, you are welcome to solicit a third opinion. Please do so without further 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 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

  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

 

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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using 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

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

I recently discussed the inclusion of a new image to represent the Far-left in the Far-left politics page. In this talk I added an new image that could fit the one included in far-right politics. I think you could give me support in my claim Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Fascism sidebar. 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) 17:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

You are now at 4RR at Template:Fascism sidebar. Please self-revert. I'd prefer not to take this to a disciplinary noticeboard but will if I have to. Thanks in advance, Generalrelative (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can self-revert until the discussion is settled. But the other user suggested we return to status quo, which I did. Trakking (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's not what "status quo" means. The longstanding version is "Nazism" not "National Socialism". And yes, please self-revert. Filing at 3RRN is boring and time consuming. Generalrelative (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Someone is trying to talk to about your edits Template talk:Fascism sidebar#authoritarian democracy in nazism and fascism. Join the talk pls. Moxy-  22:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ultraconservatism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bourbon Restoration. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've seen your previous interaction with Mr. G, which is currently blocked in Portuguese and English Wikipedia and in Wikimedia Commons due to his highly disruptive behaviour. He shared his personal information with you and requested offwiki contact.

That is not a big deal, however, since you've published this flabbergasting comment, repeating the same disruptive pattern that led him to be blocked, I'm kindly asking you to reconsider this sort of interaction. At least, try not to make these kinds of pointless accusations against other people.

You are a trusted user, and I'm sure you know that you're not supposed to be a conduit to indefinitely blocked users continue their disruptive behavior. Ertrinken (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've started a discussion on Conservatism's talk page that pertains to users who support keeping a few controversial lines (this includes you). Therefore I highly encourage you to visit that article's talk page when you are available, and contribute your own view.

Once you have done so you are free to delete this message. This is just a reminder, not a discussion starter itself. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Your edit to Conservatism 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. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, I should've checked more carefully. Please remember to properly attribute copying from Wikipedia and compatibly licensed sources, though. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Conservatism into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Trakking! Based on your recent edit on the Philosophy sidebar template, I'm left with a question. Would you recommend removing Logic from the philosophy branches? And should we replace it with solely Philosophy of logic? Kind regards, Infogiraffic (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Hipal. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. [5] --Hipal (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Which comment is that? Trakking (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the diff I provided above. Again, [6], "You should join the discussion, which is dominated by some angry leftist activist". Seems like canvassing as well. --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at PragerU shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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. --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

That was my first revert on that edit. How is that edit-warring? You have reverted it TWO times. Someone else should revert it, then—but they won’t. Trakking (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:3RR states An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.[7] [8][9]. Combined with what looks like canvassing to get someone to join the edit war, this is very troubling.

I mentioned on the article talk page that there was past edit-warring over this content. An editor was indefinitely blocked over this. Take extra precautions please. Please work on the article talk page to create a clear consensus for any changes. --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

You’re being factually wrong here.

1) That second link was my own edit, not a revert. So it’s only two reverts. Please don’t accuse people for things they haven’t done. That’s just bad.

2) I did not canvass that other guy, I was having a discussion with him and we reached a conclusion. In fact, I have been reverting his edits on other articles. We are not friends or something. Trakking (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Trakking. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite one-revert restriction for any edit that relates to the post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to 1177332136#Trakking| this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at [[<decision code – see below for list> OR <link to final decision page, *without* #Final_decision anchor>#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.

You are also warned not to make personalised comments about other editors. This includes making any comments about your perceptions of other editor's motivations or perceieved political affiliations particularly during disputes and discussion. If you make these comments it is likely that you will be topic banned or blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Russell Kirk into The Conservative Mind. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It appeared in the wrong place. It should show up in his Early Life. I tried to fix it, but no matter where I moved it to, it still always turned up in the same wrong place as before. Very weird. So I removed it, hoping someone would understand the issue and make the necessary change. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is not repeating information. The lede does not require a citation by the way if the body has citations about what is stated in the lede. The lede did not mention what happened during ww2 and the association of fascism with the Axis powers.

The lede entirely skipped over ww2.

If you find my edit unsuitable, then by all means, adjust it. But do not delete information already cited in the body.

The goal of my edit was to briefly mention the connection between fascism and the Axis powers and fascism during world war II. Nashhinton (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for your edit. Indeed, there was some information in it that was missing from the lede.

My main objection was that your edit was poorly written: there were double links with words in the sentence before and after [genocide, WWII], there was an annoying repetition of words [millions, millions], there was a misleading claim about fascism ”aligning” with the Axis powers when, in fact, they were the Axis powers.

Well, I cleaned it up in my latest edit. Now it is eloquently formulated and incorporated organically into the rest of the lede. Trakking (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

(talk) Kære Trakking Du virker som en utrolig spændende person! Jeg kendetegner det mismod over vore moderne samfunds tilstand som du beskrive og længslen efter og affektion for "verdenen af i går". Jeg har lige kopiret nogle gamle noter af mine ind i en sandkasse i fald du kunne være interesseret i at lave en artikel om dansk konservatisme.

Bedste hilsner, --Marginataen (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC) User:Marginataen/sandbox/Konservatisme i DanmarkReply

Could you tell me how the topic should be defined and please provide a source. TFD (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trakking’s revert of my edit reeks of access to misinformation. I am here requesting “Militarism” be removed from the same template because it is baseless. Conservatives do not support Veterans on multiple fronts. See Jim Jordan’s Article Page, under Political Positions and Veterans. And I quote:

“Veterans

The PACT ACT which expanded VA benefits to veterans exposed to toxic chemicals during their military service, received a "nay" from Jordan. Regarding cannabis, despite lobbying from VSOs such as the DAV Jordan also voted against the 2016 Veterans Equal Access Amendment.”

^ This is one of the many instances of TRUTH regarding Conservatives and Veterans in 2024. The NRA which is a “Conservative” group, has not said a peep about any support for mentally disabled veterans and their lobbying needs regarding their rights.

Twillisjr (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The definition of militarism is ”the belief that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests”. This has always been a classic conservative position. Also note that the template in question is not limited to any temporary contingencies but is supposed to represent conservative ideology throughout history. Trakking (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello

None of the terms are that obscure, all terms appear in scholarly literature on the subject! Come up with a better explanation for barring these articles or I will hold you accountable for disruptive editing.

Terms at issues are: Accumulation by dispossession, Causes of poverty, Cycle of poverty, Dispossession, oppression, and depression, Economic abuse, Institutional abuse, Institutional discrimination, Slow violence, Structural abuse, Structural discrimination, Structural violence, and Political repression

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Most of these terms are obscure and so are their articles. Authoritative sources do not identify them as central terms to the discipline of political philosophy. Also—many of the terms are economic not political. Trakking (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

People have been talking about accumulation by dispossession for over a hundred years. Economic abuse, causes of poverty, cycle of poverty, structural violence,... these are day to day topics. They're economic, political, and social.

If necessary I will this put this up for vote! Lau737 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. There was another problem with your additions, namely that they made an extensive template even more extensive. However, you gave me an excellent idea. The template was called "Social and political philosophy," but it almost exclusively consisted of social and political philosophers. Therefore I renamed it "Social and political philosophers" and created a new separate template called "Political philosophy," into which I incorporated the sections "Social theories" and "Related articles" as well as your two most relevant terms—institutional discrimination and bellum omnium contra omnes. Trakking (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trakking you cannot rename and shrink a template in order to advance your point. As far as non-sidebar templates are concerned, it is my opinion that bigger is usually better. I liked the look of the original template more! Are you content if I use the Political philosophy template? I would just add those terms to the new template and would encourage anyone to do the same. Lau737 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extensive templates are difficult to navigate and therefore unrecommended. Two of your concepts have been added; the rest are irrelevant. Structural discrimination is equivalent to institutional discrimination, which is added. Slow violence and economic abuse are not political concepts. The article for structural abuse contains no references and is unreliable. Dispossession, oppression, and depression is marked as having multiple issues. Trakking (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes they are political concepts! I've seen templates several times larger than Social and political philosophy. You are being impossible. I will restore Social and political philosophy to its original form, maybe add even more concepts to it. If you obstruct this again I will request administrative help. Lau737 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would not recommend drawing more attention to your eccentric behaviour from the community. But here are two things that you could do, which follow the guidelines for using Wikipedia:

1. Provide authoritative sources that identify these concepts as central to the topic of political philosophy. For example, bellum omnium contra omnes is commonly referenced in the scholarly literature.

2. Start a discussion at the respective Talk page, where you argue for your viewpoint and try to convince others of it.

Another major problem with the template is that it is called "Social and political philosophy". In fact, social philosophy and political philosophy are different academic disciplines within the field of philosophy. All equivalent templates concern only one philosophical discipline, for example Ethics and Metaphysics. My template is therefore better, because it deals exclusively with political philosophy. Trakking (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You, Trakking, wouldn't recommend that I do that? I always understood political philosophy as merely a sub-category of social philosophy, but good luck with your fabricated incompatibilities. Lau737 (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Social philosophy and political philosophy, just like sociology and political science, are different academic disciplines. Many prominent scholars in the first discipline never wrote anything about the latter discipline—and vice versa. Trakking (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As you should already know by now, neither templates nor categories are an appropriate place to introduce original research into articles. Information still needs to be supported by reliable sources, and what is obvious to you should not be presumed to be obvious to other readers. These articles' talk pages would be the place to discuss any exceptions to Wikipedia's norms regarding sources for biography articles. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Trakking,

Hope you're doing well. I recalled that an indefinite 1RR restriction had been placed on you (here), so I was surprised to see this string of reverts today: [10][11]. I don't see any indication that the restriction has been revoked. Am I missing something? If you are indeed still under the restriction, it will, I think, be in your interest to self-revert ASAP.

Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notification. Technically, it was two different reversions. The image had been edited by the previous user in between the reversions. But yeah, it may be considered close enough to count as a double reversion, so I’ll self-revert. Trakking (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there @Trakking:, are you able to help me at all with the user Jordi, who continously makes reversions and leaves contentious responses on talk pages while disregarding the steps I set out to make changes (discussion, not blanking pages, deletion nominations, etc.)? This continues to happen on Alexander Tschugguel, Tschugguel (and it's related category), and Peter von Tramin. Is this a situation where I should seek a 3rd opinion or administrator intervention? I requested a third opinion previously but that request was denied, mainly because a lot of the conversation at the time was happening on the user talk page and not an article talk page. Thoughts? Any guidance is appreciated. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You are allowed to revert back to status quo until a consensus has been reached in Talk, but I advise you to find other experts on the topic to contact, as I don't have access to the relevant literature and cannot judge the validity of the other user's claims. Trakking (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Elinruby (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

As fascinating as I find your thoughts on the "correct order" of talk page posts, they are erroneous. Your edit made it appear that I was responding to your aspersions against other editors. In fact those remarks should not even be there, especially given the warnings on this page. I answered under the remarks I was answering and indented accordingly. I strongly suggest that you visit the Teahouse and tell them that I said you did not understand talk page etiquette. Perhaps they will be able to explain this to you. There can be multiple threads in the same discussion and often are. Meanwhile I will fix the erroneous indent and move the comment back in a little while. I strongly recommend that you strike out your remarks. I say this with concern. Contentious topics are not safe areas for new editors, especially those who misunderstood something as basic as a threaded discussion. Please note that this is the only time I will type all this out. Please feel free to ping me if you have a question about any of the above. Elinruby (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

{ Elinruby (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please actually read sources and validate they're reliable before proposing them for inclusion so that you don't waste other editor's time. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Neveselbert. I noticed that you recently removed content from Margaret Thatcher without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You reverted the Jordan Peterson article to a state in which sources were grossly mischaracterized contrary to wikipedia's core policies. If you have SPECIFIC issues or edits you'd like to make in response to mine, please make them and we can discuss them. Thanks. Chuckstablers (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently edited a page related to climate change, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 23:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. {{{Signature}}}

Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for commenting 3x in a row... but there's a really interesting new development that you'd surely be interested in. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Excellent template. ProKMT is doing some great work on East Asia. He might recommend some intellectual/politician to be represented from that part of the world, as you requested. Trakking (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi could you change TalkTV on Template:Conservatism UK to Talk (streaming service) please as it will not work for me.86.159.116.87 (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Theodore Roosevelt is labeled as conservative by historians with democratic bias, Wilson was a Bourbon democrat at the time. At that time a great part of the GOP was not conservative, was liberal and partially radical. Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan tried to keep the slave power, indeed they were conservative presidents. If you search Encyclopedia Britannica you can see that Andrew Jackson wasn’t clearly liberal. Also Nixon and even Eisenhower tried to be at the centre of the political espectrum. Johnymin (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

By the time of Pierce and Buchanan a great part of the liberal and radical jacksonians in the north, felt disconnected, and a part entered in the Republican Party. I understand you like conservatism and republican politics, but an important part of democrats were conservatives, a various republicans were not conservative. Johnymin (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Go to the wiki of Jacksonian democracy and you will see in the box of factions conservatism, and why it is put. Johnymin (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Trakking. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Roggenwolf (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of Western philosophers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Harris.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply