Simonm223

"Fascism"

When referring to fascism, I have added a better definition yet you remove it? The socialist definition has a similar format, yet in fascism, you refuse to add the proper definition. Instead of referring to the ideology and philosophy of/behind it, you remove it and leave it without proper definition? Crazy.

So socialism and communism are okay, but when it’s fascist ideology you have to rub into Nazism (a variant of fascism) and Mussolini. You have to understand fascism is an ideology and doesn’t need to refer to WW2, why doesn’t communism refer to their problems in WW2? Very biased definition! Please redo my edit, and put it back.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparktorn (talk • contribs) 

I'm quite aware of what fascism is. I will not be restoring your edit. Go to the article talk page and seek consensus there. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please remove all comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.3.245.194 (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

no. Simonm223 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay communist. :)

In the future, please restrict your comments on this page to required communications. I don't want to hear from you. Simonm223 (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mr. communist, I am requesting that you remove my own writing immediately, for it is my own work. I have the right to remove what I deem to be removed since it is my writing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparktorn (talk • contribs) 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and 'help!'

I much appreciated your assessment the other week here. Pity it was found unreliable, I thought it was spot on. I wonder what you think of my analysis of the next suspect, which I tried to file here, but Bbb23 trashed it, too. He says it's a total mess and I got the filing all wrong; I never tried this before, must be muddled, I have a hard time following how to file things, but the evidence I've gathered is what counts, right? Any advice? Thanks in advance, MacPraughan (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser found no connection - it's pretty uncommon for a sockpuppet to operate from a different IP from the sockmaster. They might be meat puppets but that's a large hill to climb and I'm going to be honest with you that I don't think there's much benefit into carrying on. Bbb23 knows their business and they're a checkuser admin whose judgment I trust completely. I'm going to suggest that this is a time to consider putting down the WP:STICK - also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS kind of applies here in a minor way. Sorry I can't be of additional help. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ha, ha! That's very helpful and I'll take you at your word. Thanks for the help. Great stuff. No use flogging a dead horse. MacPraughan (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Page split

After some thought I've realized that it's going to be very difficult to reduce the bloating of Antisemitism in the British Labour Party merely by reducing all the reactions because this will only lead to discord. As I see it, on the one hand there are users inclined to defend what they see as BLP violations against Labour politicians and feel that the various reactions and "rebuttals" on the page are necessary to balance out what I suppose comes off as an implicit accusation of personal antisemitism or I guess essentializing the party as anti-Semitic without similar scrutiny for other parties see also Nazi dressup parties attended by Tory MPs and the "scandal" about whether Miliband is really British given that he doesn't eat the "national dish", bacon, or Salmond's commentary that occasionally rivals Corbyn's in insensitivity -- I pay attention to these but the British public not so much , and these guys will see attempts to cut these away as launching an offensive. On the other hand others who see the problem as a manifestation of institutional antisemitism are incensed by what comes off as tokenisation and BLP violations on the other side like the accusations of Jewish Labour members who criticized Corbyn as being complicit in Tory or "Zionist" plots (even when it is Gideon Levy saying so; he outraged many lefty Jews in Britain for saying this btw, and was compared to Netanyahu and Trump for it).

So, alternative proposal -- split all "reactions" into Reactions to the antisemitism controversy in the British Labour Party. By reactions I mean all commentary from any side, except when that commentary is itself the scandal or the immediate response specifically from the relevant figure. This means we mention the words of Corbyn himself, or Ken Livingstone, or Luciana Berger, specifically when they were in the spotlight in the context of specific aspects of the controversy, while the rest, whether it is Jewdas or Theresa May or the Likud party or a Jewish socialist magician, goes to the new page. As for polls, I think they must stay together, and prefer they stay on the main page, but I would be open to them going into the Reactions page so long as they stay together.

Sorry this was long. Things were really heated on that talk page and I wanted to propose my idea here but also help you see where I'm coming from. What are your thoughts? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm divided. I fear a page split will just mean that many opportunities for the partisans to start drawing battle lines, but I do see where you're coming from here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Imo this would quarantine much of the POV warring into the splitoff page, because responsible or at least pragmatic editors would resist any attempts to add "commentary" to the main page. The splitoff page gets fewer views so POV issues there are less of an embarrassment to the project.--Calthinus (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me think on it for a bit. I don't want to give you a knee jerk reaction right now especially since I'm getting to the end of my patience with one of the editors involved here and at Jeremy Corbyn and don't make the best decisions when I'm cranky. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Furthermore one could expand on the relevant issues more in depth in a split off -- i.e. instead of generalized "Rebuttals" they can be organized by argument, and rather than being Whataboutism, it would not be COATRACK on such a page to have a whole section "Accusations of double standards applied to Labour", where comparisons drawn to less-well-known episodes in other parties can be discussed (I have sources).--Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay. No rush.--Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn's respective section is also becoming toxic. Cleanup and trimming is necessary, imo. This is a very significant issue but it does not take precedence over other aspects of Corbyn's public profile including unrelated his economic views, foreign policy and non-related social views, and it is tending to crowd the others out as both sides add more to "balance" things. The part at the top of the page is going to be my proposal: User:Calthinus/Corbyn_trimming_in_progress. But not yet. Fyi. Thoughts are appreciated. Unsure about a lot.--Calthinus (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If we can do it in a balanced way I'd be very happy to trim these sections way back. You know I have a bee in my bonnet still over the fight with Icewhiz over the inclusion of the Lipstadt hit-piece; and in general I'd like to see editorials and opinion pieces excised entirely. But I won't support that happening if it's only being used to trim out defenses of Corbyn. The problem is that there's so little here that isn't an opinion piece. Or an opinion poll (I have a background in stats; I HATE opinion polls). And I mean, I'd be fine with there being almost nothing in those sections. But I don't think that'd fly with a lot of other editors. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hamas

Please note that in this edit - in addition to your stated intention (of entering China to the lede) - you undid an intervening edit, by @Lotje: that corrected reference formatting. If this was not your intention, please restore the inadvertant modifications to the content beneath the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Communism

You undid my edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=860584917&oldid=860531138 with comment: I don't think that's right. Surely we should be pointing to the various Communist groups in India and not just one party. The sentence I edited was: In India, as of March 2018, communists lead the government of only one state, Kerala. The link in the second word, India, was leading to a disambiguation page Communism in India. Links to such pages should be avoided. While I generally agree that links in this article should link to various groups, not one party, but in this exact sentence it's about a specific party that actually leads the government in the Kerala state - this is Communist Party of India (Marxist) which I actually linked in my edit, that you undid. So I would be grateful if you could rethink the edit. --Jakas1 (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I won't get into a revert war with you if you put it back but I would suggest the best place for a discussion like this would be article talk so that other editors can weigh in. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Feng Timo

Hello. As you were involved in the AfD for Feng Timo and appear to understand Chinese, would it be okay for you to adopt the article's DYK nomination? Since the original nominator hasn't edited in a while. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Chinese is my third language; I can speak it conversationally and I can read a few hundred characters but I'm hardly fluent. I also have less Wikipedia time than I did a few weeks ago as work picked up, but if I have a moment I'll help out. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

1rr

Remember the page is under DS, you have not beached 1RR but 1 more revert and you are.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

That last revert was a self-revert which doesn't count to 1RR. I deleted your tag because it no longer applied after I deleted my own mistaken edit. Chill a bit. I've no intention of getting into an edit war here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not a warning, it is a bit of friendly advice, having forgotten this myself recently.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Where? I mean I'm on that board a lot but I assume this is over Parapsychology and I don't see it there.Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

ARBPIA

"All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits,.." per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_Prohibition.It applies to accounts also please undo your edit. --Shrike (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I mis-read that. And I read it twice... Sorry. I've self-reverted. Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

moved & deleted comments

I've deleted our little back and forth about the comment that got put in the wrong spot. It just made the thread confusing. Hope you don't mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop page deletion : Aasan R. Rajendran

Thanks for your reply on "Aasan R. Rajendran" deletion page. Please let me know the next step or procedure to get the deletion tag removed from the page. Meanwhile, we will definitely work on improving and adding further facts to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indaravind (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

AfD is a consensus process. You can go to the deletion discussion and !vote there to keep the article, along with a rationale why you think the article should be kept. Then you wait until the AfD concludes; if the arguments to keep are more compelling than the arguments to delete, the AfD will be closed as keep. A note: this is all you should do. Don't try to campaign for keep elsewhere. A !vote is not an up / down majority vote, so number of !votes matters less than quality of !votes. Simonm223 (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 72bikers (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 72bikers (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)