User talk:Docktuh

Welcome to Wikipedia, Docktuh! Thank you for your contributions. I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this to OnceASpy's talk page but he removed it and some other text that gave context: "{{re:Docktuh}} and anarcho-syndicalism clearly isn't a Communist political ideology, calling him a communist when the two philosophies are at odds shows that you don't know what communism is. Just stop calling people communists. OnceASpy, I've restored the comment I made yesterday, you were asked to restore it but didn't. It shows why Doctuh posted here, shortly after I pinged him. Doug Weller talk 06:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As my post saying that isn't there any longer, you might want to point out the difference to him. I'm guessing that he thinks you admitted to being a communist. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, they're not at odds per se, but they are different ideas. In the name of education I'll speak to him on it. Docktuh (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Docktuh,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 00:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added anti fascist categories for Bela Lugosi and Aline Bernstein, but these're not supported in the article text -- that is, there's no material, and so no refs, indicated that they were particularly involved in anti fascist activity. Naturally, most people are against fascism, so in that sense we could ad an anti fascist category to most biographies. But I think we ought to do this only for people who were especially active in this area, by writings or other activity. Lugosi and Bernstein might well have been, but there's nothing in the article now to that effect, and I think there ought to be to show that the categorization is appropriate. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish anti-communists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 01:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish fascists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 01:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's socialism articles. Did you know there's a WikiProject for editors interested in writing about socialism? If you would like to join, simply click the Join WikiProject button on the WikiProject Socialism page. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the WikiProject Socialism talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! MarioGom (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Tommasi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James Mason (neo-Nazi); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.

Hello, I'm Bledwith. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hellenic Socialist Patriotic Organisation have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Bledwith (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As I pointed out in my reversion, I really don't see a reason to undo any of that. Besides other Nazis referring to themselves and people who were writing about Nazism during World War 2, people don't generally call Nazism by it's full ideological name. Even we don't call it that, the category for Nazi parties is "Nazi parties" not "National Socialist parties". A bit pedantic perhaps, but all the same, it avoids confusion. Especially since, as we know from the history of the subject here on Wikipedia, people like to claim the Nazis as left-wing or as socialists, when the academic consensus is the opposite. Docktuh (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I would like to notify you that I have tagged that category for deletion as it contains no articles; if it remains empty for a week, it will meet Wikipedia:C1. If you know of any politicians that are also members of the KKK, please populate the category with them. Glades12 (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, please go ahead and delete it. I made the category without noticing that there was already an article with a listing of it, so the category is superfluous. Docktuh (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Docktuh: I noticed that you added "White supremacist politician" as a category to Stephen F. Austin. You have made similar edits to various articles, so you should be aware of some Wikipedia policies on categories. WP:CATVER is relevant to these edits, which says, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." In other words, there should only be categories that are verified by text in the article, which are in turn verified by a reliable source. Please consider reviewing these edits and revert the ones which do not comply with Wikipedia policy. Thank you, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was a proslavery activist, a slave owner, and a politician. None of that makes calling him a "white supremacist politician" unverifiable. Thank you for the concern though. Docktuh (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the article says that he is a white supremacist politician? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry does "advocating & participating in chattel slavery in the United States" and "being a politician whilst doing so" suddenly make it possible to disqualify someone from being called a white supremacist politician? Docktuh (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the basics of Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable source on Austin making the claim that he was a white supremacist, then you can write it into the body of the article. Otherwise, it does not belong there as a category. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I ask you this: Is Austin not (as his article says) a slave owner? A proslavery advocate? A politician? Again, I fail to see what's fundamentally incorrect here. Docktuh (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at it was pointed out in the Admin noticeboard (which I must agree with everyone there you jumped the gun on), Austin was unambiguously a racist. Docktuh (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cut with a dull knife. Obviously, these concepts are all related, but they are not equivalent. Please pick up a book or an article on Austin and cite a page number. You are sneaking in freight through the back door. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not equivalent? Again, I'm confused here. Saying a proslavery activist in 19th century America isn't equivalent with a white supremacist is like saying a member of the NSDAP prior to 1933 isn't equivalent with an antisemite. Docktuh (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your plan for improving the article?Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have one...? Listen I apologize here but I'm simply sorting things is all. If the pre-existing categories all state he was an active slaver and promoted it, and was an active politician, I'm not seeing my fault in categorization here. Docktuh (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be 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. 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. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Docktuh, I notice you are particularly active in the "infobox" and "categories" part of the editing of articles about politics. Regarding the former (par excellence, as it seems, adding -isms) you need to be aware that you need to use sources (arguably quality ones) also underpinning a sense of due weight. The best way to convey the latter is citing one or more secondary authoritative scholarly source(s) thoroughly dealing with the issue, while at the same time offering the precious short labels. It's also worth noting that adding labels Ad infinitum to any infobox does not make the latter necessarily better. And the content needs to be primarily developed and (of course) also sourced in the body of the article (in combination with the infobox sourcing or even preferently just in the body of the article). Conversely if your edit is undone, you could go to the talk page to find a consensus. The latter part (the imperative to sourcing the content inline in the body of the article) also applies to the categories. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Docktuh. Editing without quality sources is... problematic. The article you linked with this edit is unfocused, and it is not even clear what it is talking about (I'd say your edit is flat out wrong If I were actually 100% sure what the linked article is about). I've undone your edit and I've added another target as commentary afterwards; I invite you to open a talk page talk to decide if that target has a place in that infobox, given the effective subordination of that organization to the military (rather than to the party structure).--Asqueladd (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. So, with regards to the edit in question, I added it because the Blueshirts (later known as the Falange Militia) were the armed wing of the Falangists prior to the FET y de las JONS coming to power in Spain. When Franco won the civil war, the Blueshirts were renamed the Falange Militia. This is all in that group's page, and there's no in-article evidence on either the Falange Militia or the FET y de las JONS that suggests the former dissolved prior to the transition to democracy.Docktuh (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the issue is that that's not even the case. Camisas azules was just a nickname for grassroots falangists because (since 1935, IIRC) they adopted blue shirts as uniforms (before they used to dress in suit and ties as foppish boys). But (if any) the "militia" of FE de las JONS was the "Primera Línea" or the "Falange de Sangre" . I don't know what "Falange Militia" is (well, I can bet: it might be a common noun plus an adjective someone has turned into a proper noun above their possibilities). And no, the end of the Civil War (1939) has nothing to do. Already since the 1937 Unification Decree, there is a explicit mention to the "Milicia Nacional" as merger or requetés and falangists. Don't take everything you read in Wikipedia for gospel.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "The term "National Socialist" is, to the confession of even the Nazis, misleading. Outside of quotes and (in some cases) nomenclature, no one ever calls it that.)" But clearly this google book search shows that you are incorrect: ^[1] Google Scholar contradicts that statement too. ^[2] Hardyplants (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, the term is used in some scholarly sources. However, generally speaking the term isn't used. Even Wikipedia articles don't say things like "National Socialist German Worker's Party" or "National Socialism and Occultism", it's just "Nazi Party" or "Nazism and Occultism". Regarding it being misleading see this article^[3] as well as the Talk page for the Nazi Party. The use of the term is largely unnecessary, outside of quotations about Nazism (especially from the time period in which the party existed) and in Neo-Nazi organizations, like the National Socialist Movement. As even the article for Nazism points out, the Nazis sought to redefine the word socialist, and their economic program hardly if at all resembles anything socialist (such as the respect for and protection of private property). Docktuh (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in "some" as you say - the even more specific term "national socialist Germany" has about 928,000 results. Hardyplants (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I follow you private property argument - maybe it will make more sense after I get some sleep - But see: "Socialist economists are critical of private property as socialism aims to substitute private property in the means of production for social ownership or public property. … In Marxian economics and socialist politics, there is distinction between "private property" and "personal property"."^[4] Hardyplants (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point. Socialism is anti-private property, the Nazis very specifically defended it. Docktuh (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for fixing my articles, I just translated from foreign Wikipedias and for some reason they do use the term "National Socialism" rather than Nazism, and I forgot to fix some of it.RKT7789 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American white supremacist politicians has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page.Hmains (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm AllegedlyHuman. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Josh Hawley seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Alssa1 (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BRD we should continue this discussion on the talk page. Alssa1 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you chose the wrong category. I don't think the category was right cause i didn't find any sentence which explains that Simon was a member of ICU in the article. Maybe, you can add the explanation first, before you add the category. I redo your edit cause i just find one book about ICU involvement in this link which just tell us that James Schuba is the member. Thank you.Agus Damanik (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Docktuh. It seems you're on a sort of mission to extract the term "socialism" from national socialism." And you're offering a fact as justification. Because it is a fact that some opponents of socialism (and I'm not suggesting I'm a socialist, at all) have attempted to denote National Socialism as akin to the leftist ideology, in general, given that socialists are, by definition, leftists. Though, this may be indeed a fact, it is also a fact that the term "National Socialism" is the one used originally by Hitler's party and followers of the Nazi ideology. (The term "Nazi" is provenly a term used almost exclusively by non-Nazis.) But here's the thing: There is, in any case, a plethora of references to both "Nazism" and "National Socialism" in reliable sources. This means that the WP:COMMONNAME policy is inoperable: Both terms are interchangeable and we should be using each one according to context each time. For instance, "nazism" is not found in the relevant texts as much as "nat'l socialism" when denoting the appropriate brand of ideology of Italian extreme-right parties, organizations, or groups. You can check the sources. So, I respectfully suggest you hold back from your mass interventions and dedicate research time in each and every instance for the appropriate term. The attempts at distorting the nomenclature on "socialism" won't go away in any case. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome I change the term only when appropriate. For example, in organizational names (besides the party itself), quotes, and reference names, I leave well enough alone. I also tend to leave it be if context demands the use of an "-ist" suffix to describe ideology. Of course trying to purge each and every instance of the term is not only POV, but a waste of time. I do what I do chiefly because the average person doesn't call it National Socialism (though also because, as we both seem to be aware, the term is deliberately misleading) and I'd wage the majority of academic sources don't call it that either. Docktuh (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Well, personal experience varies, by definition. How people mostly call it does not carry much water in Wikipedia, unless the preference of "the people" is reflected in written, reliable sources. As to the issue of people deliberately misleading others by presenting nat'l socialism as a leftist ideology, that does not count in editors' criteria at all. Our duty is to simply present what sources say. The majority of academic sources studying extreme-right politics, as I wrote above, use the two terms interchangeably according to the issue at hand. Again, the example in the Italian neo-fascist militant groups during the years of lead: some adopted national socialist ideology and for them most academic research referred to their ideology as such. Neither the groups themselves nor research used "nazism" to identify their credo, to any significant extent; but many political adversaries did in their texts. Wikipedia chooses academic research or objective journalism over political tracts any day. This is important to understand. -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me when I speak about it being misleading. As it's been pointed out by scholars, critics, and to an extent even the Nazis themselves, the name "National Socialism" was an opportunistic one, rather than describing anything resembling socialism. Of course I obviously don't care for the odd historical revisionism that goes on by the people who no doubt spam the talk page of the Nazi Party howling about how "Socialism is in the name!!", but that's a problem unto itself. Nevertheless, if the terms are interchangeable and I leave well enough alone on titles, sources, and quotes, I see this whole thing as a non-issue. Docktuh (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Mexican anti-fascists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here long enough to know that referring to other users' constructive edits as "vandalism" is a no-no [1]. This is ESPECIALLY true when this edit - that you called "vandalism" - involves sourced information, while the text you are restoring involves unsourced information. Don't do this again. Volunteer Marek 02:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Kanye West. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Our verifiability policy applies to categories as well. In short, categories have to be substantiated by the article body, where information has to be reliably sourced. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• From your talk page history it appears there have been many issues with your use of categories in the past. WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATDEF apply.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Kanye West, it is sourced and cited in the body that he is a Neo-Nazi. He is also a politician. He is also a Christian. I therefore added "Neo-Nazi politicans" and "Christian fascists" as categories, because both of those things are apparent and cited. Docktuh (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're synthesizing information from multiple sources. A Christian fascist is different from a fascist who happens to be Christian, e.g. I'll revert you again on the basis of WP:BLPUNDEL. Feel free to hash it out on the article talk page. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish fascists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Eurasianism itself could be considered an ideology in its own right. I know it's not common but I recommend watching this video where they explain it in detail: https:/ youtu. be/5Z98moTOa7Y (I'm sending it here and distorted since the talk page apparently doesn't allow sending links to YouTube) Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alfredo18elguapo This is not about Eurasianism specifically its about a party which happens to have Eurasianism as part of its platform. Even then it wouldn't change the party's far-right, neo-fascist platform. Please keep this on one talk page, it helps no one to do this. Docktuh (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[| You categorized] the Donald Trump article as far-right politician. I suggest you read the consensus list if you plan to do further editing. Your edit [| was reverted] because item #59 of the consensus applies. SmileyTrek (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, 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.

TylerBurden (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! CT55555(talk) 03:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:QAnon has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 12:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neo-Nazi propaganda has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kanye West. You've been at this since 2022 yet you haven't participated in any discussions on the article talk page. You have a history of miscategorizing BLPs. Stop. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the Black Hammer Party is fascist, shouldn't we add the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party as fascist too? Firekong1 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So firstly, just on the note of pure comparisons: The NOI and NBPP share Black nationalism and antisemitism with the BHP, but those alone are not fascist (reactionary IMO, but that's it's own conversation). On a much more relevant and procedural note, the BHP has credible citations of being both Garveyist and Trumpist, both of which are American fascist movements. While it's not a stretch to argue - in fact you could probably find articles backing this up with some ease - that the NOI & NBPP are inspired by Garvey's own brand of Black nationalism, this by itself wouldn't be sufficient to call them Garveyist nor fascist. Docktuh (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you keep removing the "Category:American Revolutionaries" from "Category:Aryan Nations members" when the Aryan Nations tried to overthrow the US government (which was what let to the Fort Smith sedition trial). If they're doing revolt against the US government to overthrow it they should be included in "Category:American Revolutionaries".Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this belongs in the talk page for that category. Second, overthrowing a government and revolution are not one and the same. Docktuh (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What made whatever Aryan Nations did different from say Black Panther Party in terms of qualifying for the "American Revolutionaries" category. Not only did the top Aryan Nations members (Richard Butler, Louis Beam, Robert Jay Matthews) advocate for a fascist revolution but the Aryan Nations as an organization advocated for a revolution against the US federal government. I think that qualifies Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Razzamatazz Buckshank Still the wrong place to be arguing this, but I think this is a teachable moment. Calling the Aryan Nations revolutionaries on the grounds you're doing gets us into all kinds of semantics. "Could you in good faith call Neo-Nazis revolutionaries?", "Is it the act of terror for political goals the same thing as revolution?", "By this same logic, would we be calling the Atomwaffen Division revolutionaries?", "If violent overthrow constitutes revolution, does the January 6 attack constitute an attempt at revolution?", the list goes on. To get around this issue that arises when language isn't necessarily clear, Wikipedia operates on scholarly consensus. Whilst there is scholarly consensus on what the Aryan Nations intended to do in its prime, the language is less clear as to whether or not this constitutes revolution. The main page is listed under the "Fascist revolts" category, but again, semantics: "Is revolution and revolt the same?". If you want to make this point, you need to find plenty of scholarly evidence to back this up. Otherwise you're describing a bunch of paranoid racist goons as revolutionaries, which also describes the KKK (see the issue yet?). As regards the Panthers, this is a much simpler answer: In addition to the many times the Panthers openly advocated for revolution, they also operated on the vanguard party model of Marxism-Leninism, which is a strategy specifically for revolution. Hope this helps, happy editing. Docktuh (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can just put in individual members like Louis Beam and Richard Butler but not the organization as a whole as they really did openly advocate a revolution in the same manner as Robert Jay Matthews. But I think some sources to support the argument that Louis Beam and Richard Butler were revolutionaries would include Kathleen Belew's Bring the War Home and Leonard Zeskin's Blood and Politics. They talked about how Beam was advocating for a white revolution. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center called Louis Beam an "... iconic figure of the radical right..." saying that he "...played a key role in shaping the revolutionary racist movement in the United States." Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Razzamatazz Buckshank Now see, there you go, that's what I mean. Use those sources! Docktuh (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave an edit summary when reverting. I also advise you to read through WP:CATV and WP:V. Claims on Wikipedia must be sourced. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle Definitely should've left the summary, that's on me. The reason for reversion was that what you claimed in the summary of your edit was simply not the case. The body describes all of that. Docktuh (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry isn't even mentioned in the article, yet somehow 'anti-masonry' is a sourced category? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle OK fair, other than the anti-Masonry. Docktuh (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ^SMason_Garrison 00:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your addition of a related but non-nested category. Jewish fascists is relevant for the child cat of collaborators, not Category:Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany ^SMason_Garrison 00:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]