Hello, Technokratisch! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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 name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! DVdm (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Orangemike. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Fascism seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk11:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me a hint please what exactly I did wrong there? I am quite certain that everything I posted there was directly relevant to improving the article. I did identify a source. I argued why my proposal was an improvement. How come these complaints are always so super vague? The one above as well. Am I supposed to be a psychic? Was it the question of whether to include outdated/irrelevant classifications (like the left-right dichotomy) that was too general? Anyway, thanks for the link to the reference desk, I'll look into it.--Technokratisch (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You removed extensively sourced information with which you personally disagreed ("outdated and irrelevant") and inserted your own opinion into the article, then used the talkpage to profess your personal point of view without presenting any support in mainstream academic scholarship. You may not do that.That's not a vague complaint - Wikipedia isn't a forum for your personal outlook. Please stop, it's disruptive. And be careful about the reference desk - the link is in the standard template, but it's not a forum for political revisionist discussion. Acroterion(talk)11:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed information. The edit was rejected and I was told to go to the talk page. Fair enough, that is what I did. There I gave my reasons for the edit and when asked produced a source which is also cited on the Wikipedia page for left-right political spectrum. I argue that including the information about fascism's position on the left-right spectrum is without merit. Now you can say that this is my opinion and you can say I included this opinion by removing information. Fair enough, it is my opinion. But if you think that this information should be included than this is (by the same token) also just your opinion. While I gave a reference that states that the left-right spectrum is meaningless you (or anybody else on the talk page) have not produced any reference that claims that positioning political ideologies on the left-right spectrum has merit. There is also no reference to such a claim in the current version. There are only references to claims about where on that spectrum it falls which is of course a different question. So the question remains whether including the information about the position on the spectrum is in the interest of Wikipedia readers. I am absolutely willing to talk about this important question and there may even be researchers that agree with your opinion. However, the insinuations from your side are absolutely unwarranted and I would be happy if you could assume good faith on my side from now on.--Technokratisch (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Provide high-quality sources, as you have been advised - the left-right positioning, for better or worse, is extensively referenced, as documented in the article, or was until you removed scholarly citations that contradict your assertion. That is disruptive, as is use of the talkpage for soapboxing. Article talkpages are for serious,detailed efforts at article improvement, backed up by serious sources, not for casual discussion of individual views. The burden is on you to propose an appropriately-sourced argument, and I strongly advise you to take the time to read the talkpage archives - it will take a week or so. Be aware that historical revisionism is not viewed with much favor by the encyclopedia's community. Acroterion(talk)16:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Orangemike. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Fascism seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Fascism for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)