User talk:Davide King

Amazing Patience

		The Barnstar of Infinite Patience
		This barnstar is to award you for displaying a superpower level of infinite and invincible patience.

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

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for your continuous improvements to Communism. Awarded by Cdjp1 on 25 August 2021

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Canadian federal election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ranked-choice voting.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

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

Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro

added a link pointing to Catch-all

Social Democratic Party (Romania)

added a link pointing to Catch-all

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed them both. Davide King (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Important notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BastianMAT (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

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

Más Madrid

added a link pointing to Progressive

The Left (North Macedonia)

added a link pointing to Autocrat

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed them. Davide King (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing ideologies from infoboxs

Hi, Davide King. I think you should take the topic of removing most political ideologies from party infoboxs to a general Wikipedia discussion before mass implementation across multiple Wikipedia pages. It has long been the general consensus to have more than one cited ideology in the infobox and I don't think this generally makes the infobox go beyond a summary unless the list is very large. Removing cited ideologies throws up a range of issues. Which should be removed and which shouldn't? How will you prevent mass edit wars of people arguing over what should and should not be included if more than one ideology can be cited? Who gets to decide which ideology is more justifiable to include in the infobox over another? etc. Helper201 (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Helper201, thanks for your comment and I understand that. But you also need to understand that most parties have a single ideology (of course, there are left-wing and right-wing factions that understand it a bit differently but we should not imply a party has a bunch of ideologies) and political scientists categorize them simply as socialist/social-democratic, liberal, conservative, left-wing/right-wing populist, so we should be doing the same. In the case of The Left, anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, and antimilitarism are not only proper ideologies (they are opposition to something) but they are redundant and undue because academic sources do to not say The Left is an anti-fascist and antimilitarist party, they say The Left is a democratic socialist party, and we should be doing the same.

This is a summary of the key facts. Its hardly a big or unwhedley edit. It doesn't overload the infobox or make it difficult to read so I don't see how it breaks any guidelines (note thise are guidelines, not hard rules). Also, I don't see how anti-cpaitalism is reducnt and I'd say antimilitarism is more an ieology than a policy This looks like your personal views, and while I agree on flexibility about policies and guidelines, ultimately we must follow and respect them. It is redundant because socialism is anti-capitalism (from the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, all socialists, including social democrats, are anti-capitalists insofar as criticism about "poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security" is linked to the private ownership of the means of production). The onus is on you to show they are due for the infobox as key facts.

As for your fear, we already have WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS to help us in categorizing the parties so that we can put its categorization as main ideology, and at least no more than three and proper ideologies, not any -isms. To answer your question, Who gets to decide which ideology is more justifiable to include in the infobox over another? — RS and weight do that for us. Clearly, you are not being helpful either in just reverting me. Finally, I reiterate that while I am pointing to policies and guidelines, your arguments simply boil down to this is what we currently do, even though it is a malpractice; therefore, the onus is on you to justify why their addition is an improvement or in line with our policies and guidelines; there has been no clear discussion about it to establish consensus either but they clearly violates weight. Davide King (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of social democracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Piped links

Hi Davide, thanks for all your great work on Czech politics articles recently, it has been appreciated. I was wondering one thing though.. you seem to have a dislike of piped links. What is your rationale for this? I'm thinking of examples like this:

• In November 2008, the Senate of the Czech Republic asked the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic to dissolve KSČM because of its political program, which the Senate argued contradicted the Constitution of the Czech Republic.

Which lead to rather unnatural repetitions of the phrase "Czech Republic". I've noticed this on quite a few articles, and I haven't changed them back because ultimately it's a very small issue, but I think it does slighly reduce the quality of the text, so I was wondering what your reason for doing it was? Jdcooper (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Jdcooper, thanks to you for your kind words and raising this issue. I suggest you to read WP:PIPED and MOS:NOPIPE, if you did not know about it. In your example, perhaps the issue is WP:OVERLINK. An alternative wording could be

In November 2008, the Senate asked the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic to dissolve KSČM because of its political program, which the Senate argued contradicted the constitution.

vis-à-vis

In November 2008, the Senate asked the Supreme Administrative Court to dissolve KSČM because of its political program, which the Senate argued contradicted the Constitution.

While it may not be misleading links, and the article and context may make it clear that you are being linked to the Czech article, i.e. Constitution of the Czech Republic and not Constitution, it is still a piped link and at this point we are better off not linking, especially if we can link it elsewhere in the body. That is why I prefer to use the direct link, and now that I thought about it — to not link it at all in that section and link it elsewhere; in that specific case, I did not think about the latter possibility but it could be a solution. Davide King (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Hi, yes, Overlink is one thing, but natural style is another. If the articles in question haven't been linked above, we do need to link them. Thus, in the above sentence, this would be my suggestion:

• • "In November 2008, the Czech Senate asked the Supreme Administrative Court to dissolve KSČM because of its political program, which the Senate argued contradicted the Constitution of the Czech Republic.

In this case "Czech Senate" should be a redirect to Senate of the Czech Republic (which is formal, rather than natural, phrasing). And writing the full title of the "Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic" seems to me unnatural and vaguely ridiculous. Which SAC do we imagine the readers think that means, if not the Czech one? From WP:PIPE: "Piped links are useful for preserving the grammatical structure and flow of a sentence when the wording of the exact link title does not fit in context." I would say that applies here. Jdcooper (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes

Per the DSN protocol I'm notifying you about an ongoing Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes process. Cloud200 (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian Soviet Republic

The user used sources from communist era writers. He also made fantastic claims, which are not supported by the sources. He elevated/highlighted sentences from the original context of his source, where it is enough to read and see the full context/ pages of his source which prove that his sentences are not represent the reality.

The most stupid and misleading sentences can be found in the lead of the article.

For example, the war with Czechoslovakia and the establishment of Slovak Soviet Republic is a caesura in the chain of events. He stated that Czech Serbo-French and Romanian armies occupied territories because they fought aganst communism. False. Béla kun and his comrades were POWs in Russia, when Serbo-French Romanian and Czech forces started to occupy the territories of the liberal/capitalist First Hungarian Republic led by Count Mihály Károlyi. So the capitalist/Liberal Hungary already lost around 75 % of its territory before the communist coup and creation of Svoiet Republic. So the territorial occupation of neighbouring countries did not start as a war against communism, but simply for for territorial gain/occupation against the capitalist First Hungarian Republic.

He also stated that military officers supported the war. However they left the Red army (with their leader Aurel Stromfeld ) after the establishment of Slovak Soviet Republic. He also stated that everybody supported the communists, which is false, because the Communists government had no authority in the countriside, where the communist waged war against the people of the countryside, the so-called Red Terror (Hungary).He also failed to mention of the original name of the Republic, which is lost in the mistranslation.--Kandallok (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)