User talk:Iamandrebulatov

Welcome

Hello, Iamandrebulatov, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Alert! I smell like farts. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What’s your goal?

Are we trying to make Wikipedia accurate?

How could saying “this political ideology is promoting” hatred ever be accurate about any political ideology?!

Either **every political ideology promotes hatred against its strongest opponents** or none are.

Promoting hatred sound like this: “Hi, I am promoting hatred. I like hatred because hatred is something I like. Do you like hatred? I think you should like hatred.”

ISIS doesn’t even “promote hatred.” They simply hate those who they think are weighed evil or are hurting the word in their view. To say they’re promoting hatred would be childish, emotional propaganda.

Do we as Americans “promote hatred” against convicts on death row before we put them to death by the fact that we hate them so much we have decided to kill them as a society?!

That part of this wiki article is childish propaganda. Why was that ever put into the article in the first place? Iamandrebulatov (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My goal was simple, and similar to other editors’ goal in editing an academic article about politics: accuracy.

it is not accurate to say that any political ideology “promotes hatred” unless that ideology explicitly promotes hatred.

We might find the ideology detestable, but as far as I know the ideology of Neo-Nazism does not overtly promote hatred. Some of their beliefs may lead to hatred, but so might some of the beliefs of the most popular and prominent and considered to be peaceful political parties today.

Even something like the Green Movement can lead to hatred of polluters It would not then be accurate to claim that “the Green Movement promotes hatred.”

Neo-Nazism may promote racial purity, and even racial supremacy, and it may promote fascist ideas for a state (which again, fascism may be found to be detestable or evil or what have you, but that doesn’t mean we can just claim it “promotes hatred”; just being a bad ideology ought to be enough without having to resort to cheap and silly misinformation).

It might even be accurate to say that Neo-Nazism “promotes genocide and mass slaughter of whole races/ethnicities/subgroups of human beings,” which if you’re a biased editor trying to malign the ideology out of your own personal animus and negative feelings about the topic ought to make you happy because promoting genocide is far worse than just “promoting hatred,” and better yet, it’s accurate and not childishly biased.

And maybe some Nazis do claim that “you should hate the [subgroup]!” But again, some Green Party member might say, “yeah, you should hate the polluter!” That doesn’t mean that the official Green Party platform is hate.

It’s been years and the topic still hasn’t been updated and corrected — instead this “sanctions” note has apparently been sitting here since 2020, for over 3 years now.

The article still inaccurately says “Neo-Nazism … promotes hatred,” in the first paragraph of the topic, reeking of childish and emotional political bias.

Many more than I’ve ever heard of before now malign Wikipedia as being terrible for political information because of blatant political bias of editors leading them to add inaccurate information to satisfy their personal dislike of the topic. Claiming some ideology which you don’t like, for possibly understandable reasons, “promotes hatred” sure seems like a perfect example of that political bias.

I hope the article is changed. You want to hate on Nazis, Neo or otherwise, I think most would agree with you on that. And you want to keep Wikipedia accurate, I think that’s an admirable goal most would also agree with. With that in mind, changing “promotes hatred” to “promotes genocide” accomplishes both goals, and it doesn’t sound ridiculous.

What was my goal when I made that edit and suggestion? Accuracy. Iamandrebulatov (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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-1932 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]