User talk:Des Vallee/Archive

Thank You - and Help With Troll

Vallee01, thanks for your interest in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Gordon_(businessman). I am the subject of the article. I have been a Wikipedia reader for over a decade, a registered user for 4 years, and have begun writing more. I would appreciate your advice and help.

There is a troll who appears to have some sort of vendetta against me, although I have no idea why. He formed a single-purpose account called "Krutapidla2," for the sole purpose of posting defamatory content on my site. Since I am not a Wikipedia editor, and do this in my spare time, I decided to seek help, and posted a request on a site, in order to take down the defamatory content. "Krutapidla2" then reposted the defamatory content, deleted other positive content, and went on a rampage. He also marked the page for deletion, and added a notation that my page may have been edited for undisclosed payments. This is, of course, the height of irony. The only reason a paid editor offered to help me was to take down the defamatory content in the first place!

"Krutapidla2" has continued his destructive behavior. The editor undid his changes. Then "Krutapidla2" put them back up. I undid his changes. Then he put them back up. And he had the temerity to accuse me of being a paid editor (which I clearly am not, as reflected among many things by my poor knowledge of Wikipedia systems)! Pot, meet kettle.

I am not a Wikipedia expert, but isn't this kind of destructive conduct exactly what the Wikipedia code of conduct is intended to prevent?

What do you suggest? Can you close down this slanderous "Krutapidla2"? Can you prevent him from continuing to attack me and defame my page? And can you remove the "undisclosed payments" mark and the "considered for deletion" mark? None of this would have happened if not for the troll's slanderous postings.

I would be happy to provide whatever facts and context you would like. Please let me know. Thank you. Bengee123 (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Bengee123 That's not up to me, it's up to Wikipedia editors to find reliable sources for the person in question, if there aren't reliable sources for a subject we can't write about a subject. I simply stated that all the sources looked correct. Vallee01 (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Let us discuss here, or at our talk page, so as to leave other users more space

Please, stop making comments like you did here, which have more to do with Talk:Marxism–Leninism, falsely accusing me on wanting to downplay atrocities, which completely misses our points (do you think Buidhe, The Four Deuces, Paul Siebert et al. are Stalinists with a mission to downplay the atrocities rather than trying to find consensus on the topic?) and did not answer my questions. So please answer this. What is the main topic:

1. Is it about the atrocities only?
2. Is it about the atrocities and narrative of communism to blame (mainstream)?
3. Is it about the link between communism and genocide/mass killing as an academic fact (mainstream or minority)?
4. Is it about the concept, narrative, or theory (popular among the public but minority among experts and scholars)?

Note that the article is about communism, not Marxism–Leninism; and it is essentially stating and accusing communists of promoting genocide and mass killing just because that is what Marxist–Leninists (only one type of communism) did. You claim to be a communist but the article is about communism, not Marxism–Leninism; and it is saying communism, not Marxism–Leninism, always results in genocide and mass killing. My proposal is simply to treat this as a theory, rather than as fact, because anti-authoritarian and libertarian communists clearly did not engage in genocide or mass killing. Is it more clear now? So please, if you have problems with me, let us discuss it at our own talk page and let us leave space for other users to comment on the section I opened. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Nowhere is there any personal attacks, this is a wall of text plain and simple. I think a reason why new editors aren't getting involved in the current discussion IS because the massive amount of walls of texts that are being posted, and nowhere did I state or accuse you are trying to underplay atrocities. "You think that it is a synthesis of material to state Marxist Leninist committed atrocities, or that there is a pattern of these atrocities, but also believe things like pointing Marxist-Leninist states patterns of industrialization isn't." is not me stating you are underplaying anything its me stating your literal your positions. What you just did was a synthesis. Vallee01 (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

How is this, i.e. "you have also edited extensively criticisms of the communist party rule, edits that I think downplay actual criticisms", not a personal attack and accusation? Now you have literally accused me of it, stating "is not me stating you are underplaying anything its me stating your literal your positions. What you just did was a synthesis." You have not the wildest idea of what synthesis even is. We are arguing the article is synthesis because scholars do not say there is any link between communism and genocide/mass killing. You have yet to show a single source that states what you say at Talk:Marxism–Leninism. Davide King (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That statement is not the best, I don't think it is a personal attack but it is assuming bad faith, something which we shouldn't do. Excuse me, I just removed it. Vallee01 (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote here, it is not clear whether we actually agree or this is misunderstanding because this ("We shouldn't go into detail if people think communism is somehow connected we have other articles for that, all we should do is state atrocities go into detail on how that happened. We shouldn't try to put the blame on communism it's completely un neutral.") is exactly what the article does and the main topic is supposed to be. This is what I oppose, that the article blames the atrocities on communism or that there is a connection or link between communism (making no distinction between authoritarian and libertarian communism) and these atrocities. What we are simply asking is that, if we are going to blame it on communism or make a link between the two, it should be presented as a theory, not as fact. The fact is the atrocities happened (fact); the theory is that communism must be blamed for them (theory). To make it even more clear, the only fact are the atrocities themselves; that communism is to blame for them is a theory, not a fact accepted by scholars. I hope I made it more clear, do you understand what I am saying now? We actually agree, we just had a misunderstanding because perhaps you thought I was referring to the atrocities as theory, when what I really meant to say was that communism is to blame is the theory. I hope I made it more clear now, because we actually agree on that quote. Davide King (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King if that is your position I support changing it to be a simple list however other edits don't appear to enforce this. Why is this necessary?

"Communist genocide, or Victims of Communism, is the narrative that famine and mass killings in Communist states can be attributed to a single cause and that Communism represents the greatest threat to humanity. The narrative has its origins in Western European scholarship, in particular the Black Book of Communism (1997), and has become accepted scholarship in Eastern Europe and among anti-Communists in general. Typically, the number of victims, who are referred to as victims of Communism, is estimated to be over 100 million, which is considered to be in the high range by most genocide experts. The narrative has been criticized by some scholars as an oversimplification and politically motivated, and for equating the events with the Holocaust. Various museums and monuments have been constructed in remembrance of the victims of communism, with support of the European Union and various governments in Eastern Europe, the United States and Canada."

This isn't something which simply states claimed communist states committed atrocities, it goes into detail that the very term "Communist genocide" is some conspiracy theory. I do think certain sections just don't need to be here, "Proposed causes" is completely unnecessary and should go somewhere else and removed from the article. Vallee01 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That lead is because the main topic would be the theory that communism is to blame for the atrocities. We already discusses all the events and atrocities individually, so we would need an agreement among scholars that link them together. As noted here, "we cannot create articles that group unconnected events." If the only connection is they were Communists, then Mass killings under capitalist regimes, Mass killings under colonial regimes, Mass killings under conservative regimes, Mass killings under fascist regimes, Mass killings under nationalist regimes and so on ought to be created too. The reason why we do not have these articles, and which is why Mass killings under communist regimes should be about the theory that mass killings were the result of communism, is that it would be original research and synthesis to do that. Perhaps we may make this article about the theory that communism was to blame while you can try to create List of mass killings under Communist regimes, where we would simply list the events, what happened, etc. as you propose, like List of genocides by death toll, without blaming communism on it or any of that. Do you think that would be a good compromise? We would both get what we propose, the events under Communist regimes (you) and communism to blame for it being a theory rather than a fact (me). Davide King (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your main points here. However, I am not sure there is a clear link between genocide/mass killing and ideology; indeed, most scholars find other reasons than blaming ideology. Not all Marxist–Leninists are Stalinists; and while I think they are essentially authoritarians, there is a clear difference between say, Stalin and Mao, and Gorbachev and Deng, or even Khrushchev. In short, the atrocities were the results of authoritarianism and the absence of democratic pluralism; it is this which accomunate all genocide and mass killing. I mean, genocide and mass killing happen independent of Marxism–Leninism and have happened under other ideologies, so the link is not Marxism–Leninism but, as noted by Valentino, that it occurs when power is in the hands of one person or a small number of people and there is a "revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society." Valentino does not blame Marxism–Leninism for it but when power is in the hands of one person or a small number of people.

I think, and you are free to correct me, you do not necessarely see the link is between genocide/mass killing and Marxism–Leninism (after all, genocides and mass killings have happened under non-Marxist–Leninist regimes and long before them) but you do think the atrocities were indeed the results of Marxist–Leninist ideology. While this is true to an extent, it is not universal because most Communist regimes did not engage in mass killings, hence it is false or misleading. While Gorbachev, Deng and other Communist leaders were still authoritarian and repressive, they did not commit genocide or mass killing. The reason why atrocities happened under anarchist experiments was because they were revolutionary regimes and they cannot be discussed without also mentioning White Terror; it was not ideology. The reason why the five-year plans and collectivisation resulted in atrocities was not because five-year plans and collectivisation are inherently authoritarian or genocidical; it is that they were forced on the population; and when something is forced, people are going to back down and an authoritarian government is going to see them as counter-revolutionary or saboteurs. However, five-year plans have been adopted by capitalist countries, there is decentralised planning and collectivisation has been also advocated by anarchists and other socialists; so it is not that five-year plans and collectivisation are inherently genocidical, it is that authoritarianism and the use of force make it more likely that is the unfortunate result.

In short, atrocities, genocides and mass killings happen more because of the events resulting from authoritarianism, non-democratic policies and absence of pluralism than any particular ideology; the only exception may be Nazism, which is the only ideology clearly advocating genocide, although even then there is the functionalism–intentionalism debate. In conclusion, atrocities happen independent of ideology; they have happened under anarchism, the most anti-authoritarian philosophy, and I do not think they were the result of ideology. They were the result of revolutionary events, which result in counter-revolution, which result in authoritarian measures even if in self-defense, which result in atrocities. After all, this is exactly why several anarchists have opposed revolutionary tactics. One cannot discuss the Bolshevik Red Terror without also discussing the White Terror, just like one cannot discuss the Great Terror without discussing the Ancient Regime. As written by Mark Twain:

There were two "Reigns of Terror," if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the "horrors" of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

It is always too easily and simplicistic to blame it all and only on ideology. One can blame Stalinism for Stalinist policies but not all Marxist–Leninists are Stalinists and they have rejected such policies and they only happened again under Stalinised regimes. Anarcho-communism is my ideal society but forcing it is not just the way to do it, it is counter-productive. A more pertinent question is whether it is possible to have a revolutionary but democratic revolution, or whether any attempt at revolution is going to be betrayed and resulting in authoritarianism; is it even possible to have a revolution where 50–60, or ideally anything from 70–90, support it? That only seems to happen to overthrow unpopular regimes and not in support of specific radical changes. As long as anarchism, communism and socialism are so misunderstood and consciously propagated against, I have not faith anything is going to change. The reason why we have only articles such as these on communism, and not on capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, nationalism et al., is because of systematic bias; because only for communism it is assumed the ideology was at fault, even though communism is much broader than Marxism–Leninism. Why not simply make a List of atrocities? Why limit to Communist regimes as if they were the only ones who commit atrocities? So what do you think of making it a list while rewriting the article to make it about the theory that communism is to blame for the events. After all, you want it to be about a list of the atrocities while I want it to be about the popular theory that communism is to blame (hence, "Victims of Communism"); and we both agree the current article is problematic because it blames communism for the events and it states this as fact rather than as a theory. Davide King (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin Gordon

Thank you for posting a comment on this page deletion here. You offered to help cleanup the page, but unfortunately the page got locked up permanently and only admins can edit now. Could you please visit the deletion page and read my latest comment on the bottom. There are sources from Yahoo, NY Times, Bloomberg, CNBC and Fortune, so perhaps you can reconsider changing the vote to a KEEP and post your improvement suggestions on the talk page for admins.Martinvince (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great egret, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High Island.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Squat pic

Madrid?

Hiya thanks for adding this pic to Squatting and Squatting in Spain. It's labelled Madrid not Barcelona and further, how do you know it's a squat? All the blurb says is "Manifestación laica y cívica en las calles de Madrid contra la financiación pública y el apoyo institucional a la visita del Papa" which I machine translate as "Secular and civic demonstration in the streets of Madrid against public funding and institutional support for the Pope's visit." Mujinga (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Mujinga I found the image on Flickr which stated it was a squat I uploaded it to Wikimedia but it already was uploaded, I don't know if the Flickr uploader was the same as the Wikimedia one. Vallee01 (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the reply, maybe it's worth asking the uploader about it then, sorry for playing devil's advocate here but there's nothing to suggest it's a squat on its commons page Mujinga (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mujinga Fair. Vallee01 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Standard notice

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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. I am placing this notice on the pages of individuals currently editing the page Russian Revolution, but it applies to all areas of Eastern Europe. If you have questions, please contact me.

  // Timothy :: talk  23:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Vallee01 (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The POV pushing, the abuse of sources and due weight, and the edit warring/de/te all need to stop immediately on all articles related to Marxism/Communism/Anarchism. Editors need to respect consensus building and onus. The onus for change is on the those wishing to make changes by developing consensus on the talk page. Edit warring is not limited to a single article and it is not the same as 3rr. If the current state of affairs in this category of articles does not settle down, it will end poorly for those involved.   // Timothy :: talk  00:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, I'm Robvanvee. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Folk punk, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Robvanvee 06:34, 17 December 2020 (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. --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Queer anarchism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autogestion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism

Was going to reply there but the discussion was closed on me by someone. You are right that that text was POV. If a certain editor keeps at their POV pushing and others enable it, I recommend starting an RfC. You should also make judicious use of noticeboards when necessary, including the fringe theory noticeboard. At the same time, be cautious regarding WP:AVOIDYOU on article talk pages, since I've seen editors who enforce NPOV get taken out because their frustration got the better of them. But as for proposed text, you can call that whatever you want. Maybe WP:NOTPROPAGANDA would be a useful link to give for such proposals. The editor's proposal was also an inappropriate WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, together with being a cherry-picking of sources. Other encyclopedias handle WP:In-text attribution of POV differently than we do; as you know, that doesn't mean we in our style can repeat ML propaganda as fact. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: If you can gather 10-15 choice diffs that show the editor to be a POV pusher for fringe/totalitarian political viewpoints, via OR and misuse of sources, or things they've said, then take them to ANI and ping me. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for ping, ill keep this in mind I already have a massive amount of diffs so maybe. I also didn't add the POV tag. Vallee01 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I know you didn't. They're not going to relent, clearly, so I recommend a report if it is at all feasible. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey so Crossroads here is a fraction of the diffs of disruptive behavior:

So BunnyyHop is extremely clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, they have an extreme ML POV, and a member of the PCP as stated on their Portuguese Wikipedia page. BunnyyHop only relates to editing articles on Marxist-Lenininism and only posts pro-ML POV pushing sections he seems like he would be more at home at Proletariat Wiki.

He has already been blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia 3 times and on English Wikipedia once, he was warned over five times on Portuguese Wiki, and warned over 10 on English Wiki. All blocks relate edit warring or different POV pushing sections. BunnyyHop has never edited anything outside his narrow field of interest and Bunnyyhop never goes against his own ideology Marxist-Leninism, using some of the most horrible POV pushing sections imaginable here are some of the diffs. The account edits always has something do with Marxist-Leninism and it all extremely positively. He is clearly here only to spread a pro-ML POV, in his entire time on Wikipedia he hasn't edited a single article outside Marxist-Leninism.

Here is a list of some of his disruptive POV pushing edits:

Removal of properly sourced content

Example 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=996142171&oldid=996132142 This details a correct and critical section of Marxist-Leninism and Lenin. Initially Lenin called for a multi-party democracy system however after 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election Lenin lost to the Socialist Revolutionary Party, after Lenin abolished the Constituent Assembly. It was removed simply because he didn't like it. He didn't appear to read the first page:

Citation: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2492782.pdf

Page 1: "Where else but in a Communist society would 99.97 percent of the eligible voters flock to the polls to cast one-candidate ballots for the official candidate? One election that took place in Russia that is worthy of a map Social Revolutionaries: 38% Bolsheviks: 24% Page 3: "The party of Lenin had not received the mandate of the people to govern them." "The Bolsheviks, who had usurped power in the name of the soviets (people) three weeks prior to the election, amassed only 24 percent of the popular vote"

Page 5: Following the defeat of the Bolsheviks in the general election: "Lenin, issued the Draft Decree on the Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly, the dream of Russian political reformers for many years, was swept aside as a "deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarian" Extremely clearly states Lenin disbanded the assembly due to the failure to receive the popular vote, and began demonizing it once he lost. He would later embrace Vandguardism a one party system, due to the failure of his party to win in a multi party democracy. It's extremely relevant to Marxist-Leninism.

He removed the citation because he didn't like that Lenin somebody who he admires a massive amount would be stated to have lost an election. It is textbook denialism and removal of sourced content because he didn't like it, this wasn't buried information it was literally the first pages of the citation.

Example 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=prev&oldid=994675886

Claims that "in practice Marxist-Leninist states have been described as anti-democratic" is a "fringe theory." Despite almost all agree ML states were extremely undemocratic, the USSR, China, North Korea, are considered completely un-democratic. Citation also proves this, as it goes into detail about the USSR.

Example 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=prev&oldid=994471356

Removal of sourced content, due to the fact it mentions North Korea as "stalinist." A label this user doesn't like.

Example 4

Removal of cited text that states Chinas death rate removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Execution_van&diff=prev&oldid=992954114

Example 5

Removal of cited information detailing Marxist-Leninist atrocities and criticisms of Marxist-Leninism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=prev&oldid=991572836

Example 6

Removal of scholarly cited information as to how Marxist-Leninist states are considered state capitalist as a ML that directly goes against his POV: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=prev&oldid=991519659 Did this before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=prev&oldid=989906415. (Just like the previous examples the citation is correct he made that up)

Example 7

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery&diff=prev&oldid=985534791 The reason this was removed because it states the Gulag system as a form of Slavery, something that is well cited. Due to his extreme support of the USSR he simply removes it. Section removed: "See Gulag: Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet regime created many Lagerey (labour camps) in Siberia. Prisoners in Soviet labor camps were worked to death on extreme production quotas, brutality, hunger and harsh elements. Fatality rate was as high as 80% during the first months in many camps. Hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions, died as a direct result of forced labor under the Soviets"

Example 8

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=prev&oldid=982493311 Removed correctly cited information dealing with Anti Stalinst left and "Red Fascism."

Example 9

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Totalitarianism&diff=prev&oldid=975622581 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Totalitarianism&diff=prev&oldid=975707989 Removes the images of Totalitarian leaders because he doesn't like Mao, Stalin and other figures are considered totalitarian, leaders he has stated to admire. Tags the edit as minor to try to get editors not to see.

Example 10

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Totalitarianism&diff=prev&oldid=975622581 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Totalitarianism&diff=prev&oldid=975707989 Removes the images of Totalitarian leaders because he doesn't like Mao, Stalin and other figures are considered totalitarian, leaders he has stated to admire. Tags the edit as minor to try to get editors not to see.

POV pushing text

I don't really need to explain this it speaks for itself:

Russian revoultion

Changed: "Establishment of a Bolshevik one-party dictatorship in Russia proper, most of Ukraine, Belarus, Middle Asia and Transcaucasia" to: "Establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat and the rise of the Bolshevik soviet democracy in Russia proper, most of Ukraine, Belarus, Middle Asia and Transcaucasia"

Text that reads out of an ML manifesto or an argumentative ML essay not an encyclopedia

No need to explain this:

Bust of Lenin (Taganrog)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bust_of_Lenin_(Taganrog)&diff=prev&oldid=988688723 "In August 2014 the citizens of Taganrozhsk were astonished by the method that the city administration used to repair the cladding of the bust pedestal. (In reference to a Lenin bust)" Keep in mind the citation he used is a Russian blog.

Explotation of Labour

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exploitation_of_labour&diff=prev&oldid=996038332 "This labour performed by a population over a certain time period is equal to the labour embodied to the goods that make up the net national product (NNP). The NNP is then parceled out to the members of the population in some way and this is what creates the two groups, or agents, involved in the exchange of goods: exploiters and exploited"

"The exploiters are the agents able to command goods, with revenue from their wages, that are embodied with more labour than the exploiters themselves have put forth- based on the exploitative social relations of capitalist production. These agents often have class status and ownership of productive assets that aid the optimization of exploitation. The exploiters would typically be the bourgeoisie."

I am going to stop here simply go to the difference the entirety of this section reads like an pro-ML argumentative essay or propaganda piece. All the citations given is simply Karl's Marx primary sources, that's it there is no other citations. Here is a fraction of a fraction of more non-encylopedic pro-ML pushing nonsense:

"Capitalists cannot expand labor time arbitrarily because they encounter physical and legal limits. But if the productive power of labor increases in the areas relevant for the production of necessary food, then there is less labor in this food. Then their value decreases and so does the value of labor. Thus, the necessary labor time can be shortened and the surplus labor time can be lengthened."

"This process tends to lead to crises, since production is expanded and consumption is limited at the same time. When productive power increases, production tends to expand. This is because the use of expensive machinery is often only worthwhile if more is produced than before. Furthermore, the capitalist who is the first to use the innovative mode of production will try to get as much extra surplus value as possible. After all, he wants to use up his machines as quickly as possible before they have to be replaced by new machines. An easy way to sell the larger quantity of goods is to lower the price. This puts pressure on the competition. Those who cannot keep up with it risk their own bankruptcy. If capitalists compete with each other, they must strive for the greatest possible utilization of their capital in order to have money for innovations."

"The individual capitalist does not simply appropriate surplus value abruptly. The surplus-value mass of society as a whole is redistributed according to the average rate of profit. In the third volume of Capital, Marx concretizes his categories. He distinguishes the concept of surplus value from the concept of profit. The surplus-value concept is a scientific concept by which Marx reveals exploitation and the relation of m and v."

"The appropriation of surplus value is not limited to the industrial capitalist who has goods produced or services performed. If he sells below value to a merchant capitalist and the latter resells to realize the value, then the merchant can appropriate some of the surplus value." "The price of labor and the standard of living of the worker may rise. This does not endanger the system. The capitalist mode of production tends to regulate the price of labor power according to the requirements of capital valorization."

"In order to overcome exploitation, it would be necessary to eliminate wage labor altogether. The dynamics of the capitalist mode of production produce the conditions for a new society" This is literally plain and simple an argumentative essay, he doesn't even try to hide it, he doesn't even attribute it anybody he at this point is making an argumentative essay. "In order to abolish these relations, "[a]n association must take the place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms," "wherein the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all,"

"Under capitalism, not only are workers exploited, but natural resources are depleted."

"It is true that labor and nature become means of capital exploitation, but the capitalist mode of production systematically corrodes the foundations of wealth" (This is cited not using any actual papers but instead literally Karl Marxs das Kapital)

"The exploitation of man and nature are also linked at the level of consciousness. The mystification of wages forms a basis for the Trinitarian formula. One aspect of this formula is that man perceives the soil in a mystified way. It appears as if the soil is an independent source of value."

If you go through the entire diff you will see more POV pushing sections that aren't belong in an argumentative essay.

Rate of Explotation

"The surplus value rate is the ratio between the surplus value obtained from the exploitation of unpaid working hours and variable capital, i.e. the actual cost of workers' wages, based on the work needed. The surplus value given by unpaid working hours is due to the fact that the wage is fixed (therefore the daily cost of the worker is also fixed) while the value that is produced is variable (based on the work done) and is generally higher than the daily cost of the worker. In Marx's interpretation, this is a misdemeanor."

Marxist-Leninism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=prev&oldid=989778280

"As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality, it is a guide for action, which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis. It is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political ideas that constitute the conception of the working class, science about the knowledge of the world, about the laws of development of nature, society and human thought, but it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class and all workers for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the new society, a socialist society, and communism." (Yes this was actually put in an article)

"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=prev&oldid=983218679" This was supposed to be a single line detailing certain ML achievements.

Portuguese Communist party

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=prev&oldid=992968737

Keep in mind BunnyyHop is a member of the PCP, and he doesn't like that the PCP is entitled a small party, despite it being considered a small party. His issue is purely POV.

Dictatorship of the proletariat

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat&diff=prev&oldid=991605833

Uses a single Portuguese source to try to jam in the title "Democratic dictatorship of the proletariat" he got banned on Portugese Wiki for this.

Guevarism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guevarism&diff=prev&oldid=991243609 Completely removed the criticisms section on Guevarism a Marxist-Leninist ideology. Removed "(Marxist-Leninist states) for trying to impose a dictatorship instead of self-management" because he doesn't like MLs being called dictatorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guevarism&diff=prev&oldid=990486212 Removal of: Guevarism as also been criticized for purges, torture and massacres enacted on political dissidents. In Cuba anarchists and other leftist revolutionaries were often massacred after the revolution. This oppression and inability for anarchists to organize into an effective resistance movement in Cuba would lead to the development of anarchism without adjectives, by Cuban exiles.

Cited completely well, he simply didn't like that Guevarism can be tied to mass killings something which it is. After the revolution political dissidents were massacred. Did this twice: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guevarism&diff=prev&oldid=990437229)

Misuse of quotes to give a soapbox to Marxist-Leninists

Marxist-Leninism

"Lenin argued, for the destruction of the foundations of the bourgeois state, and its replacement, with what David Priestland described as an «ultra-democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat», based on the model of democracy followed by the communards of Paris in 1871"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=prev&oldid=990123440 Leninists argue that Lenin's ideal vanguard party would be one where membership is completely open: "The members of the Party are they who accept the principles of the Party programme and render the Party all possible support."

"Conducting a socialist revolution led by the vanguard of the proletariat, that is, the party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, was hailed to be a historical necessity. Moreover, the introduction of the proletariat dictatorship was advocated and hostile classes were to be liquidated."

Proposed changes to Marxist-Leninism by BunnyyHop

This is a fraction of a fraction of pure POV text on his Sandbox, if you want to be horrified go to his sandbox. He often replaces text with as an example "Suppression of dissidents" to the '"Removal of exploiters and opportunists"

"Endorsing the final objective, namely, the creation of a community owning means of production and providing each of its participants with consumption ‘according to their needs’, they put forward the recognition of the class struggle as a dominating principle of a social development"

"As communist Parties emerged around the world, encouraged both by the success of the Soviet Party in establishing Russia’s independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades, they became identifiable by their adherence to a common political ideology known as Marxism–Leninism."

"Lenin's leadership transformed the Bolsheviks into the party's political vanguard which was composed of professional revolutionaries who practiced democratic centralism to elect leaders and officers as well as to determine policy through free discussion, then decisively realized through united action."

Jürgen Habermas

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas&diff=prev&oldid=995989788 "Italian philosopher and historian Domenico Losurdo critised the main point of these claims due to it being "marked by the absence of a question that should be obvious: was the advent of the welfare state the inevitable result of a tendency inherent in capitalism? Or was it the result of political and social mobilization by the subaltern classes—in the final analysis, of a class struggle? Had the German philosopher posed this question, perhaps he would have avoided assuming the permanence of the welfare state, whose precariousness and progressive dismantlement are now obvious to everyone""

Portuguese Communist Party

POV sections on the PCP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=986756112&oldid=986071469

Edit Warring

On Russian Revolution Wants to insert a bogus claim on "Establishment of Dictatorship of Proletariat" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994653177 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994482550 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994653177 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=994038201

On Marxist-Leninism, Various reasons mostly POV pushing sections

(Diffs of the user's reverts)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990483190&oldid=990421914
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990152506&oldid=990149462
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990118272&oldid=990010040
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=989930588&oldid=989928847
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982244048&oldid=982240953
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=989778280&oldid=989491769
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=983018922&oldid=982981007
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=991572836&oldid=991544582
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=991576614&oldid=991572836
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=995632561&oldid=995631219
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=995620412&oldid=995617862
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=995464036&oldid=995461186

(Prev version reverted to) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Removing sourced information, tagging an edit as "minor" that removes entire sections

Example 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery&diff=prev&oldid=985534791 (Article Slavery) The reason this was removed because it states the Gulag system as a form of Slavery, something that is well cited. Due to his extreme support of the USSR he simply removes it. Section removed: "See Gulag: Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet regime created many Lagerey (labour camps) in Siberia. Prisoners in Soviet labor camps were worked to death on extreme production quotas, brutality, hunger and harsh elements. Fatality rate was as high as 80% during the first months in many camps. Hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions, died as a direct result of forced labor under the Soviets"

Example 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enemy_of_the_people&diff=prev&oldid=977816799 Removes this section "as it fit well with the idea that the people were in control" detailing that Soviet people were not in contol, tags it as "minor."

Example 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Totalitarianism&diff=prev&oldid=975622581 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Totalitarianism&diff=prev&oldid=975707989 Removes the images of Totalitarian leaders because he doesn't like Mao, Stalin and other figures are considered totalitarian, leaders he has stated to admire. Tags the edit as minor to try to get editors not to see.

Conclusion

This is only a fraction of his diffs I missed a massive amount. He only edits relating to Marxist-Leninism in his four month existence on Wikipedia he has never edited anything outside of his extremely specific articles relating to Marxist-Leninism. In that time he has not been neutral while editing only adding positive sections for his ideology, and removing sections that detail attrocities. He is only here to spread his ML POV not to build an encyclopedia. Vallee01 (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Very busy. I would recommend that, if/when you post it, editing it so that there are no bare urls (enclose them in single brackets like so: [1]) and change the headings to be bold text rather than section headings with equals signs. It's also kind of long, and that can reduce the likelihood of it getting addressed, so I'd recommend replacing long direct quotes with just pointing to the diff and saying what they're doing in them. I didn't check all the diffs thoroughly myself but you've got a lot of good evidence and points. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads I currently have an immense amount of school work until January 3rd. I really, really shouldn't be active on Wikipedia while I have much, much more important things to be going, I at most will be on Wikipedia for a maximum of 30 minutes, or at least I should. I assume he removed more sections relating to Marxist-Leninist criticisms, added more POV text, so there is almost new examples. Des Vallee (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Rename from "Vallee01" to "Des1" not successful

The chosen username is similar to existing usernames or it used to be username of someone else that got renamed: D351, D3si, DeS1, Desi per request . Please choose again. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Racist cartoon moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Racist cartoon, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Rename from "Vallee01" to "Des Vallee"

per request --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

To build a company of technology

Hey David mamona (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello? Des Vallee (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

TimothyBlue, many tanks! As in actual tanks. Des Vallee (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

re: Talk:Ben Shapiro

Just FYI in the event it is relevant to your comment, I have struck the comment in Talk:Ben_Shapiro#Propose_Merge_From:_The_Ben_Shapiro_Show by user "Yesornooridk" as they were blocked for being a sockpuppet. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tal-al ward

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tal-al ward requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts Ahaha, did you put that speedy delete tag this because it disproves you on the case Ben Shapiro? This article has already been reviewed. That is low. Des Vallee (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I nominated it for speedy deletion because it appears to be a page for a "village" that doesn't actually exist. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts For being a non-existent village I wonder by the SOHR would state this: "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights learned that 2 civilians were killed in Turkish shelling on Tal al-Ward village which belongs to Abu Rasin area and is away 8 km of Zarkan Township. the sources said that the civilians are: Ibrahim Mohammed al-Khalaf, 60 years, and his wife, Tuffaha Ali Saleh, 55." Hmmm.

"Reeee" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Reeee. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 2#Reeee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Queer anarchism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stonewall. 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) 06:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow this bot is really useful. Thanks! Des Vallee (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

On ANI

@TimothyBlue: I am bringing this here to stop the a random users talk page from becoming a discussion for ANI. Can you state what you are stating on "battleground" I genuinely don't know what you are stating. What is violating stating something on someone's talk? Des Vallee (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mark Overmars.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mark Overmars.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mark Overmars.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mark Overmars.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well this is quite funny. Des Vallee (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metropolitan Anarchist Coordinating Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mutual aid.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Kellyanne Conway

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Please self-revert and participate in the discussion at BLPN[2] to establish consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I will revert but I don't see an issue with it, other users appear to agree as well, we simply state the Twitter account posted the image and that's it. Des Vallee (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, make that point clear in the discussion. Another user had concerns that the photo could be child pornography, which triggers WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin

 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. PailSimon (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon You have been the only one reverting edits, you have been reverted by by two other editors. Despite claiming this you haven't responded to it on the talk, your revert is full of broken text and grammar. I can see your clearly not here. Des Vallee (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how WP:BRD works.PailSimon (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

PaliSimon You have been here a month and you have demonstrated a complete lack of editing with other users, edit warring with two other users now on the page Joseph Stalin, editing only based off your POV, and claiming "edit warring" when you don't get your way. I appreciate being lectured on Wikipedia policies by a user who has been here for a month and has been warned and blocked POV and edit warring. Des Vallee (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

• News and notes: 1,000,000,000 edits, board elections, virtual Wikimania 2021

• Special report: Wiki reporting on the United States insurrection

• In focus: From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades

• Opinion: Wikipedia's war against scientific disinformation

• In the media: The world's press says "Happy Birthday!" with a few twists

• Technology report: The people who built Wikipedia, technically

• Videos and podcasts: Celebrating 20 years

• News from the WMF: Wikipedia celebrates 20 years of free, trusted information for the world

• Recent research: Students still have a better opinion of Wikipedia than teachers

• Humour: Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia

• Featured content: New Year, same Featured Content report!

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2020

• Obituary: Flyer22 Frozen

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria

added links pointing to Retribution, Rehabilitation, Assyrian and Afrin

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Lenin and Stalin

Please, can you help me to search some historical information? What was the political ideas of Lenin and Stalin's parents during the tsarist regime? Are there Lenin and Stalin's school boys or professors who became devoted zarists and their arch-enemies during the communism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.53.48.76 (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

79.53.48.76 Personally not an expert on this, but I can link you to some excellent sources. Full Lenin family tree, more info, Stalin can be seen here. From my knowledge Lenin (Not his real name) was born into a moderately wealthy upper class family in Ukraine. Stalin was born into a poor Georgian family, with father hit him constantly and was a drunk, his mother wanted him to become a priest. Again don't know much about their family but give them a look! Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Claw Eagle

Why are you reverting my edit? The source says NOTHING about whetever PKK entered Southern Turkey and yet u add it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaYunus01 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

TalhaYunus01 Hey, thanks for the response the report provides details that the PKK moved out through Turkey, but other then that you removed crucial information on what PKK claims of casualties and also blanked sources for PKK claims, something which is not allowed. Irregardless it's made clear it's a claim and in the Kurdish-Turkish conflict neither the PKK nor Turkey are reliable sources on the matter. So the claims should be stated. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

They attacking you here Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2Shadow4dark (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Operation Claw-Eagle 2

PLEASE STOP changing or removing reliably sourced, content as you have done on the Operation Claw-Eagle 2 article. If you continue to disruptively edit, you may be permanently blocked from Wikipedia -Cengizsogutlu (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu No content was removed as seen by all the diffs, content was added. So this is objectively false. Des Vallee (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Civility Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your remaining civil above and beyond all reasonable expectation on Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2. An impressive display of restraint. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild Thanks sometimes I can get exhausted from this, but this really helps me keep a good mind at reminds to keep editing. Many thanks and many tanks! Des Vallee (talk)

DS alert

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

Shadow4dark (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Shadow4dark Got this already a year ago, but indeed thanks for the re-hash. Des Vallee (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Status quo ante bellum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 38th parallel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Operation Claw-Eagle 2) for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Des Vallee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have tried to sort things out on the talk page multiple times, all times editors have responded with essentially nothing. I also want to state I wasn't the main one reverting the edits, those were other editors. I will voluntarily not edit the page anymore, as I am tired of this trying to edit Wikipedia the general toxic environment constant personal attacks, it's discouraging and seeing this. I reverted back the version prior to the locked version here.

Something I really, really regret is not going to the talk page to discuss more, I was completely exhausted from the talk, commentary of random ramblings, and "you are a troll" personal attacks made me not want to go to talk. I also shouldn't have done the most recent revert, instead I should have brought it to talk and make my points here, and I apologize for that. I should have been more active on the talk, and should have done that I suppose the bad habits of other users got to me, I could either revert or I could to the talk page to deal with broken ramblings, walls of incoherent speech and unchanging positions or I could of revert, and I chose the wrong option.

I am going to stay away from editing the page whatever happens, I feel tired, I think I am going to take a wiki break in general partially because all of this drama and partially because of personal frustrations, my school has some open positions for writing and journalism, and even expanding encyclopedia's I think I would get a similar experience to Wikipedia without the drama and childish ramblings. Des Vallee (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since you aren't going to edit the page you are blocked from, there is no need to remove the block. You are still free to edit the rest of the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

• News and notes: Maher stepping down

• Disinformation report: A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video

• Opinion: The call for feedback on community seats is a distraction

• In the media: Corporate influence at OSM, Fox watching the hen house

• News from the WMF: Who tells your story on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Take an AI-generated flashcard quiz about Wikipedia; Wikipedia's anti-feudalism

• Featured content: A Love of Knowledge, for Valentine's Day

• Traffic report: Does it almost feel like you've been here before?

• Gallery: What is Black history and culture?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

HI

Do not add back edits by GPinkerton he was topic banned and now blocked because he violated his topic ban. You disrupting wikipedia by reverting his POV edits. Shadow4dark (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Shadow4dark I really disagree with your revert, like very much so the Syrian regime has been known as a fact to implement arabization policies, it simply is a fact. However I don't want to revert the edit, or get involved in walls of text.

Moreover I would appreciate it if you would stop giving bogus definition, no one is disruptive anything, someone has a disagreements on content both are sourced, well formatted, and uses neutral wording. "Disruptive edits" aren't anything you dislike.

You also need to learn what vandalism is. Vandalism isn't . Vandalism has an extremely specific definition and I am tired of people misrepresenting it. Vandalism means anything that is made with the intentional purpose of harming Wikipedia. Content you disagree with even if you think is disruptive isn't vandalism. Moreover stating an edit is vandalism or disruptive without any actual evidence, for the reason you disagree with isn't allowed, and rides a line on personal commentary and poisoning the well.

After all if you state an edit is disruptive just because you disagree with it you by extension state anyone who support the edit is supporting disruption which makes it impossible to discuss, in other any other disagreements is "disruptive." Respect others editors and edits, not every edit you dislike is "disruptive," it usually is just different content. Learn with that and try to cooperate with people before jumping on the first revert to accuse editors of being disruptive, assume good faith ol chum. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Look i said disruption not vandalism. And if you add this stuff back you should do own work and not reverting blocked and topic banned users. Shadow4dark (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)