User talk:TheUzbek

March 2022

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that in this edit to Central Committee elected by the 8th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that in the future :) --TheUzbek (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could not edit you're talk page, but I've also added more features such as if they were reelected or not or if they were long-standing members or not. --TheUzbek (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk page is protected due to prior harassment involving a separate issue, but if it helps, consider using Page preview for future edits. Thanks! :) Jalen Folf (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello, I'm Egeymi. I noticed that you recently changed content from Arkady Volsky without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Egeymi (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced info about his nationality and it is not a big deal. --Egeymi (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Egeymi: I see that Ukrainian and Russian WP refer to him as Belarusian. --TheUzbek (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But these are circular sources. There should be a third-party source. If you find a reliable source, you may add, of course. Happy editing, --Egeymi (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On ethnicities

Hi. Apologies, I meant to give a heads up on some of the recent edits. Now categorizing historical figures by ethnicity on Wikipedia is always complex, because present-day understandings of ethnicity and nationality don't necessarily match the way those identities were construed at the time. For example, people living in the lands that today constitute the Republic of Lithuania weren't necessarily Lithuanians - in Vilna/Vilnius Poles and Jews outnumbered Lithuanians. The notion that Grigory Sokolnikov would be 'Ukrainian-Jewish' is also dubious, from what I can gather the categorization is based on applying the label 'Ukrainian Jews' to Jews that lived in areas that constitute present-day Ukraine. The label 'Russian-Jewish' is a political minefield, as implying that those categories would be mutually exclusive is contested. And so forth. Ideally such a categorization scheme would need a reliable, independent source. --Soman (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: I understand what you mean. The reason why I added the ethnicity column is that this was of scholarly interest when foreign observers analysed the Central Committee/Secretariat/Politburo make-up. It also showcases Russian-Ukrainian dominance of the Soviet political scene.

I do, however, concur with you. Ethnicities, especially for the early CCs, is hard to find and have their own peculiar meaning in contrast to the ethnic categories in let say the 1960s.--TheUzbek (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Politburo member timeline

Busy creating a timeline of members for the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union here. Good work on revamping the Politburo pages! Having said that, could I ask for your help in checking that the dates in the timeline are correct, and other improvements like simplifying, etc, where possible? Thanks! SuperWIKI (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: Sorry, I've been inactive of late. Do you still ned help? :) --TheUzbek (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I'm taking a significant break from it because there's so many of them? Finishing off the last few in particular. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: If I was you I would remove mentions of "Party leader", "head of state" and "Premier". Party leader is not really the correct term, and head of state and premier were not that important (what was important was Politburo membership). I would also change "Full member" to just "Member" and "Candidate Members" to "Candidates". I would also remove "military" and "security" background. For instance was Andropov a security man? He became one, but wasn't one at the beginning. In fact he was a civilian head of the KGB. Same goes for the majority of them. Military men too.. Was Voroshilov military? In some sense yes and in some sense no.

I would simplify the timeline since it would both make it easier for the reader but also convey the information as factually as possible. --TheUzbek (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, TheUzbek

Thank you for creating Central Committee of the 2nd Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Thanks! :) --TheUzbek (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presidium of the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hao Peng. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 4th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hà Đông.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Siz o'zbekmisiz? 178.120.16.135 (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:3rd Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam

A tag has been placed on Category:3rd Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Members of the 8th Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam

A tag has been placed on Category:Members of the 8th Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, TheUzbek. Thank you for your work on 13th Central Inspection Commission of the Communist Party of Vietnam. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! I hope you will write more articles. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Central Committee outline

Your recent editing history at Template:Infobox Central Committee outline shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Since you unaware of how to resolve duplicate parameter errors, you should ask for help before changing the infobox again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WPK politburo

Hi, Just wanted to thank you for updating the information regarding WPK politburo membership. Really great job. Rakoon (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) --TheUzbek (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Committee of the 6th Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party

My job is not to concern myself with what you think is or isn't the "proper" history — my job is to ensure that Wikipedia process is followed.

If you think a page is incorrectly titled and needs to be renamed, you may certainly propose a renaming through the requested moves process, but you are not entitled to just arbitrarily move the page from its longstanding title of many years yourself without discussion to establish a consensus that renaming is actually warranted. And if you think a category is incorrectly titled and needs to be renamed, you may propose a renaming through the categories for renaming process, but you are not entitled to just arbitrarily create new categories yourself, and empty out the existing ones by replacing them with your new ones. If there's a problem, you follow Wikipedia's process for fixing the problem, because if you don't follow the correct process you're creating other problems that you hadn't considered, such as emptying out categories and leaving pages filed in categories that don't exist.

So, again, if there's a problem with the names of our articles or categories, you may follow the processes that are in place for getting them renamed; you may not just arbitrarily go in and mess around with everything yourself, and if I ever see another redlinked category on the cleanup list of redlinked categories that was put there by you, I'll be reporting you to WP:ANI for being disruptive. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article back to its existing title after somebody else moved the article away from its existing title without following the rules is not the same thing, so there's no rule that just because you were supposed to follow a process you didn't follow before you were allowed to move the article in the first place means that I had to follow the same process before I was allowed to put the article back where it was originally. So if you think you're gotcha-ing me, you're not.

So, again, you're welcome to follow the proper processes to propose moves for discussion, but you may not just move content yourself without discussing it, and I will be going to ANI if you give me even one further word of clapback about this. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not failing to get anything, because you're not telling me anything I'm supposed to understand any differently than I do. You can't just discuss a major series of page moves and category name changes with one person — you have to propose them for a proper discussion through the requested moves and categories for renaming processes. I don't give a flying honk what you did or didn't discuss with one person on their own personal user talk page: you didn't list the pages for proper discussion through the established processes for getting content renamed, which is the thing you have to do.

And you're the one breaking stuff: you're emptying out existing categories without discussion, you're leaving a trail of redlinked categories behind you that aren't allowed to be on pages, and you're moving pages that rightly or wrongly have been at their current titles for years and thus require discussion about whether renaming is warranted or not.

Follow the proper processes, and leave me the hell alone. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said there are processes you can follow to get content renamed if it needs renaming. But doing it the way you're doing it, you're breaking things — emptying out existing categories out of process, leaving a trail of redlinked categories that don't exist to have articles in them behind you, and on and so forth — that can't be left broken. So by doing it the way you're doing it instead of through the proper process, you're making a mess that other people have to fix. Which is precisely why we have processes for getting content renamed if it needs to be renamed, so that stuff doesn't get broken.

FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCESSES, AND LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: How did the title "Central Committee of the 6th Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks)" leave redlinks? You can't explain; I thought so... --TheUzbek (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said redlinked categories, sunshine, not redlinked page titles. You left a trail of redlinked categories behind you in your arbitrary out-of-process renaming of categories. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I find it incredible that you started an argument, and a whole process no one needed, because of a stupid rule and you can't seem to admit that you were wrong. You've failed in every message you've posted here to be collaborative and helpful. And you've proven that best by blocking me from you're talk page because you don't like to discuss the problem you alone created. No one asked you to fix this; this is one you and no one else. You're mistake, you're uncollaborative behaviour. And you know what the worst thing is? I wanted to collaborate and I showed good faith, but showing good faith doesn't mean getting anything in return it seems. TheUzbek (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create a problem. You created a problem, by moving content out of process which had the result of breaking stuff — and if stuff is broken, then somebody has to fix it. You're not allowed to empty out existing categories without discussion, and you're not allowed to leave a trail of redlinked categories behind you, and if you do those things somebody has to fix them.

There's a reason that we have processes for getting pages and categories renamed if they need to be renamed — because you can break stuff if the process isn't done correctly. Categories don't just exist in isolation, but are part of a relational tree with parent and child categories that can be impacted if you aren't careful, and edit histories that get broken by the change because you used the wrong method to rename the category, and you can sometimes even break templates or maintenance tools that were depending on the old category — so you do not rename a category by just creating a new one and manually moving all the pages out of the old one, because there are a lot of other moving parts that also have to be taken into account. So you rename a category by listing it for the categories for renaming process, so that all the moving parts get dealt with, and there aren't old empty categories and broken templates and things left sitting on the floor.

So whatever this is, it isn't me failing to be collaborative. You caused a problem that had to be fixed, and then you started flinging shit at my head when I explained that we have processes in place for doing what you're trying to do, and I'm somehow the bad guy here? Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: You're talking about renaming categories and I have no clue what you're talking about.. I've created new categories to correspond with the electoral terms.. --TheUzbek (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: You also forgot WP:BeBold. I saw a factual inaccuracy and moved the article to its correct name... Then you started a discussion no one sought and gave the article an historical inaccurate name about an organisation that did not exist in the time span. You broke WP! --TheUzbek (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I broke no rules, and I'm not the one who had a responsibility to initiate a discussion about anything — you are.

You are, once again, never allowed to file anything in a redlinked category that does not exist to have things filed in it — so if you leave content filed in redlinked categories, then somebody has to make the redlinked categories go away, because the redlinked categories can't be there. And this also goes for your user sandbox page, by the way. It cannot be filed in redlinked categories that do not exist, and it cannot be mixed with articles in categories that do exist. And neither of those are optional rules that you're free to disregard at your own personal leisure — they are mandatory rules that must always be followed. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Then explain to me why WP:BOLD is not valid, that you moved the article to a historically inaccurate name and so on? I wonder what the excuse is going to be this time! --TheUzbek (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Communist Party of the Soviet Union

Hi,

You made some changes to this template a short time ago but it looks like the groups at the end were incorrectly numbered. I changed the numbers – please check that I did so correctly. This template is used on several hundred pages, and the error showed up on all of them.

Ira Leviton (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Category:Central Auditing Commission of the 19th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)

The page Category:Central Auditing Commission of the 19th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) has been deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. As the page met any of these strictly-defined criteria, it was deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been deleted are:

The category had been empty for seven days or more and it was not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories. (See section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Category:27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (section)

The page Category:27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (section) has been deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. As the page met any of these strictly-defined criteria, it was deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been deleted are:

The category had been empty for seven days or more and it was not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories. (See section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Central Committee of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Central Committee of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category problems

First issue: please don't remove categories like you did at League of Communists of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Croatia/Kosovo/Macedonia/Montenegro/Serbia/Slovenia/Vojvodina and whereever else. I presume you did it because you saw them redundant with categorization of their own categories, but that is not a practice followed on Wikipedia. Both articles and their own categories should be appropriately categorized to same categories, when both exist.

Second issue: WP:SMALLCAT. You seem to have created a ton of one-page and one-subcategory categories and all this does is make navigation slower and less convenient. I think you should slow down with that and discuss with other editors whether this is something Wikipedia wants.

Your non-category contributions seem great on first glance, though. Please consider these remarks and have a good day! –Vipz (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: Thanks, I learnt something new about categorisation today! :) While I knew I created some of these categories early, I intend to create articles on every Central Committee term of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (and its republican and autonomous provincial branches). But I agree, I was a tad early, but when I first began I thought I could at least create the basic structure. I am surprised how badly the articles about the League of Communists are developed. --TheUzbek (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to have been of help in that case. While I don't see them as of utmost importance, these CC term articles/lists can come in handy, like when writing a new bio for one of these politicians. And yeah, these articles just like Yugoslavia in general aren't too well covered on English Wikipedia, but to tell you the truth, local language editions aren't much better either and sometimes even lag behind (efforts towards this coverage are being dispersed accross four Wikipedia editions based on varieties of Serbo-Croatian). I admire such an effort here on English-language edition being made by a non-speaker of any ex-Yugoslav language. As for the basic structure of categories, do try to assess in advance whether some of them have no prospect of growing past one (page/sub-category) member, especially those categories that match an article. I assume all those CC term categories that currently have only the matching article categorized into them are going to be expanded with members of each CC term? If yes, will they be categorized directly into those categories (e.g. this one) and not yet another subcategory called "Members of the Central Committee of the ..."? Cheers! –Vipz (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: See Category:Central Committee of the 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I've created a similar structure for the Vietnamese CC and its organs.

These articles are essential to a) showcase the changes in the communist elite, b) show who governed Yugoslavia, and c) create a detailed list with basic information (birth year, death year, branch, ethnicity el cetra) that can be used as a foundation for future WP articles. Ideally, these articles should be split into several for each term: Central Committee of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, Central Committee Apparatus of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and Members of the Central Committee of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. See 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, an article I wrote that I've taken a break from and needs much work to improve further.

If you have any suggestions on how I should structure these categories, please say so :) --TheUzbek (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll be able to reasonably populate all these categories while developing the structure, go ahead! I don't have any suggestions at the moment, but will let you know if/when I do. As for the further branching of articles, I'm not really inclined towards this. You have to keep in mind you'll have much, much less to write about an average CPY/LCY CC congress than a contemporary CPV CC congress. I would rather see it all written on one article first then discuss with other interested editors whether a split is warranted. And much, much was not an exaggeration... that's one huge article! Can't read it at the moment, but seems like good work. –Vipz (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: I entirely agree with you! First, splitting these articles is only warranted (as you say) if someone comes up with the necessary references, but I am not that man. But considering that the LCY decided on actual policy direction, one would think that it is notable enough to have its own stand-alone article. Second, you don't need to read it! My point was just that it is possible to split these articles up, but that's of course a lot of labour. --TheUzbek (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to categories, but just so you know, apart from the logos I also updated the color scheme of {{League of Communists of Yugoslavia}} to make better contrast and for links to hopefully stand out with brighter yellow. I used some of the existing communist party navbox templates for the shade of red used. Great progress with the articles by the way! –Vipz (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lovely! :) Thank you--TheUzbek (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again TheUzbek, we haven't interacted in a while. Just notifying you that Central Committee of the 4th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia lacks an infobox and Central Committee of the 13th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia lacks tables. So far so good, you quickly turned a whole bunch of red links into blue. –Vipz (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm still working on adding the missing candidates for the 4th CC and, as I wrote on you're talk page, I fear that I might not be able to complete the 13th CC since I neither can access the official documents or can speak Serbo-Croation. --TheUzbek (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to find something accessible but in Serbo-Croatian, do tell me or one of many other Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian / Croatian / Montenegrin / Serbian) speaking users here on Wikipedia to help out. –Vipz (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some time in the future I happen to come across relevant material, but unfortunately can't promise anything. –Vipz (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Germany

Hi, I have noticed that there are no articles about members of Politburo and Secretariat of the ruling communist party in East Germany. There are only articles in German Liste der Mitglieder des Politbüros des ZK der SED and Liste der Mitglieder des Sekretariats des ZK der SED. Maybe it makes sense to create such articles in English. Of course, if you are interested. FlorianH76 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FlorianH76: Hi again! Yes, that's the plan! :) I aim to create CC articles for all the ruling Eastern European communist parties. My order of labour is as follows:

Finishing the Yugoslavs
Albanians
Hungarians
Romanians
Polish
East Germans
China
Only after this will I begin with the national republics of the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

Maybe I won't complete it, but that's my goal! The Yugoslav CCs are the most difficult because of the widespread use of ex-officio members and by-elections so it will take time. --TheUzbek (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are doing a great job! FlorianH76 (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam ordinal category

Template:Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam ordinal category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rozental in Uzbekistan?

Hi hi. I created the article Karl Rozental. Per a post in an online forum ( https://mytashkent.uz/2011/03/22/kratkaya-istoriya-razvitiya-svyazi-v-turkestanskom-krae/ ), Rozental would have moved on to work hold government roles in Uzbekistan, but I find no WP:RS to back this up. Is there any good listing of people's commissars in early soviet Uzbekistan (with deputies)? Notably the forum post get a lot of stuff wrong (like confusing Latvia and Lithuania), so perhaps it is from a non-Russian source where the poster mistranslates. The person answering the comment seems to be more accurate, getting the birth date and death date almost exactly as in one of the reference I got. The birth year 1886 seems to be a mix-up with K.G. Rozental. -- Soman (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: Thanks for asking me of all people! Not as I know of, sadly. I usually use the Handbook on History of the Communist Party and the Soviet Union 1898–1991 (knowbysight.info). I see from that source that he sat on the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Lithuania and Belarus ([1])

If I were you I'd send a PM to Ukrainian WP user MikeZah. He added the list of "Secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan". I am assuming-but I may be wrong-that if he held government offices in Uzbekistan (minister or something similar) he'd be a member of the CC. However, if this was in the early 1920s the odds are against that. However, given he managed to find a list of Secretaries of the CPU Central Committee I'd assume he might be able to find a list of cabinet members or so on.

At last, great article! :) --TheUzbek (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I found a Belarusian reference, that at least backs up that Rozental shifted to Uzbekistan at some point. My problem with the knowbysight.info ref is that the birth date and party entry date refers to Karl Gertovich Rozental [ru], although I presume that it is likely the info about CPLB CC membership. --Soman (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: What site? :)

Knowbysight: not this time! Look more closely; the CC candidateship is for you're Rozental. --TheUzbek (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that the info on CC candidateship is likely correct. However they give the birth year and party membership year of K.G. Rozental. --Soman (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: Aha! Yes, that database seems to have many "minor" errors. I understand why. It cannot be fun only adding numbers and years to individual people. That is a major problem with Yugoslav sources; official sources are terrible at recording birth years... They mix up years on several occasions. MOreover, while the books Who's Who in the Socialist Countries of Europe are good, they also have major problems with birth years.

In either case, thanks for asking me of all users this question. Sorry that I wasn't of much help. Good luck! --TheUzbek (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category2nd Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam

A tag has been placed on Category2nd Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Incorrect title/namespace. Should’ve been in category namespace

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam ordinal category

Template:Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam ordinal category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam

Congratulations, TheUzbek! The list you nominated, 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well! –Vipz (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) TheUzbek (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

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

19th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party

added links pointing to President of China and Liu He

18th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party

added a link pointing to President of China

20th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party

added a link pointing to President of China

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:15th Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party

Hey TheUzbek, I wanted to reach out regarding the recent edit of mine you reverted. Sorry about that, that was definitely an airheaded mistake on my part. I think I made that mistake based off your name and because I reviewed a number of your past Uzbekistan-related articles, for which I added the Uzbekistan WikiProject tag to. Glad you caught my mistake. Thank you for your contributions and please do keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem but I've never created an Uzbek-related article before (maybe Soviet Uzbek...) :) In any case, thanks for helping! TheUzbek (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 12th Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 12th Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party

Hello, TheUzbek,

Please do not remove all of the contents of a category so that it is tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion. This act is called "emptying categories out of process" and is considered disruptive editing. If you believe a category should be renamed, merged or deleted, then nominate it at Categories for Discussion following the instructions on the main page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate section

Could I remove the graduate sections of the tables starting from the 13th Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party? That extra column is causing the other columns to be too narrow and the entire table to stretch unnaturally off the webpage. Births and deaths could be moved to a bracket under the member's names as well. SuperWIKI (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: Huh, I don't have that problem on any browser. I disagree with removing the graduate section and merging the year and death columns as well. The tables are small and has room to stretch on my computers and all browsers I use. It worked very well on this FL 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam: the only difference between that one and these lists are the images. --TheUzbek (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I will keep them as is. Please note that I did not mean any offence with that question. SuperWIKI (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you worry, you can be honest with me... I won't take it personally. The reason why I have birth year and party membership separate is that these two are essential indicators (especially in the present-day situation) of who will be re-elected, who won't be and who has a future in CPC politics. Being able to sort these columns also gives the users/readers the ability to see if the rejuvenation of the elite took place (it is more challenging when it is in a non-sortable column). The death year column, however, is unnecessary, but most people want them. Why is it uncessary? Death year has nothing to do with you're Politburo membership, especially in the post-Mao era when leading politicians retire before they die in office. TheUzbek (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of block

Hi TheUzbek. I hope this note finds you well. I am lifting a partial block that currently applies to your account, in accordance with this discussion. Please continue avoiding the talk page in question. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless revert

How do you decide that it's meaningless. The editor changed sourced materials. Couldn't you see that? Egeymi (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Egeymi: He added way more sourced materials and removed a bit - a small amount - which sometimes happens when one edits articles. --TheUzbek (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No the editor removed most crucial parts and added secondary gossip-like content. Besides, I put a message to editor's talk page to add what he had deleted, but no response. Such removals cannot be considered ordinary acts and hope you don't remove something sourced from the pages while adding info.--Egeymi (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Secretariat of the Chinese Communist Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lin Feng.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi TheUzbek, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you! :) TheUzbek (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central Committee of the League of Communists of Macedonia has been nominated for merging

Category:Central Committee of the League of Communists of Macedonia has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Congress of the League of Communists of Macedonia

A tag has been placed on Category:Congress of the League of Communists of Macedonia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Organisation of the League of Communists of Macedonia

A tag has been placed on Category:Organisation of the League of Communists of Macedonia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Central Committee of the 11th Congress of the League of Communists of Croatia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ivan Babić and Ivan Marković.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced additions

Your unsourced edits will be reverted. You should provide sources. Egeymi (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, some of these are obvious.. like who was the premier of the USSR during her ministership... This is not controversial, and you chose to remove it... Removing the appellation "All-Union" is also stupidity because that was the official rank of the ministry.

But more annoyingly... You could have asked for a source before you reverted, but you chose to initiate a conflict for no apparent reason. Why? Have you forgotten that Wikipedia is about collaboration and not conflict? TheUzbek (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

stupidity on a gigantic scale here

What? Egeymi (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the text above. You started a conflict, but you could have opted to write a nice text on my talk page and asked me for a source or asked me for a reasoning. You opted not to, and I have no clue as to why. TheUzbek (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should report you for your rudeness. You provide the source in your edit summary, why don't you put it into text?

File source problem with File:Hamdija Pozderac.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Hamdija Pozderac.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 06:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it need any of that information when this is based on Fair Use? it is copyrighted. TheUzbek (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because non-free files must meet all 10 points of WP:NFCC, this is the fourth one. — Ирука¹³ 09:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work!

		The Original Barnstar
		I stumbled across your fantastically organized list of the 6th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party. I was impressed, and then I realized you've improved all the Politburo pages! Take this barnstar—those lists took effort, and are much appreciated. I look forward to seeing what you do in the future. SilverStar54 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverStar54: Thanks for the compliment! I will come back and fix the remaining articles when I'm finished with the Yugoslav LCY :) --TheUzbek (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam

Congratulations, TheUzbek! The list you nominated, Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page mention you might have missed

Hello. I mentioned you at Template talk:League of Communists of Yugoslavia and I'm wondering whether you missed my post. Still waiting for a response, cheers. –Vipz (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xi Jinping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capitalist mode of production.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Workers' Barnstar
		This user has shown great editing skills in improving articles related to Communism or Socialism.
		_{this WikiAward was given to TheUzbek by –Vipz (talk) on 22:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)}[reply]

Thanks! It's always a nice feeling that the work you put in is appreciated! It helps, of course, having users like you here Vipz. It makes it a lot more fun and makes it even more addictive to edit this encyclopaedia. TheUzbek (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate! You're giving a good treatment to underdeveloped articles. Many high-importance socialist and communist articles are in a relatively unsatisfactory or poor state. I'm looking forward to more from you, so keep yourself busy. ;p Many thanks back for nice words! –Vipz (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Vietnam

You wrote in your edit summary "I dont think you understand the infobox..." I assure you that I do. There were two name parameters and two different names in the infobox. You undid my revision and inserted another name so that there were again two name parameters, and both had the same name. I have deleted one, so now there is one name parameter with one name. I think it's all correct now, but if it's not, please insert the correct name. There can be only one name parameter in the infobox. Ira Leviton (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit fast, but you're fix turned the header into this: "2nd 2nd Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Vietnam" But what I didn't understand was that I had to identical columns, and that you removed one of them! TheUzbek (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Politburo Articles

Articles on the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party's individual terms are DRASTICALLY DAMAGED by leaving no clue as to which of the members are on that term's Standing Committee. It has always been conventional to include this information by some form or other in any roster of a Politburo, separate article or not. Even fifty-year-old almanacs I have that list Politburos designate the inner circles of them. Please leave this information alone! 71.105.190.227 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have different articles for a reason
This could be stated in the lead
You think this is a good edit; I don't. Instead of trying to force you're opinion, start a discussion on the talk pages. The old version is the old consensus version pr WP:CONSENSUS.

TheUzbek (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheUzbek! Thanks for all your work reformatting the Politburo articles and starting the Standing Committee articles! The unregistered editor who started this thread has twice now asked at the Helpdesk where to have a discussion to find consensus on the topic of whether and how to indicate Standing Committee membership in the individual Politburo articles, so I opened a discussion at Talk:Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party#Should Standing Committee members be indicated on individual Politburo articles?.

Your input would be super valuable there. Respectfully, Folly Mox (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lazar Mojsov.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lazar Mojsov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Data-sort-value

For the 20th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, you can use data-sort-value to order the ranks of the members in the relevant column, rather than sorting them alphabetically by default. Here's a sample below:

Rank
Deputy National Leader
National Leader
People's Liberation Army
Provincial-Ministerial

Just for your information and convenience, have a great day! SuperWIKI (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll do that after I've finished referencing the individual members! TheUzbek (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to disambiguation pages on 20th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party

Thanks for your edits to 20th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, however many of the names are links to disambiguation pages and there is often not enough information to identify which politician it should link to (if there is an article). A useful trick is to go to our preferences (drop down list top right), select the "gadgets" tab & scroll down to appearance & then put a tick next to "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange".— Rod ^talk 18:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know yet either, I thought it would un-disambig them after going through the list and referencing each individual member :) I probably should have done in the sandbox, but I felt the article needed a drastic working through so I gave myself the freedom to edit the article. I, however, hear what you are saying and I can tell you now: I'm working on it! TheUzbek (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

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

20th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party

added links pointing to Wang Jian, Liu Jun, Li Xiang, Wu Qing, Zhang Jing, Liu Qiang, Wu Hao, Wang Xudong, Kang Yi and Wu Qiang

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FenrisAureus -- FenrisAureus (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

The article Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and Talk:Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FenrisAureus -- FenrisAureus (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

The article Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia for comments about the article, and Talk:Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FenrisAureus -- FenrisAureus (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auditing Commission of the 8th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

Hi TheUzbek. You added "Tito 1982" to Auditing Commission of the 8th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, but that's not defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the Bibliography section, or let me know what work this refers to?
Also if you haven't already you may want to turn on the error messages associated with short form refs, you can find the details of how to do so here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Tito 1982b" is also missing from Central Committee of the 5th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, there were others but I was able to find those. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing Central Committee of the 5th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, is that the same cite that is still missing from Auditing Commission of the 8th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for checking my lists! I can only take that as a compliment that you bother to do it! To be honest, for most of these individuals I just go on Google Books and search "[last name] [first name]" and then year, party year and death if I have, like this search where I searched "Đakonović Nikola" 1911 1937 1965

I have added both books now! TheUzbek (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheUzbek. I'm working on clearing down Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, which tracks such errors. Only another 6,500 or so articles to go.
I've noticed you solid progress in creating these article, happy editting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing great work! Heads-up, I created Conference and Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia; there are citeref errors there as well lack of refs more generally. I'll add them, hopefully, tonight! :) In other words, don't worry about these articles. TheUzbek (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conference of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

You really should turn the error messages on, your latest is missing cites for "Staff writer 1971", "Staff writer 1973", and "Zaninovich 1974". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know; I tried to inform you about it above :) Read it, please! TheUzbek (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I missed that, I had unsubscribed from the thread. I'm trying to juggle to many things at the same time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but these are still missing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested I'm on it! Took a bit of a detour, but I have not forgotten about it. I'm on the finishing stages on the Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and Leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia :) I'm currently trying to translate some Serbo-Croatian sources; thats why its going slow! TheUzbek (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While looking into the footnote issues, I found that the ninth congress conference was held in April 1969, but that's not reflected here. Is there a difference between conference and convocation?

Thanks.

Reference:

Auty, Phyllis. “The Ninth Congress of the League of Yugoslav Communists.” The World Today, vol. 25, no. 6, 1969, pp. 264–76. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40394280. Andy02124 (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy02124 you are confusing conference and congress :) See Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia TheUzbek (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you again, but it's been a week and these are still outstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply! I've been busy in real life!

It's still on my list. What is the hurry? You already said there were more than "6,500" articles, and I'm focusing on this one. I'm more or less finished with Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and Leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia so, as I promised, my devotion will slowly creep into this direction! TheUzbek (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav navbox merging opportunity

If you happen to have time for cleanup work, many Yugoslav office navboxes in Category:Yugoslavia political leader navigational boxes could be merged into one. In particular, I'm referring to all the separate navboxes for each period (19xx-19xx) that could easily just be sections in an unified navbox for each office. 👋 –Vipz (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I have merged some with the Template:League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Do you approve? It is now very massive, but it uses collapsible navboxes. TheUzbek (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this one: Template:LCY Presidency. TheUzbek (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the massive {{League of Communists of Yugoslavia}} merge, I think LCY branch navboxes should stay apart. On another hand, {{LCY Presidency}} is exactly what I meant. –Vipz (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of your honesty!

I just believe there is a comparative advantage of having one template than 8 ones since, as you know, there are two many pages where the are two many templates... I have tried to alter the Template:League of Communists of Yugoslavia more to your taste. TheUzbek (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each branch having its own section makes it more digestible, so I approve. However, I think the "Central Organisation" section should not be expanded by default when somebody expands the navbox. Instead, there should be a parameter akin to sidebars that opens an appropriate section, so that readers don't have to look for it. For example, Secretary of the Presidency of the League of Communists of Serbia would display the "Serbian Branch" section of the LCY navbox, given an appropriate parameter. –Vipz (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't get what you mean, except the part about treating the CO similarly to the branches (which I can do) TheUzbek (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe for example on article Social ownership how the section "Ideas" of the Socialism sidebar is uncollapsed/expanded by entering the "ideas" as the first parameter (in the code). –Vipz (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will get around to this if you don't, probably sometime tomorrow. –Vipz (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, please ping me so I can notice your replies quicker! Thank you. –Vipz (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: Were you pinged now? ... But yes, that seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure how one implements it. So, if you are up to the task, please do it! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUzbek (talk • contribs) 08:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't pinged by this reply, but you forgot to sign your message, maybe it's related to that. –Vipz (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder images

The use of placeholder images on the project in mainspace articles has been deprecated now for more than a decade. Please see the top of Category:Wikipedia image placeholders where it says "The use of these placeholders is deprecated. Many editors objected to their appearance, though some felt that they worked for the intended purpose.". Please see the top of Wikipedia:Image placeholders where it says "Image placeholders were formerly used on Wikipedia for biographies of living persons but have since been deprecated. As of 2020 all placeholder images have been removed from the main namespace.". There's been various WP:AN/I discussions as well that I could link to if you like. Bottom line, their use is deprecated on en.wiki. Please do not restore these images again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FenrisAureus -- FenrisAureus (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam: Reviewer withdrawal

Deepest apologies, fellow traveller. I have been trying but I just don't have the focus to review your nomination of 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam right now. Extenuating circumstances necessitate that I withdraw as the reviewer. A bot will put the nomination back into the cue so you can find a new reviewer. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk)

Your GA nomination of 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam

The article 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FenrisAureus -- FenrisAureus (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct that it fails? Shouldn't you just leave the "review" and I can wait for another reviewer? TheUzbek (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has not failed. I do not know why the bot said this. I checked. The bot has put the nomination back on to the nominations page. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good! :) TheUzbek (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Central committee of the

A tag has been placed on Central committee of the requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Central committee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apparatus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

Hello, TheUzbek. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You are doing great work so far! The best copyeditor I have had so far :) TheUzbek (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; i do my best! :) I've now finished my c/e, which was quite straightforward. I have reformatted some quotations into blockquotes; this includes a long-ish Tito quote that was in a {{quotebox}} in "History" --> "Collective leadership: 1978–1990", which I removed per MOS:PULLQUOTE; if the quoted material is relevant, it should be in the article. There weren't any other major problems, though the "Members" section seems to need more references. Good luck with the article and cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, and again, thank you! TheUzbek (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Your recent editing history at East Germany shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Moxy- 17:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass chnage of goverment type

Your going to have to stop the mass chnage of goverment type all over. r WHY because many of this have been discussed a lot to get what we currently have. Moxy- 17:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pls see User talk:Nikkimaria#‎Government type Moxy-

17:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is why!

I, hopefully, hope you did not remove all my improvements on the communist state and socialist state article because of me! If you've read the Talk:socialist state you would have noticed that people agreed that the version you reverted to was bad.

But getting me blocked to only revert my changes seem "low". But I have to accept this punishment I guess. But, hopefully, instead of sticking to you're views you will listen to facts. Laos is not a socialist state, read its constitution. Angola never called itself a socialist state; read its constitution. TheUzbek (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Trust Is All You Need per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trust Is All You Need. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheUzbek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've checked the investigation, but I see no proof? Can someone at least prove that I am this person? I agree that I edit the same articles, but I have not, as far I know, had the same POV, for example. I do know, for instance, that Trust Is All You Need wrote Politics of the Soviet Union and the Government of the Soviet Union, but I strongly disagree with everything that is written in it. Notice that I have created unified power and the highest organ of state power? This user believed that there was separation of powers in the Soviet Union... As far as I know, I have been fixing errors these editors have made throughout my time here. At last, I have not been blocked here on WP, and I have for the most been very cooperative. Hopefully, you will give me a chance to prove myself. I am a good editor who has good contributions, aren't I? Concludingly, I will say that I am utterly shocked and saddened by this, and hopefully, there is a way out for me! TheUzbek (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In addition to the behavioural evidence that led to this block, there is technical evidence linking your account to Politikk (talk · contribs), including overlap on a very narrow IP range. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheUzbek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Ponyo: Fuck it, I was young, dumb and stupid, and I am still very stupid. But I also mean everything that I said... Have I been unproductive as of late? Can I never be forgiven? I am not even thirty years of age.......... can I never edit again, even if I contribute well? The reason why I lied is that I honestly did not believe I could ever be unblocked if I admitted it. Can't there be some process to re-include me? I mean, I haven't murdered anybody... I follow referencing procedures and do everything by the books (mostly). I mean, people serve a sentence for murder, paedophilia, and corruption, and they serve their due time. Can I never be unblocked? Don't my edits prove - at least in this more mature version of me (who is how much older?) - that would be a sad fact? --TheUzbek (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your only, very narrow pathway towards being unblocked is the standard offer process- and every time you evade the block on your original account the path gets narrower. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@331dot: But I can accept that if it means I can stop this nonsense: half a year block will do? --TheUzbek (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheUzbek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I accept the Wikipedia:Standard offer, which is

Wait at least six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion; i.e. having made no edit, using any account or anonymously, on the English Wikipedia.
Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
Don't give people reasons to object to your return.

But I hope the admin in question can be reasonable. I am a young man that doesn't even remember what he has done; I doubt even the Wikipedia community does! Look through my edits with this user, you will see that I have acted mostly very constructively and collaboratively. That is, I hope the standard offer can be reduced from six months. TheUzbek (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you're going to follow the standard offer, then just follow it. Don't tell us now that you're going to make an unblock request later. Also, please keep in mind that the standard offer is six months. If you're trying to haggle, you haven't agreed to the standard offer. The whole point of the standard offer is to prove to us that you're capable of following rules as they're written (and give us a brief respite). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The SO process is not a guarantee that you will be unblocked at the end of that time, it means it can be considered. With your long history of evasion you have a long hard road to being unblocked. It may take more than six months, there is zero chance it will be less. I'm skeptical you're willing to give us that show of good faith, but if you are, withdraw your request and come back under your original account. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I managed to log in, but I can't edit because I'm blocked... But can I not use this user page instead? --TheUzbek (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should do nothing more about this for at least six months. At that time, you can request unblock via WP:UTRS. No request from you will be considered before then. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But 331dot; you have not really answered the philosophical part. What does Wikipedia get for blocking me now? Have you ever thought that this rigid procedure is why people establish other accounts in the first place? I've made good edits on this account for three to four years and it means nothing? TheUzbek (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bank robber cannot erase the bank robbery by doing three years of charitable work before turning themselves in. This is not a philosophical debate. Clearly you have no intention of abiding by our policies and guidelines and my good faith is wasted on you. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Sorry, I did not understand that asking a rhetorical question showed bad faith... I thought that was OK.

Yes, I agree that a bank robber cannot do that, but why was I even blocked in the first place? Was it that bad? Did I really rob a bank? Or did I do pick-pocketing?

If you interpret my sending messages here as showing bad faith, I'll stop. --TheUzbek (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In six months go to UTRS under your original account and say the good edits you made under your sock account should be taken into consideration. Not here, not now. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I promise I will do that. I know that a sockpuppet can be reverted by anyone, but as an admin, you do understand that Moxy got me blocked so he could revert changes at the communist state and socialist state articles that were completely referenced by secondary sources? I've gotten so many "likes" and thanks for these edits, and they are reverted because he has something to grind. I cannot do anything about it, but it should be bloody obvious also what he is doing. Pressing his POV at the expense of secondary sources. See the talk page at the socialist state article as well. I also think its obvious which version is better prose wise and fact wise. If you want to do anything about it, that is your choice, but this is harmful for Wikipedia...

My last edit for half a year. Goodbye! --TheUzbek (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't withdrawn your unblock request. And your personal attack against Moxy is just one more confirmation that you should not now - or ever - be unblocked. You claim to be more mature now, but everything you say and do belies that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:I didn't know that I had to withdraw my request.

Do you feel that was a personal attack, but his comments "Last good copy i can see" regarding my edits was not? Again, sorry. I feel often these situations I must admit 100 percent guilt, but no one else has to, and to be frank, I've admitted 100 percent guilt so what more do you want from me? TheUzbek (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason some edits were reverted was related to concerns raised about them . i.e Talk:Communist state#Communist state. This is the same pattern as before Talk:Socialist state#Huge change on the concept of Socialist state. Moxy-

15:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange examples, because CJ Griffin did not oppose my edits on communist states. he opposed the removal of the criticism and not the new content itself.

The socialist state section you are referring to is making socialist state equal to communist state. my recent edits did not make socialist state equal to communist state. In fact it did what the current socialist state lead already said: "A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-party liberal democracy governed by a self-described socialist party, where the state is not constitutionally bound to the construction of socialism." Did you even read my edits or did you just remove them because you could? It seems like that from this post of yours.... TheUzbek (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And at last, if you've actually read my edits on communist states you see that I have not done written anything new. The first also focuses on unitary power, but I've shortened if and structured it better. If you have read you would have understood that i've not rewamped the article essence at all... TheUzbek (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #85287

Is closed. Standard offer given again. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite statute

Template:Cite statute has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheUzbek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Last time I appealed I was asked to wait six months, and I have waited more (if I remember correctly). So Why should I be unblocked? I have both created a tons of GA and FL content for Wikipedia, and been an active sockpuppeter. Last time as TheUzbek. I had not been active on Wikipedia for a time and found interest in editing again, thinking bygones were bygones (but that was of course not the case). Last time I was blocked had nothing really to do with breaches of any rule, but a user discovered by history and used it to block changes he disagreed with (that were referenced by both academic and primary sources). For example this one, [2] and this one [3] Some might read this, and think, he accepts no blame or he has not changed or something in similar lines. That is completely wrong, I believe that I was in the wrong in how I went about things, but not about the facts which blatently state that China was not a socialist state until 1975 (read the Chinese constitution that proclaims it as a people's democratic state) and the academic sources that point them out. #More generally, when I first was blocked I was young and stupid and did some idiotic things when I was young (as user Trust Is All You Need). But I was not even 22 years of age. Should I be blocked for the rest of my life because of it? Also, its not like I have not made good content and original content over the years. From this, [4], [5] and other stuff ... and I did good things as Trust Is All You Need as well (and many stupid things, of course). For example, I created all the central committee articles of the CPSU and then I came back and tableised them as TheUzbek. Because of that, English Wikipedia has the best online database on the Soviet party leadership on the Internet, and I want to do the same for the Romanian, East German, Polish el cetra communist elites. Am I saying I did alone? Of course not: Wikipedia is collaboration! However, I created them, and the edit histories clearly show that on nearly all those articles, I am the main contributor. I also showed great collaborative skills when working on Yugoslav-related articles, notably this one: [6] .... just look at the improvement from its original state: [7] #I say that I have great knowledge about communism not because I have an avid interest in communism, but because of my academic knowledge. I am currently writing a book with help of scholars from the University of Oslo about Chinese governance and their socialist rule of law reforms. The intention of the book is to be introductory and give a basic outline of communist form of government more generally and how its practiced in China. I am also currently working on some academic articles with these men. Again, here, you have a choice to believe or disbelieve, but I hope you chose to believe. I am not saying I am a great editor. I am not saying im scot free of all charges. I am not saying I should not have extra supervision —of course I should be under the greatest supervision imaginable (as long as its transparent).... But I am saying that I have great knowledge on the subject of communism. Terms like the highest organ of state power, the unified exercise of state power, the class character of the state, the organisational form of state power, permanent body of the highest organ of state power et cetra are not made up terms. The difference between people's democratic states and socialist states are not made up either. These basic terms are missing from Wikipedia, and on many occasions I've been accused of vandalism and POV-pushing for trying to introduce basic terms that describe the Marxist-Leninist conception of the state. The fact that I made clear that academic sources differentiate between communist states as the form of government and the material-ruling class system Marxist-Leninists have referred to as, for example, "People's democratic states", "Socialist states", "National democratic states" have gone down badly even if academic sources blatently make these distinctions, and the Marxist-Leninists themselves. Laos does not call itself a socialist state for example, but we do for some reason. Article 2 of the Constitution of Laos plainly state, "The State of the Lao People's Democratic Republic is a people's democratic state". The Laotian constitution mentiones socialism twice. First as "creating conditions to move towards socialism" and secondl as "The national economy of the Lao People's Democratic Republic is the market-oriented economy that follows the socialist path".. creating the conditions of socialism and follow a socialist path does not make it a socialist republic according to Marxism-Leninism or academic scholars such as Stephen White (who was the leading academic scholar in this field), but why does Wikipedia call Laos a "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic"? The actual form of government as outlined is a system of assemblies subjugated to democratic centralism where the lowest assemblies are subjugated to the highest assembly, and where the highest assembly, the National ASsembly of Laos, has unlimited authority per the principles of the unified exercise of state power. This is what the Laotian constitution says, and this is what Marxist Leninists refer to as the organisational form of state power. # Over the years I have contributed extensively to the betterment of Wikipedia by expanding articles were their is little knowledge. I've been accused of pushing narrow views on the topics of communism, saying for example that the Soviet Union was not a socialist state before 1936. But I am not the one who has pushed that. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and the Soviet leaders themselves said that. If Lenin wrote, "Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order" I should not be to blame. Zinoviev said as much in 1925, "The only point upon which there is disagreement is the question: is it possible for a socialist state of society to be completely realised and maintained in an agrarian country such as the Soviet Union?" My point is simply that I've been accused of pushign a narrow view of what a communist state and a socialist state is, which makes no sense, since both academic and primary sources back my edits. I am saying this not because this is how Moxy discovered "me" and he has accussed me of vandalism because of presenting academic and primary sources that goes against his personal views. When that is said, Moxy was right to inform the authorities about me and it was correct to block me because my behaviour at this point was incorrect and I showed extremely bad collaborative skills. It does not matter if you're right if you burn all bridges, and that I did... So I deserved this block! # My main arguements for being unblocked are as follows: ## I accept the reasons for my punishments: that I was a sockpuppeter, but I want to make clear that I did not have evil intentions. I did not spread fake news, false information or anything else. I simply started editting again and I simply thought after all these years it would be OK. It was not, and I should have come forward. It obvious know, but that does not mean it was obvious when I began editing again. ## I am not interested in presenting a narrow view of any topic; only the view presented in academic sources, and primary sources if need be. I uphold all WP rules and there are no WP rules I am against. ## I can accept additional punishment, but hopefully you won't ban me for life. If you want to punish for me an additional six months or whatnot I will wait that time. ## I can contribute positively, and I'm still not 40. Is Wikipedia about banning people for life who want to contribute or about inclusion? I accept I must prove myself to the community, but then let me prove myself. Regards

Decline reason:

While I do appreciate the sincerity, patience and effort that went into this appeal, I am ultimately not convinced that the original, underlying issues behind the block as TIAYN regarding ability to engage with and follow academic RS when editing topics related to communist governance (broadly defined) have been addressed. Ultimately, I'm dissuaded from accepting this appeal primarily due to its inclusion of extensive recourse to primary sources, whether in the form of constitutions or the works of Marxist leaders. The discourse here regarding various examples of ML terminology does not inspire confidence that you've moved on from prior problematic and/or selective engagement with sources.
The reality of academic RS concerning the character of socialist bloc states is that there are massive discontinuities of perspective in the field. All sorts of schools of thought have tackled the subject, and their views do not coincide on anything that resembles a consensus for this topic. This leaves Wikipedians with the unfortunate difficulty of presenting these views alongside each other and balancing them; the assertion both academic and primary sources back my edits with reference to the specific claim chosen here (the Soviet Union was not a socialist state before 1936), suggests a continued lack of understanding of how peer-reviewed sources as a whole approach this topic, and a continued excessive deference to primary sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Rosguill: I feel like you misinterpreted me. I don't use primary sources to back my edits: notice that I had no primary sources on my edits on the communist state article or socialist state article.

Also note the extensive use of primary sources in the current article, socialist state.

See my edits on leader of the LCY, LCY Presidency and LCY Central Committee: I very seldom used primary sources.

As for categorisation, there is scholarly acknowledgement of it. I am not saying the Soviet Union was not a communist state before 1936; it was. These terms did means things in actual practice, and numerous scholars can point to. Change in categorisation was also met with a change in policy.

What is hurtful with this decline is that we are in 100% agreement Rosguill. It was not my intention to appear that I backed my edits on primary sources. I could as well have cited Stephen White, H. Gordon Skilling et.c. My point was to show that I had comprehensive knowledge of the subject and not that I relied on primary sources. I clearly understand that WP is based on secondary sources; I have always accepted that.

Sorry for the late reply!--TheUzbek (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I hope you can recheck you're decision and look further into my edits. I did not base my edits on primary sources. I backed the scholarly use of the term "communist state" and also the scholarly distinction that specialists make between socialist and people's democratic states. As for my edits, one can see from the ones I made, from the Communist Party of Vietnam to the LCY Central Committee, that I did not rely on primary sources. I have never done that. I for that matter has also made clear my support for the usage of the term "communist state" over people's democratic and socialist. That is the term used by most scholars. However, I have been met with "communist state is an oxymoron", "these states are socialists, read their constitution" typ of arguments. Everything that I have written as been made on the basis of secondary sources. I have always adhered to WP's policy of writing down what the sources say and not you're own opinion. I have always supported that ideal: that is what I like about Wikipedia. --TheUzbek (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At last, while I have always accepted that I lost my temper and, therefore, my objectivity and deserved to be blocked for that.. I also feel - partially - unfairly treated. Often, I feel when I write on communism, I'm met by users who refuse to acknowledge what the secondary sources say. My edits on socialist state were solely based on secondary sources, and it was reverted since it reflected my own opinion. But the current one both contradicts itself and cites Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Trotskyists, Anarchists et cetra instead of scholarly sources. For example, if you search for "socialist state" in Jstor and Google Books 99% of them will be devoted to the communist states and not liberal democratic states with references to socialism. --TheUzbek (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

TheUzbek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Above, I feel @Rosguill: misinterpreted me (not intentionally of course).

Rosguill's claim: For example, he wrote; "The discourse here regarding various examples of ML terminology does not inspire confidence that you've moved on from prior problematic and/or selective engagement with sources."

My response: Scholars use these terms; just like scholars use "democratic centralism" they also use "unity of state power". My intention of listing those terms was not to enforce ML terminology on Wikipedia, but show their scholarly relevance.

Rosguill's claim: "the Soviet Union was not a socialist state before 1936, suggests a continued lack of understanding of how peer-reviewed sources as a whole approach this topic"

My response: The Soviet Union was always a communist state. A communist state can be a socialist state, a people's democratic, a national democratic state, etc. This is the scholarly consensus. Read, fore example, Stephen White's "What is a Communist System?" found on Jstor. However, it is wrong to make a socialist state synonymous with a communist state since not all communist states were socialist states. For example, a socialist state denotes a socialist economy with a strong public sector. In practice, until the Chinese and Vietnamese reforms, that meant that people's democracies allowed for private agriculture and mid-sized private enterprises and that socialist states did not. A communist state is the Western scholarly term to denote the form of government/system practised by these Marxist-Leninist states.

However, the communist form of government—how the state was organised—was close to identical in a people's democracy and a socialist state. Both practiced the unified exercise of state power and democratic centralism, and that practiced the principle that the party commands the state.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, I take every criticism for my past behaviour, but I find it strange that my blocked should be maintained on inaccurate grounds. All my edits have always been based on secondary sources. My edits on WP proves that. Noticed that my edits on the socialist state and communist state articles were reverted, but I did not use a single primary source and all the sources I used were secondary academic sources. I am a hundred percent that if one of you actually reads my edits on these articles you will understand that accusing my of basing my edits on primary sources is misleading.'.

I accept limitations on my editing, control and supervision of them; I accept every limitation. But why is it so hard to accept that I, someone who is writing a book with the help of scholars, actually comprehend this subject far more than the average user? I am not trying to be arrogant, but I find it mind-boggling that when I write a historical fact (the USSR was not a socialist state until 1936), it is interpreted against because the person in question does not understand the terminology behind the scholarly use of the term communist state. Scholars would have used the term "socialist state" instead of "communist state" if all the communist states self-designated themselves as such, but they did not. And scholars accept that these terms actually influence the policies of these states. I'd advise people to read "China and the Soviet Theory of People's Democracy" by scholar Benjamin Schwartz, "People's Democracy in Soviet Theory" and "People's Democracy, the Proletarian Dictatorship and the Czechoslovak Path to Socialism" by scholar H. Gordin Skilling and previously published books with names such as A History of the People's Democracies: Eastern Europe since Stalin. But by the mid-1970s, all the people's democracies of Europe had transformed themselves into "socialist states". For example, the book A Dictionary of 20th-Century Communism (which was edited by one of the prominent historians on communism in recent years, that is, Robert Service (historian)) denotes, that these states were "Communist states" and "The commitment to a Marxist teleology meant that the description of the state changed as it developed along that teleological line. Thuse, the Soviet Union was described as a'socialist state of workers and peasants" in the 1936 constitution and a "socialist state of the whole people" in the constitution of 1977, while many of the newly-founded postwar states of Eastern Europe were initially depicted as 'people's democracies'" (page 235). What is my point? My use of ML terminology is consistent with the use found in secondary, scholarly sources.

Again, I can't stress this enough. I deserved to be blocked, I overreacted. But my edits have always been consistent with secondary sources, with the scholarly consensus. I have never breached that line. NEVER! I have, however, acted like an asshole. And I am ashamed of that! --TheUzbek (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Above, I feel <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Rosguill|Rosguill]]:</span> misinterpreted me (not intentionally of course).
:Rosguill's claim: For example, he wrote; "The discourse here regarding various examples of ML terminology does not inspire confidence that you've moved on from prior problematic and/or selective engagement with sources."
:::My response: Scholars use these terms; just like scholars use "democratic centralism" they also use "unity of state power". My intention of listing those terms was not to enforce ML terminology on Wikipedia, but show their scholarly relevance.
:Rosguill's claim: "the Soviet Union was not a socialist state before 1936, suggests a continued lack of understanding of how peer-reviewed sources as a whole approach this topic"
:::My response: The Soviet Union was always a communist state. A communist state can be a socialist state, a people's democratic, a national democratic state, etc. This is the scholarly consensus. Read, fore example, Stephen White's "What is a Communist System?" found on Jstor. However, it is wrong to make a socialist state synonymous with a communist state since not all communist states were socialist states. For example, a socialist state denotes a socialist economy with a strong public sector. In practice, until the Chinese and Vietnamese reforms, that meant that people's democracies allowed for private agriculture and mid-sized private enterprises and that socialist states did not. A communist state is the Western scholarly term to denote the form of government/system practised by these Marxist-Leninist states.
:::However, the communist form of government—how the state was organised—was close to identical in a people's democracy and a socialist state. Both practiced the unified exercise of state power and democratic centralism, and that practiced the principle that the party commands the state.

:Again, and I can't stress this enough, I take every criticism for my past behaviour, but I find it strange that my blocked should be maintained on inaccurate grounds. All my edits have always been based on secondary sources. My edits on WP proves that. Noticed that my edits on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_state&oldid=1209555659 socialist state] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_state&oldid=1208944807 communist state] articles were reverted, but I did not use a single primary source and all the sources I used were secondary academic sources. I am a hundred percent that if one of you actually reads my edits on these articles you will understand that accusing my of basing my edits on primary sources is '''misleading.''''.

I accept limitations on my editing, control and supervision of them; I accept every limitation. But why is it so hard to accept that I, someone who is writing a book with the help of scholars, actually comprehend this subject far more than the average user? I am not trying to be arrogant, but I find it mind-boggling that when I write a historical fact (the USSR was not a socialist state until 1936), it is interpreted against because the person in question does not understand the terminology behind the scholarly use of the term communist state. Scholars would have used the term "socialist state" instead of "communist state" if all the communist states self-designated themselves as such, but they did not. And scholars accept that these terms actually influence the policies of these states. I'd advise people to read "China and the Soviet Theory of People's Democracy" by scholar Benjamin Schwartz, "People's Democracy in Soviet Theory" and "People's Democracy, the Proletarian Dictatorship and the Czechoslovak Path to Socialism" by scholar H. Gordin Skilling and previously published books with names such as ''A History of the People's Democracies: Eastern Europe since Stalin''. But by the mid-1970s, all the people's democracies of Europe had transformed themselves into "socialist states". For example,  the book ''A Dictionary of 20th-Century Communism'' (which was edited by one of the prominent historians on communism in recent years, that is, [[Robert Service (historian)]]) denotes, that these states were "Communist states" and "The commitment to a Marxist teleology meant that the description of the state changed as it developed along that teleological line. Thuse, the Soviet Union was described as a'socialist state of workers and peasants" in the 1936 constitution and a "socialist state of the whole people" in the constitution of 1977, while many of the newly-founded postwar states of Eastern Europe were initially depicted as 'people's democracies'" (page 235). What is my point? My use of ML terminology is consistent with the use found in secondary, scholarly sources. 

Again, I can't stress this enough. I deserved to be blocked, I overreacted. But my edits have always been consistent with secondary sources, with the scholarly consensus. I have never breached that line. NEVER! I have, however, acted like an asshole. And I am ashamed of that! --[[User:TheUzbek|TheUzbek]] ([[User talk:TheUzbek#top|talk]]) 08:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Above, I feel <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Rosguill|Rosguill]]:</span> misinterpreted me (not intentionally of course).
:Rosguill's claim: For example, he wrote; "The discourse here regarding various examples of ML terminology does not inspire confidence that you've moved on from prior problematic and/or selective engagement with sources."
:::My response: Scholars use these terms; just like scholars use "democratic centralism" they also use "unity of state power". My intention of listing those terms was not to enforce ML terminology on Wikipedia, but show their scholarly relevance.
:Rosguill's claim: "the Soviet Union was not a socialist state before 1936, suggests a continued lack of understanding of how peer-reviewed sources as a whole approach this topic"
:::My response: The Soviet Union was always a communist state. A communist state can be a socialist state, a people's democratic, a national democratic state, etc. This is the scholarly consensus. Read, fore example, Stephen White's "What is a Communist System?" found on Jstor. However, it is wrong to make a socialist state synonymous with a communist state since not all communist states were socialist states. For example, a socialist state denotes a socialist economy with a strong public sector. In practice, until the Chinese and Vietnamese reforms, that meant that people's democracies allowed for private agriculture and mid-sized private enterprises and that socialist states did not. A communist state is the Western scholarly term to denote the form of government/system practised by these Marxist-Leninist states.
:::However, the communist form of government—how the state was organised—was close to identical in a people's democracy and a socialist state. Both practiced the unified exercise of state power and democratic centralism, and that practiced the principle that the party commands the state.

:Again, and I can't stress this enough, I take every criticism for my past behaviour, but I find it strange that my blocked should be maintained on inaccurate grounds. All my edits have always been based on secondary sources. My edits on WP proves that. Noticed that my edits on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_state&oldid=1209555659 socialist state] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_state&oldid=1208944807 communist state] articles were reverted, but I did not use a single primary source and all the sources I used were secondary academic sources. I am a hundred percent that if one of you actually reads my edits on these articles you will understand that accusing my of basing my edits on primary sources is '''misleading.''''.

I accept limitations on my editing, control and supervision of them; I accept every limitation. But why is it so hard to accept that I, someone who is writing a book with the help of scholars, actually comprehend this subject far more than the average user? I am not trying to be arrogant, but I find it mind-boggling that when I write a historical fact (the USSR was not a socialist state until 1936), it is interpreted against because the person in question does not understand the terminology behind the scholarly use of the term communist state. Scholars would have used the term "socialist state" instead of "communist state" if all the communist states self-designated themselves as such, but they did not. And scholars accept that these terms actually influence the policies of these states. I'd advise people to read "China and the Soviet Theory of People's Democracy" by scholar Benjamin Schwartz, "People's Democracy in Soviet Theory" and "People's Democracy, the Proletarian Dictatorship and the Czechoslovak Path to Socialism" by scholar H. Gordin Skilling and previously published books with names such as ''A History of the People's Democracies: Eastern Europe since Stalin''. But by the mid-1970s, all the people's democracies of Europe had transformed themselves into "socialist states". For example,  the book ''A Dictionary of 20th-Century Communism'' (which was edited by one of the prominent historians on communism in recent years, that is, [[Robert Service (historian)]]) denotes, that these states were "Communist states" and "The commitment to a Marxist teleology meant that the description of the state changed as it developed along that teleological line. Thuse, the Soviet Union was described as a'socialist state of workers and peasants" in the 1936 constitution and a "socialist state of the whole people" in the constitution of 1977, while many of the newly-founded postwar states of Eastern Europe were initially depicted as 'people's democracies'" (page 235). What is my point? My use of ML terminology is consistent with the use found in secondary, scholarly sources. 

Again, I can't stress this enough. I deserved to be blocked, I overreacted. But my edits have always been consistent with secondary sources, with the scholarly consensus. I have never breached that line. NEVER! I have, however, acted like an asshole. And I am ashamed of that! --[[User:TheUzbek|TheUzbek]] ([[User talk:TheUzbek#top|talk]]) 08:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Above, I feel <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Rosguill|Rosguill]]:</span> misinterpreted me (not intentionally of course).
:Rosguill's claim: For example, he wrote; "The discourse here regarding various examples of ML terminology does not inspire confidence that you've moved on from prior problematic and/or selective engagement with sources."
:::My response: Scholars use these terms; just like scholars use "democratic centralism" they also use "unity of state power". My intention of listing those terms was not to enforce ML terminology on Wikipedia, but show their scholarly relevance.
:Rosguill's claim: "the Soviet Union was not a socialist state before 1936, suggests a continued lack of understanding of how peer-reviewed sources as a whole approach this topic"
:::My response: The Soviet Union was always a communist state. A communist state can be a socialist state, a people's democratic, a national democratic state, etc. This is the scholarly consensus. Read, fore example, Stephen White's "What is a Communist System?" found on Jstor. However, it is wrong to make a socialist state synonymous with a communist state since not all communist states were socialist states. For example, a socialist state denotes a socialist economy with a strong public sector. In practice, until the Chinese and Vietnamese reforms, that meant that people's democracies allowed for private agriculture and mid-sized private enterprises and that socialist states did not. A communist state is the Western scholarly term to denote the form of government/system practised by these Marxist-Leninist states.
:::However, the communist form of government—how the state was organised—was close to identical in a people's democracy and a socialist state. Both practiced the unified exercise of state power and democratic centralism, and that practiced the principle that the party commands the state.

:Again, and I can't stress this enough, I take every criticism for my past behaviour, but I find it strange that my blocked should be maintained on inaccurate grounds. All my edits have always been based on secondary sources. My edits on WP proves that. Noticed that my edits on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_state&oldid=1209555659 socialist state] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_state&oldid=1208944807 communist state] articles were reverted, but I did not use a single primary source and all the sources I used were secondary academic sources. I am a hundred percent that if one of you actually reads my edits on these articles you will understand that accusing my of basing my edits on primary sources is '''misleading.''''.

I accept limitations on my editing, control and supervision of them; I accept every limitation. But why is it so hard to accept that I, someone who is writing a book with the help of scholars, actually comprehend this subject far more than the average user? I am not trying to be arrogant, but I find it mind-boggling that when I write a historical fact (the USSR was not a socialist state until 1936), it is interpreted against because the person in question does not understand the terminology behind the scholarly use of the term communist state. Scholars would have used the term "socialist state" instead of "communist state" if all the communist states self-designated themselves as such, but they did not. And scholars accept that these terms actually influence the policies of these states. I'd advise people to read "China and the Soviet Theory of People's Democracy" by scholar Benjamin Schwartz, "People's Democracy in Soviet Theory" and "People's Democracy, the Proletarian Dictatorship and the Czechoslovak Path to Socialism" by scholar H. Gordin Skilling and previously published books with names such as ''A History of the People's Democracies: Eastern Europe since Stalin''. But by the mid-1970s, all the people's democracies of Europe had transformed themselves into "socialist states". For example,  the book ''A Dictionary of 20th-Century Communism'' (which was edited by one of the prominent historians on communism in recent years, that is, [[Robert Service (historian)]]) denotes, that these states were "Communist states" and "The commitment to a Marxist teleology meant that the description of the state changed as it developed along that teleological line. Thuse, the Soviet Union was described as a'socialist state of workers and peasants" in the 1936 constitution and a "socialist state of the whole people" in the constitution of 1977, while many of the newly-founded postwar states of Eastern Europe were initially depicted as 'people's democracies'" (page 235). What is my point? My use of ML terminology is consistent with the use found in secondary, scholarly sources. 

Again, I can't stress this enough. I deserved to be blocked, I overreacted. But my edits have always been consistent with secondary sources, with the scholarly consensus. I have never breached that line. NEVER! I have, however, acted like an asshole. And I am ashamed of that! --[[User:TheUzbek|TheUzbek]] ([[User talk:TheUzbek#top|talk]]) 08:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

WP:CHECKUSER data shows no evidence of recent block evasion. Note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trust Is All You Need/Archive has a concern about another user from June of this year. I find no technical reason to believe these two accounts are related. I'll leave the actual unblock review to someone who has time to read the WP:WALLOFTEXT. --Yamla (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thank you Yamla! If, for whatever reason, the reviewer is uncertain I gladly wait another six months. I've said it before, and I will say it again. I want to become a "legal" user; when I began editing again my intention was never to "sockpuppet" (of course, that was what I did; but after several years pause that was not the perspective I had). So I want to get this over with, and become "legal". I have not made a single edit outside of this user talk page. --TheUzbek (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheUzbek, I've read your wall o' text, I'm fairly sure I understand why you feel mistreated, and I am in general extremely sympathetic to "I was an idiot when I was 22". However, I'm really hesitant to accept this unblock request, for a couple of reasons. For one, like Rosguill I'm concerned you'll go back to doing what got you blocked in the first place. By that I don't mean "misusing primary sources", I mean "getting into fights about terminology in socialism-related articles". It's clear to me that this is presently your immediate goal upon returning to editing. You recognized that you were an asshole about it before and you are ashamed of that: this is good. But you're still coming off as A Lot. I find it hard to imagine that you won't start discussions on the topic, bury everyone under 1000-word source criticism essays, and then bludgeon the discussion until everyone else leaves or you all get blocked. I don't think you will do this maliciously, or with intent to bludgeon the shit out of everyone, but it really looks like that's what will happen. Please have a look at WP:BRIE. If you're unblocked, you'll be expected to find consensus for your changes, not strongarm other people into them.

I'm also concerned about how you talk about other editors. Take this one: why is it so hard to accept that I, someone who is writing a book with the help of scholars, actually comprehend this subject far more than the average user? Many of us on Wikipedia are scholars. Most others are some form of weird nerd with hyperfocus (I say this with love), such that they may as well be scholars. Crucially, all Wikipedians need to be respected regardless. And I'm confident that you know more about the topic than the average user - but I'm also confident that the people you encounter on the talk page about a socialism-related article are not "the average user". Please recalibrate. Other editors' views on the topic you're editing are worthy of consideration.

I'm not sure what you can do to reassure me or anyone else about these concerns. Maybe it would help to voluntarily accept some edit restrictions, like a WP:1RR, or a promise to avoid certain types of edits. On the other hand, maybe you just need some more time out. I promise you that it's possible for an indefinitely blocked user to return to editing, even after a block for something pretty serious, so long as they're not harassing people or creating endless sockpuppets (if you just have this one, that's, well, it's not "fine", but it's not "go away and don't ever come back").

Given your edit history, I assume you are capable of looking at my userpage and concluding, from the intersection of various userboxes, a) that I am far more familiar with this debate than I have ever wanted to be, b) that I do accept that it's probably important on some level, and c) that I think the debate is a colossal waste of everyone's time. These conclusions would be entirely correct. I don't think that's factored into my response in a way that's prejudicial against you (if anything, it gave me the patience to read the wall o' text), but I figured I ought to say it out loud. -- asilvering (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. OK. But what about we make a deal? I am barred from editing on the articles "socialist state" and "communist state" a year (or more) after being re-accepted? That is, " promise to avoid certain types of edits" but instead of edits, articles.

2. I get it, I do sound arrogant and I probably am. It is just insanely annoying when scholarly sources used by me was referred to as "my subjective opinion" ish. But if my proposal above goes - that I'm unable to edit (or unable to make significant edits) to those articles - that might be acceptable? I didn't get bogged down in a single edit-war on my articles on China, VIetnam, SOviet party organs and Yugoslavia.

3. Depends what you mean by "colossal waste of everyone's time". The highest state organ of power and the unified state apparatus make clear that communist states only have one single branch of government. And, while I agree that mostly nerds will care, designation such as people's democratic and socialist clearly influenced policy-making of these states, but some other designations, such as the USSR developing from a "socialist state of workers' and peasants" to "socialist state of the whole people" did not impact that much... But the "whole people" thing was used as an ideological arguement to reduce political repression; since everyone is for us, we don't need to repress everyone. That is, it negated Stalin's theory of intensification of the class struggle under socialism.

4. I don't need to edit the articles on communist and socialist states, but my only intention was to create the basic framework on Wikipedia to understand these states correctly. Currently WP misses plenty of articles on the subject, and the few on them available were factually inaccurate. And while you are probably very right in that there are many scholars on Wikipedia there is obviously few scholars on communist governance here. But if you and everyone else conclude I shouldn't be able to edit them in a year or two or more I will accept that. I have no problem in you instituting limitations on my editing rights. No problems whatsoever.

TheUzbek (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neutral question, not a leading question, and no judgement or gotcha involved: do you have academic training as a historian (or similar)? This is simply to help me contextualize my response. -- asilvering (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(And to be clear, "I have a BA in 20th-century history" or so on is a helpful answer to the question. I mean "academic training" here pretty broadly.) -- asilvering (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a master's degree in history and a bachelor's degree in economics, and I am currently working on a book. TheUzbek (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't mean to leave you hanging - got caught up in admin elections business. If I don't respond to you in the next 48 hours I'm happy to be pinged as a reminder. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's good to know. From one academic to another: I think many Wikipedians' idea of "original research" is deeply flawed. I am convinced that many of our best editors do "original research" all the time and are celebrated for it (as I think they should be). From reading the discussions on your talk page and nothing else, I also think it is extremely likely that you have indeed done quite a bit of "original research". Think about it like this: you're writing a book, right? Why would anyone want to read that book, if it didn't contain original research? The work of a historian is research even if it's based on secondary sources; you're doing something a bit akin to historiography, which effectively turns what are normally considered "secondary sources" into the primary sources of your research. And according to Wikipedia's general principles, that means you are arguing from your "subjective opinion", in a way. It's a highly educated, deeply researched opinion. But still an opinion. Perhaps you write a book that is genre-defining, that gains widespread currency in the field. What did the field "think" before? Something that wasn't in line with your opinion. What does the field think after your book? Something that is. What that means is that your opinion was persuasive, not that it was true. In history, we try very hard to be persuaded by opinions that have the most truth to them. But they are a form of opinion.

Your #3, above, is a good example. The sentences you have written look like facts. I'm sure you believe that they are facts; I am also sure that you can find scholars on the topic who agree. That is to say, I think there is a very good chance that they can reasonably be described as facts, not as someone's subjective opinion. But what you wrote there, you wrote like a historian trying to convince another historian. That's not how Wikipedians should be trying to convince other Wikipedians (at least, not if they want to be successful). It looks to me like it's this approach that is getting you into trouble. Part of being a successful Wikipedian in history-related topics is knowing how to keep the "arguing like a historian" side of yourself out of a conversation. (Or, at least, clearly flagging it. I'm sure I've been in a few content disputes where I gave both opinions, safely quarantined from each other.)

I'm not sure a topic ban is a good way forward for you, since topic bans are typically something like "communism, broadly construed", which seems to me like it would prevent you from editing on anything in your area of interest at all. Partial-blocking you from only the articles "socialist state" and "communist state" seems too narrow. If you were handed a topic ban on "communism, broadly construed", what do you think you would you edit? -- asilvering (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After posting this I recalled one such dispute, useful as an example for being one that really, truly does not "matter" in the grand scheme of things and will offend no one to recall: Talk:La Salute è in voi#Page count. "Historian asilvering" was correct, as it happens. But we didn't go with historian asilvering's opinion, because that's all it was. -- asilvering (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I feel like you are trying to rationalise why I was blocked. I am not saying I have not erred, but come on... Instead of talking in the abstract, find an edit on the socialist state, communist state, LCY Presidency, LCY Central Committee, LCY President, LCY Statutory Commission et cetera that proves what you are saying about me. I have, of course, made a mistake; I am, of course, human, but to generalise to the extent you are doing so without actually pointing to a single actual edit does not help. When most scholars and specialists on the subject, from Archie Brown to Robert Service to Stephen White, use "communist state" or "communist system", that is not interpreting the sources. That is what the sources say. This is not persuasion; these are cold and hard facts based on what these people directly wrote. As Archie Brown writes, "Many former Communist politicians have objected to the use of that term because, they remind us, ‘communism’ was to be the ultimate stage of socialism which they never claimed to have reached. Yet the members of these ruling parties described themselves as Communists, and Western scholars, categorising the systems as ‘Communist’, did not imagine for a moment that they were depicting what Marx or Lenin had in mind by the stage of ‘communism’ – that self-governing, stateless, co-operative society which has never existed anywhere. (Using a capital ‘C’ for real Communist systems, with their enormous and oppressive state power, and a lower-case ‘c’ for the imaginary, stateless ‘communism’ of the future helps to keep clear the distinction.)" My opinion is not subjective or anything else; it based on the written words of scholars.
"Your #3, above, is a good example. The sentences you have written look like facts." Notice that I wrote the article, Socialist state of the whole people, and what does that article say on the subject? I am quoting scholar Mark Sandle, "Now the All-People's State represented all Soviet citizens (altought a leading role for the proletariat was still reserved, without saying what this meant in practice). This idea was a repudiation of the Stalinist idea of the strengthening of the state with the approach of socialism because of the intensification of the class struggle." (book; A Short History Of Soviet Socialism, page 243)
As for topic ban: why would you ban me from a topic I have great contributions to? Are you 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam or Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam are not WP:FL? Are you saying the LCY Presidency is not a WP:GA? What is you're point here?

TheUzbek (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #3, I'm not saying I would ban you from the topic - I said I'm not sure a topic ban is a good way forward for you. Asking an editor to voluntarily accept a topic ban in the area where they had editing conflicts previously is common in response to unblock requests. It lets editors get back to editing without letting them go straight back to the conflicts that got them blocked in the first place. That's what we're trying to do, when we evaluate unblock requests: determine whether the same problems will arise again if you're unblocked.

I'd very much like to let you go back to making and reviewing GAs. But I'm still stuck on this: I find it hard to imagine that you won't start discussions on the topic, bury everyone under 1000-word source criticism essays, and then bludgeon the discussion until everyone else leaves or you all get blocked. I don't think you will do this maliciously, or with intent to bludgeon the shit out of everyone, but it really looks like that's what will happen.

I don't want to take any action here myself, since while I'm one of the newest admins on the unblock queue I'd like to stick to acting on only the simpler requests. I hope that this will have been in some way helpful for the more experienced admin who attends to the unblock review template itself. I do think that you've come off as more mature in this conversation than in your earlier unblock requests, which does help. If a future admin would like to unblock but is hesitating because they'd want someone to keep an eye on you and don't want to be that someone, I'm happy to get called in for that. -- asilvering (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nowhere near qualified to unblock here, but it's worth pointing out that Trust Is All You Need was not blocked indefinitely for overreliance on primary sources - they were blocked indefinitely for posting screeds saying they would destroy Wikipedia. I, at least, am convinced that they won't do that again, so don't see the relevance of applying a much closer analysis of sourcing standards than most editors are subject to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's got you feeling unqualified? -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because plenty of others have clearly put much more thought than me into this, and decided not to do so, and I don't want to overrule them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that! TheUzbek (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, and why did I say that? I'm not asking rhetorically; I cannot remember! This is not a very good argument on my side, but at least I am honest.

I can promise that I will consult with the community more, stay out of conflicts, and, if I do enter one, turn the other cheek and not respond if annoyed (and I do respond, take my time, take a break, and respond when my head is clear). TheUzbek (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

posting screeds saying they would destroy Wikipedia was intended as a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trust_Is_All_You_Need&diff=prev&oldid=842342742. Which I realize now is a slight misinterpretation of that comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder of how stupid I was; luckily, I am not as stupid now, but I obviously have massive room for improvement. TheUzbek (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Fair point, and you are fairly accurate about my long messages. I guess I'll have to prove that I can change. I can't really say anything more than that. While I have not used those words, I have admitted to "bludgeoning" and that I was wrong in it. But it's unfair to say I did that in all the discussions I participated in. But I do write long posts sometimes, as mentioned above, and I can always learn how to write shorter, more concise, and friendly messages. TheUzbek (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? :) TheUzbek (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]