People are considered aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision (WP:CTOP footnote n), but there's no blanket exception for parties. Kind of a dumb rule (like most of the rules surrounding awareness), and maybe it wouldn't matter, but I wanted to err on the side of caution. Feel free to revert, of course. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chicdat. In content discussions (including requested moves) please comment on content, not contributors. Whether an edit was made by an editor later topic-banned from the subject is irrelevant to what the content should be now. (E.g., [1][2].) And whether a prior discussion included comments by a now-tbanned user is irrelevant to achieving a consensus in the current discussion. (E.g., [3].)
@SilverLocust: Thank you for this comment. Though I was only intending to provide context, I can see how my choice of words and pointing at specific editors violated the FOC policy. I will in the future refrain from mentioning information like this in move requests and other content discussions. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!15:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
September 2025
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. Rangooner (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been reached on List of fascist movements and Fascism articles to include discussion of Donald Trump and the related discussion of fascism (see Talk:Fascism and Talk:List of fascist movements, where a consensus has been reached long ago). These revisions do not refer to him explicitly as a fascist. Instead, recent revisions made to these pages cite claims that scholars, political scientists, and historians have made about him being a fascist, but this does not insinuate that these claims are factual or more than subjective. These revisions have only expanded on the discussion of Trump and fascism (for which a consensus has already been reached). "A growing number of political scientists, historians, journalists, and former officials increasingly characterize Trumpism, or the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement under Donald Trump, as exhibiting fascist, neo-fascist, or proto-fascist traits." This is verifiable via citations and a consensus has already been reached on these pages to include discussion of Donald Trump in regards to claims made by various scholars and political scientists that he is a fascist. Your removal of content ignores this consensus. Furthermore, you've undone revisions to correct grammar and punctuation without any explanation. A report will be made with the appropriate noticeboard if violations continue. —Rangooner (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably realise eventually that it was the Democratic party and the liberal left which was engaged in fascistic policies, fascistic rhetoric and fascistic censorship. Why, only today, Google is apologising profusely for banning conservative YouTube channels during the pandemic at the behest of the Democratic/Biden administration. MattSucci (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol i just came across this, this has to a joke, right? 😂 unfortunately im not convinced it is given there are people who legitimately think things like this. In the event you aren't trolling, i strongly encourage you to read the page on fascism, particularly the first sentence: "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology..." Rangooner (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Chicdat. I was wondering if maybe you could work your magic with this "article". Only, and obviously, if you have a few spare minutes and the requisite desire. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ellection
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NO the place for that is the talk article page, after you were first reverted, not edit summaries or this talk page. Now if you know what an edit war is, that makes it worse. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
