User talk:BunnyyHop/Archive 1

Hello, BunnyyHop, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! User:RamRaghubn (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

RamRaghubn (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:BunnyyHop reported by User:Firestar464 (Result: ). Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

"'Relatively small' is again - relatively. It's not neutral editing." -- Neutral editing does not imply objectivity. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#"There's_no_such_thing_as_objectivity" sam1370 (talk · contribs) 05:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sam1370 I don't think it constitutes "relatively small". 4th largest with 50.000 members in a near 11 million population where there's 50% of absentees? The current government would fall apart if it wasn't the support of this party in the parliament. 6% of a vote share isn't relatively small, unless you count every party to be relatively small compared to the one who got most votes. I have made a quick Google search, and "relatively small" appears to be used for the Catalonian Communist Party - when it had around 400 members. BunnyyHop (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC) sam1370, this List of political parties in Italy article defines major as "more than 4%". List of political parties in the United Kingdom defines minor parties as parties with no elected UK representation. Thus it shows the arbitrariness of using "relatively small compared to other parties".[reply]

Standard notice regarding Eastern Europe

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 23:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On removing sourced content with no explanation

Hello, I am here to tell you that you removed completely correct sourced information. Keep in mind if you remove sourced sections stating Marxist-Leninist states are undemocratic with vague and strange edit summaries of your POV, you will result in you getting blocked. This is utterly blatant. I want to find your position on this, do you think Marxist-Leninist states are democratic? You seem to think that Marxist-Leninist states are democratic something that is complete nonsense. The sources speak for themselves, and the fact that you removed it doesn't make any sense. The fact Marxist-Leninist states are undemocratic is not a fringe theory, despite you claiming it is. Vallee01 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vallee01, use the talk page. --BunnyyHop (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This about your actions more in general, instead of being about the page Marxist-Leninism. Vallee01 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vallee01, my position on this shouldn't affect the neutrality of my edits - which is to not be neutral in content, otherwise there would be almost no content in Wikipedia. Your sources were first and foremost not indicative of Marxism-Leninism but of the "GDR Constitution" and "Religion in Russia and China". Also, I'd recommend you to read about these type of democracies. --BunnyyHop (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop The point is your edits aren't Neutral. Almost none of your edits have been neutral! Do you think that Marxist-Leninist states are genuinely democratic, because that is a complete fringe theory. Vallee01 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All my edits, I believe, are neutral. My opinion doesn't matter, as long as it is all verifiable and neutral. --BunnyyHop (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop Indeed but why do you believe that Marxist-Leninist states are democratic. As an example, Cuba, China, the USSR, Vietnam, etc... Are all considered extremely undemocratic. Vallee01 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vallee01, it's not up to me to answer that, not here, you have to do your own research. Domenico Losurdo, for instance. --BunnyyHop (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your the one who removed the sentences citing that ML states being undemocratic was a fringe theory. In what way? You removed the citations from JSTOR and other academic papers, explain. Vallee01 (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources didn't state such, and other sources in the article say the opposite. If it's about this, use the talk page. --BunnyyHop (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vallee01 Good question. I think the debate was already raised about separating the ideology and the implementation cause the difference can be vast. Having said that, India does have democratically elected state governments like Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal which were led by Communists and under the Indian Constitution. Hence the need to separate ideology and implementation is very important. Best! Vikram Vincent 15:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Marxism–Leninism. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads Oh, okay. Thank you, I wasn't aware of that rule! --BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Marxism–Leninism, you may be blocked from editing. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adding my POV to the article, nor my personal analysis, nor «commentary», despite what was claimed by one user in the talk page. Check the new section I created. But if I did, please link it and I'll immediately back down and apologize for it. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

Hello, BunnyyHop. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you.

Hi, just a courtesy message following up on what I wrote in Talk:Marxism-Leninism#Lead changes discussion about copying text verbatim in the past (copyright violations). This thread is to help clean up prior instances of copyvio and close paraphrasing. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Okay, I understand this is a necessary procedure to keep this Wiki safe. Thanks for warning! --BunnyyHop (^talk) 01:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing text on talk, POV editing, removal of correct information.

On this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exploitation_of_labour&diff=996316591&oldid=996316218

You removed a message on talk, possibly because you didn't like the information or possibly because of a mistake. Assuming this was made in good faith don't remove messages from talk, even if you disagree with it. If it is not in good faith attempting to remove messages on talk to try to remove an argument is one of the dumbest things imaginable and doesn't work. Des Vallee (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I guess that happened because when I added that last line your text wasn't there --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed this template: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&action=edit, despite the neutrality being horrible on that article.

And you also removed a section on the Free Territory on Anarcho-communism, despite the hyperlinks and other articles being sources enough. Your only issue with content appeared to be stated Bolsheviks betrayed the free territory, something which they did. So in the strictest sense you are acting off your POV.

If you keep up disruptive edits acting on your POV instead of contributing to Wikipedia you will be blocked. I am stating this because you have an extremely clear pattern: You only edit things of relation to Marxist-Leninism and you only post positive things of Marxist-Leninism and consistently remove sourced sections content detailing Marxist-Leninist atrocities with the excuse of some random Wiki policy that has nothing to do with anything.

Here is an example of you removing from the article Slavery in which you removed mention of the Gulag system only because it fits your ML position. You also tagged it as "minor" despite removing an entire of sub section of the article, to I assume get it removed from watch list. Your only issue with the section is your ML POV, that the Soviet Union had a system of Slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-communism&diff=prev&oldid=996287928%20or%20this%20https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery&diff=prev&oldid=985534791

Text 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"

Hey BunnyyHop was this a just a mistake to? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exploitation_of_labour&diff=996300759&oldid=996300478. Clearly not a mistake you intentionally reworded another users statement to fit your own agenda. Des Vallee (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hello BunnyyHop. Can you explain why you shouldn't be blocked for modifying another editor's talk page comment? EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

EdJohnston, if you click the link you'll see that it was actually him that modified his own comment. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced content and adding inline citations date despite info being given

This is a warning stop adding "quotation needed" or "verification needed" your only issue with the section seems to be it documents that Vladimir Lenin lost in the popular election, who then abolished the Russian assembly.

You were told this, you seem to removing the section of reliable citations only because of your ML POV. You were told this three times however despite this being made clear to you, you keep adding "Verification needed" or "Quote needed" tags. Despite the quotation being made clear to you both in text and an a inline citation and literally being told to you directly, you keep adding "quote needed," despite the quotation being made clear date.

Section you keep either removing or adding tags on: "Previously, Lenin had called for a multi-party system of democracy before the Bolshevik Party lost in the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election to the Socialist Revolutionary Party.^[1] Following the Bolsheviks defeat in the election, Lenin began describing the assembly as "bourgeois-democratic" parliamentarian. After the defeat in the election, the assembly was abolished and all other parties, with the exception of the Bolsheviks, were made illegal. This would lead to the development of vanguardism in which an hierarchical party-elite party controlled society.^[2]^[3]^[4]"

From citation: "Out of a total of 42 million and a total of 703 elected deputies, the primarily agrarian Social socialist Revolutionary Party plus narodnik or populist parties amassed the largest popular vote (well in excess of 50 percent) and elected the greatest number of deputies (approximately 60 percent.). [...] The Bolsheviks who had usurped power in the name of the soviets three weeks prior to prior to the election, amassed only 24 percent of the popular vote."

For: Bolshevik Party lost in the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election to the Socialist Revolutionary Party."

From citation: "(Following the elections) dominated by Lenin (who had previously called for free party elections) issued the Draft Decree on the dissolution of the constitutional assembly, the dream of Russian political reforms for many years were swept aside as a '"Deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarianism"' (You keep adding an original research tag despite you being told this quote and being linked its on page page four)

For: "Following the Bolsheviks defeat in the election, Lenin began describing the assembly as "bourgeois-democratic" parliamentarian. After the defeat in the election, the assembly was abolished and all other parties, with the exception of the Bolsheviks, were made illegal. This would lead to the development of vanguardism in which an hierarchical party-elite party controlled society."

"After the defeat in the election, the assembly was abolished and all other parties, with the exception of the Bolsheviks, were made illegal."

Don't remove cited information. I find it extremely difficult to think of this as anything other then your ML POV. If you are going to remove cited information take a small amount of time to verify the citation yourself, this info was from page four altogether it would take you around a minute to verify this text. So you either removed content without verifying the source, (something which isn't allowed) or you knew about the citation's text but removed it anyway which is also not allowed. Des Vallee (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Dando, William A. (June 1966). "A Map of the Election to the Russian Constituent Assembly of 1917". Slavic Review. 25 (2): 314–319. doi:10.2307/2492782. ISSN 0037-6779. JSTOR 2492782. Out of a total of 42 million and a total of 703 elected deputies, the primarily agrarian Social socialist Revolutionary Party plus narodnik or populist parties amassed the largest popular vote (well in excess of 50 percent) and elected the greatest number of deputies (approximately 60 percent.). [...] The Bolsheviks who had usurped power in the name of the soviets three weeks prior to prior to the election, amassed only 24 percent of the popular vote.
^ Dando, William A. (June 1966). "A Map of the Election to the Russian Constituent Assembly of 1917". Slavic Review. 25 (2): 314–319. doi:10.2307/2492782. ISSN 0037-6779. JSTOR 2492782. (Following the elections) dominated by Lenin (who had previously called for free party elections) issued the Draft Decree on the dissolution of the constitutional assembly, the dream of Russian political reforms for many years were swept aside as a 'Deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarianism'
^ White, Elizabeth (2010). The Socialist Alternative to Bolshevik Russia: The Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1921–39. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-90573-5.
^ Franks, Benjamin (May 2012). "Between Anarchism and Marxism: The Beginnings and Ends of the Schism". Journal of Political Ideologies. 17 (2): 202–227. doi:10.1080/13569317.2012.676867. ISSN 1356-9317.

Use the talk page of the article, not my user talk. WP:OR was removed and the accuracy of the information cited was increased, and also removed biased editing that is portraying the Bolsheviks in a certain way that is not faithful to the respective sources. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Your edit to Exploitation of labour has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Sure, thanks for warning anyway. Just to be sure - Further violation implies future edits, right? And when the iThenticate report says 64% similar», what percentage of «similar» would not be in violation of copyright? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content you add to Wikipedia should not contain anything whatsoever copied from the source. Exceptions include things like job titles, names of schools, alphabetical lists, etc. I will be checking future edits for violations. — Diannaa (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know it was that strict, I thought simply changing some words and the order of the sentence was enough. Thanks for answering anyway. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa How would I add to an article something that in the source is like this: «There are no precise estimates of the total number of combatants in the Republican ranks, estimated at between 500, according to X, and 1000 or 1200, according to Y» or «On March 12, 1962, the first clandestine broadcast is made» --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is 30% similar «green» in «Earwig's Copyvio Detector»? Wouldn't that be ok? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go by the percentages or color coding seen at Earwig's tool. Those are for a visual aid. The amount of copying allowed is NONE.

How to paraphrase your examples: "Estimates of Republican forces range from 500(source) to 1200(source)." For your second example, who is making the broadcast and for what reason? I need more information before I can write it.

There's some reading material on how to avoid copyright issues at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Okay, that WikiEd link will be particularly useful - I didn't know such a thing existed before. Thank you!!! --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The student module is quick, and fun to do.— Diannaa (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Socialism

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's socialism articles. Did you know there's a WikiProject for editors interested in writing about socialism? If you would like to join, simply click the Join WikiProject button on the WikiProject Socialism page. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the WikiProject Socialism talk page.

We look forward to working with you in the future! MarioGom (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is great! It's all grouped in together, thanks for sharing! BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Des Vallee (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore what you reverted at ANI. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328:, please, help me with this. I somehow overwrote the section of another editor and now more users have edited. I don't know what to do, if I revert it now it will remove the contributions of other editors BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the page history, go to the version just before your error. Copy the content you accidentally deleted, and paste it back at ANI. A little note of explanation would be nice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like I didn't remove any in between edits, only my mistaken one. It's all good, I think. BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, was that you? Here are your next edit there and the next. That would be consistent with time when you started editing. If so, then such edit is telling. BTW, having such view (last diff) is not anything exceptional. More than 50% people in Russia right now think the same. Still, this is not the place to promote such views. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes No, GEOIP returns an Indian IP address. As you can see, in my second edit I mistakenly pressed «Enter» before finishing the edit summary - I didn't even know there was such a thing as a talk page. However, this response «Whether you agree with the concept or not, these are the leaders that are associated with the academic discourse on "totalitarianism," as discussed in the article» was revealing, hence my latest edit on that article, which was not even mentioned in the ANI. I appreciate that you invested time to analyze the edit summaries and the articles. Thanks for that. Now going back to recent edits, I still don't understand how this is a «Chinese backed conspiracy theory». As you can see, proper attribution was given and it was written neutrally. However it was reverted, based on an anti-Chinese rhetoric I assume, to remove attribution and declare it as fact. Am I the one pushing POV here? BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is all debatable, but what really gave me a pause were edits like that, given that you are actually more or less familiar with the subject. Practically every person who survived Gulag described it as a system of slave labor. My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, Penal labour, and thereby Unfree labour already have their own articles, and so does Labour camps. If you check the Slavery article, it has almost 244.141KB, while the WP:TOOBIG max size is 100KB. We already mention forced labour in that article, it is out of scope. This does not mean I uphold the Gulags or that I want to put a blanket over it. What happened was - if one labour camp is mentioned - then the rest also have to be mentioned. This resulted in the addition of more out of scope sections about China, the US, and so on. BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not all labor camps have been described as slave labor, but specifically Gulag (and some other systems of labor camps) have been described as such.My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there were harsher conditions in the GULAG than most labour camps, especially during the War years, but it's still a system of labour camps. For instance, Tsarist Russia, whose penal colonies (Katorga]) were inherited by the Bolsheviks, are not mentioned. That's because it's not in the scope of the article. It must be moved to its respective page, that is, Labor camp. BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one can argue that prisoners of labor camps are not necessarily slaves. However, even Marxists and socialists like Irving Howe argued that Gulag was a form of slavery [1]. The camp's administration even occasionally barter prisoners with special skills. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Encyclopædia Britannica, forced labor is described as «Forced labour, also called Slave Labour, labour performed involuntarily and under duress, usually by relatively large groups of people. Forced labour differs from slavery in that it involves not the ownership of one person by another but rather merely the forced exploitation of that person’s labour». It's a topic related to slavery, but it's not slavery. Hence, unless there was no Forced labour article, it is out of scope. Forced labour is already mentioned in a summary style topic here. BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes a new topic was opened in Talk:Slavery. BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I explained everything to you on talk page of Slavery. Unfortunately, in this and other cases you are not even trying to find any RS which contradict your POV, even when your edits meet objections from others and such RS are easy to find [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See reply --BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

Hi. I was reading the article on Marxism-Leninism and saw your edits and arguments. I would like to talk to you about a project outside of wikipedia that requires someone who can do research on Marxist topics, including in languages other than English (I see that you can read Russian). I wanted to email you but I don't see any option to do that, so I registered this account to get in touch. If you're interested, please email me (I registered this account with an email), or add an email to your account so I can contact you. Thanks! 216.115.151.42 (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The above message was written by me, I was not logged in. This was the account I was talking about. It has an email attached. AmiEntendsTu (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AmiEntendsTu, hello! Sure, I'd like to see what this project is about. However, when I tried to reach you through the EmailUser feature, it tells me you haven't specified a valid email address. Maybe you haven't verified it yet? Cheers. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 09:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contact (Cont.)

Oh, sorry! Yes, you were right that my email wasn't verified, but that should be fixed now.AmiEntendsTu (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temp break?

Hi! It might be useful to take a short break and edit non Marxist articles until the ANI is done. Just breathe, have some chocolate, read-write... Anything that removes you from conflict for the moment. This will give you time to also reflect which I think is very important part of praxis. Best! Vikram Vincent 14:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram, thank you for your kindness! I tried to edit only within the scope of «the Watchlist», but it might be better to take a short-break from that altogether. :) BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop, I wanted to pop in very quickly and wish you the best - It's times like these where I think the idea of Wikipedia being "leftist biased" is most easily exposed as being ridiculous, and while I disagree with some of your edits, the double standard and witch-hunt right now is extremely obvious. I hope you're well. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 23:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThadeusOfNazereth thank you kindly for worrying about a colleague. All good! :) --BunnyyHop (^talk) 00:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been following for some time your edits on the ML article, and the unfair persecution of you on the admin noticeboard, I'd just like to wish you the best and I hope it all comes out well for you. AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AxderWraith Crimson, thank you! :)) --BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProleWiki

Hello, comrade. Ever heard of ProleWiki? —Felipe Forte ^{(have fun!)} 18:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marx.FelipeForte, greetings comrade. I'll check it out. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trust Is All You Need, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Vikram Vincent 07:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Vincent 07:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram, thanks for letting me know. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 14:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

My very best wishes (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALK

Please do not follow my edits as you did here. Thanks. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes I have 57 pages on my watch list, and absolutely no interest in following your edits outside those pages, don't really know why you're asserting such thing. Especially in a Lenin related article. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned you. Thanks. My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warned for what?

«Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work»

I intervened in one article that is within my general scope of editing - without even taking a side. This is silly. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do not mind when others follow my edits to fix whatever they want. But not in this case. One can just check the timing of your edit, look at your edit summary and the previous comments on ANI to connect the dots. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The timing was it appearing in my watch list that you had removed the paragraph. Don't really understand how the dots connect, but ok. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chinese Communist Party; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. You know the policies on edit warring well, and you have been warned to stop trying to redifine Wikipedia policies such as WP:BRD. For god's sake please stop. Des Vallee (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Des Vallee, you are breaking WP:BRD by not addressing my points on Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies and reverting for no valid reason, see the Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" essay. You are solely relying on edit summaries which do not address the point. As such, I'm asking for you to revert your edit if no consensus is the sole thing behind it. Thanks. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop As previously stated, you are willing fully disregarding sources, based off your position all sources are reliable. Des Vallee (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, there's no disregarding of sources. Cheers. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHopp removing properly cited text is one thing, but trying to then claim the sources which clearly define China as capitalist, which it is. The notion China isn't capitalist is a complete fringe theory, this is pure nonsense and simply denialism, source. You understand it's not hard to verify these claims and stating false information of what you are doing isn't allowed. Des Vallee (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? lmao --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Des Vallee (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Des Vallee (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not canvassing, these editors were involved in the exact same edit I've been accused of "POV pushing". WP:APPNOTE --BunnyyHop (^talk) 06:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbcom report

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BunnyyHop and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 15:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union case request declined

The case request you are a party to, BunnyyHop and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, has been declined after a majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. You can view a permalink of the case request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban, 3 March 2021

Pursuant to the ANI discussion, I have established that there is enough agreement for a six-month topic ban that that you may appeal in three months from all articles related to Marxism/Leninism, broadly construed, and particularly from the article Slavery. Please see my close here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I understand. I continue to believe that this was really just a series of content disputes that degenerated into something ugly, but in truth, precisely because the disputes became so intractable and so long, I wasn't sure how they could be resolved anyway. Maybe some time to cool off isn't so bad. I will stay away from politics in general, as that's probably the best course of action, and I'll try to find other topic areas with articles that need improvement. Thank you for the option to appeal the ban in 3 months, although I'm not sure if I will use it. Let's see how it goes... --BunnyyHop (^talk) 01:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. We admins have some leeway here and I didn't want to make it resemble capital punishment. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Radio Free Portugal

Hello, BunnyyHop. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Radio Free Portugal, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Dando, William A. (June 1966). "A Map of the Election to the Russian Constituent Assembly of 1917". Slavic Review. 25 (2): 314–319. doi:10.2307/2492782. ISSN 0037-6779. JSTOR 2492782. Out of a total of 42 million and a total of 703 elected deputies, the primarily agrarian Social socialist Revolutionary Party plus narodnik or populist parties amassed the largest popular vote (well in excess of 50 percent) and elected the greatest number of deputies (approximately 60 percent.). [...] The Bolsheviks who had usurped power in the name of the soviets three weeks prior to prior to the election, amassed only 24 percent of the popular vote.

[2] Dando, William A. (June 1966). "A Map of the Election to the Russian Constituent Assembly of 1917". Slavic Review. 25 (2): 314–319. doi:10.2307/2492782. ISSN 0037-6779. JSTOR 2492782. (Following the elections) dominated by Lenin (who had previously called for free party elections) issued the Draft Decree on the dissolution of the constitutional assembly, the dream of Russian political reforms for many years were swept aside as a 'Deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarianism'

[3] White, Elizabeth (2010). The Socialist Alternative to Bolshevik Russia: The Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1921–39. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-90573-5.

[4] Franks, Benjamin (May 2012). "Between Anarchism and Marxism: The Beginnings and Ends of the Schism". Journal of Political Ideologies. 17 (2): 202–227. doi:10.1080/13569317.2012.676867. ISSN 1356-9317.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]