User talk:Major Dump

February 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Economy of Nazi Germany. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Generalrelative (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am gonna ask you to read wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC) please do not add or edit comments after they have been replied to.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Nazi Germany

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Economy of Nazi Germany. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Call it edit warring if you want, but let it be known what you did. You reverted this sentence (twice): "Tremendous growth in government spending funding ambitious programs, and a tightly-regulated economy through intensified controls, are some of the main characteristics of Nazi economic policy."

A direct quote from the source, I placed in the Edit Summary: "In general terms, the main characteristics of Nazi economic policy were (1) the growth of government fiscal intervention in the German economy through ambitious programs that involved huge public expenditure, and (2) a tightly regulated economy, through more intense restrictions and controls on markets." A quote from <ref>Bel, Germa. "Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany". The Economic History Review. New Series, Vol. 63, No. 1 (FEBRUARY 2010): pp. 34-55 (22 pages) – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help) It's undeniable that it closely resembles the quote, and that source is a legitimate reliable source.

Your reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Nazi_Germany&type=revision&diff=1069707200&oldid=1069706981&diffmode=source

Oh, I remember you now. You were the one that harassed me about my username. Major Dump (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you write. WP:HARASSMENT is a policy, and accusing another editor of violating policy without presenting evidence is a personal attack and a blockable offense. If you recall -- and if you don't you can simply look up this page -- an admin said that I had "a valid point", which hardly seems like "harassment". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dirigisme

I appreciate your edit on Fascism changing mixed economy to dirigisme. It really helps clarify what the economics are actually like. I believe a lot of people would get mislead and think the state intervention is about social problems rather than hegemony MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Econ[reply]

Thanks. Yes, it really does seem like the perfect word for it Fascist control goes beyond ordinary regulations. And it's reliably sourced. But don't be surprised if some editors try to take it out. I just tried to get mere mention of "increased regulation" in the lead of the Economy of Nazi Germany article, with no success for now, even though peer-reviewed reliably sourced that it's a "main characteristic" of Nazi policy. Major Dump (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of fascism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Econpmics of fascism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person who just did multiple reverts. Major Dump (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the article to the status quo ante without the disputed material while a consensus discussion is under way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get discussing then. It needs to be something more substantial than simply stating there's a lack of consensus. Major Dump (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the case. The lack of consensus is the status quo at the moment, which means that you need to provide arguments for why that state should be overturned. GET TO IT!!!. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. You need to explain what your objection is, since you're the person who reverted it. We need to know why you have a problem with it. Major Dump (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_solely_to_%22no_consensus%22

Hoping to de-escalate

Major Dump,

I believe I can sense that you are angry about consensus not going your way at Talk:Fascism#Fascism_is_only_of_the_“right”?_(Discuss_Dispute_tag) and Talk:Economy_of_Nazi_Germany. It's normal to be frustrated in situations like that, and I want to take this opportunity to tell you that I hope we can deescalate the situation which has now moved on to Talk:Economics_of_fascism#Major_Dump's_edit. In particular, I'd like to point out that I find these edits to Libertarianism to be positive contributions to the encyclopedia: [1], [2], [3]. I'm on the fence about this edit to Fascism [4] but it seems as though others approve. That's the kind of contribution we are looking for here. With regard to the talk page conversations that haven't gone your way, I understand how you might feel unheard, though we really have heard you. Even though it can be frustrating, the best thing to do in situations like that is to move on to other, hopefully less contentious topics. Otherwise there is a danger of falling into what we call a "battleground" mentality, and Wikipedia is usually quick to impose sanctions on editors who do so. Here's hoping you're able to focus your energy from here on out into contributing in the positive way I see you are capable of,

Generalrelative (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you trying to be nice. But I'm really not angry. I enjoy having to defend additions in articles, and am open to be convinced that I'm wrong. Wikipedia would be very boring if everyone agreed. So, it doesn't really interest me to move on to less contentious topics. Major Dump (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that you are not angry. However you may want to reflect on the fact that others have expressed that they do not enjoy engaging with you the same way you enjoy engaging with them. In any case, continuing to edit war your preferred POV about fascism being defined by regulation into article space –– in clear violation of WP:ONUS, a policy about which you've been informed on numerous occasions –– may result in sanctions being brought against you, including potentially the loss of editing privileges. I would prefer to see you become a net-positive contributor to the project, which as I mentioned above I see that you are capable of, so I will ask you one last time to desist from this type of disruption. Generalrelative (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since playing nice guy didn't work, now you're resorting making threats, in order to try to prevent reliably sourced info from getting into the article. Impressive. Major Dump (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see you've resorted to claims of sockpuppetry, to stop me from editing. Is this kind of pattern you pursue with everybody when you can't defend arguments by reason alone? Falling back on seeking brute force, and threats of it? Shame on you. Major Dump (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]