User talk:Davide King

doi and isbn to cite book template

• Have you ever used Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books or DOI Wikipedia reference generator? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• I also suggest you read User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. The page has 11 Harv errors, plus various other types of errors of varying degrees of importance. But Harv errors are important. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• ... and maybe WP:CITEBOMB. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the US

I'm starting by just mentioning it briefly here without making the full argument. The usage of the Right-Libertarian term is in dispute and headed for an RFC. In the midst of that you make a major injection of the term into an additional article where it is even more out of place. When your addition was reverted (and the change certainly has no consensus) you edit warred to force it in. I'm not implying that you violated the bright-line 3RR rule. This certainly can't stand this way. You should self-revert. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, see this. It looks like you're never happy. In that case, I actually treated it exactly as a term! I even started it by writing Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism is a categorization used by some political analysts, academics and media sources in the United States to contrast related yet distinct approaches to libertarian philosophy because in that case is about terminology. You were also simply wrong in arguing that the terms are not used in the US; and you're wrong about the 3RR rule, for I did revert it twice and Pfhorrest was the one to revert it to my version. You're making this issue much bigger than it really is, if at all.--Davide King (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you (mis)read what I wrote including the only bolded word in the post? "I wrote "I'm not implying that you violated the bright-line 3RR rule" and you are writing as if I said the opposite. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't like how you wrote that I edit warred to force it in (and yes, it sounded like you implied I violated some rule) when Pfhorrest supported my additions and reverted it. Either way, your reasoning made no sense, for it's especially in the United States where the terminology is used and relevant. That discussion has been going on for almost a year now, there was no consensus for your proposals, or that it was such a big issue to require massive changes (I believe much of the issue itself has been addressed with better wording and other edits which gave more weight to the term and came closer to address your position) and I think it's about time it ends. Either way, I didn't see anything wrong with my edit (so unless you're implying Right-libertarianism should be deleted, I don't get where you're coming from) exactly because it treated them as terms (do you deny even the terms themselves now?) and I believe that section was even closer to you; and it shouldn't be reverted because it's not relevant to Right-libertarianism (again, unless you're implying it should be deleted or that the terms aren't real) as argued by Pfhorrest (the dispute elsewhere is not about whether left and right libertarianism are things at all) and it's actually used and very relevant to libertarianism in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Davide, I mentioned at the beginning that I was keeping it brief and do not want to replicate/ make the whole discussion here. My post was about process. You added it at this article while it being under dispute at another article. There's not only no consensus to re-add the insertion, there is not even any discussion. It is currently in the article because you and Pfhorrest just re-inserted the material 3 times in one day. The article currently in in the damaged state with the disputed addition because y'all hammered it back in three times in one day. From a process point, this is not right and can't stand. Can you self-revert? My next step would be to put all of this at the article and identify that it as temporarily being in the damaged/disputed state because of that aggressive re-insertion process for the disputed change. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I honestly find all this baffling and absurd, for I properly cited the whole section. I could understand if I just added it as an unreferenced section, but I actually did reference it. The whole dispute right now is literally whether the first two phrases at Right-libertarianism should be inverted. Now do you even dispute left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are real things, even just as terms?--Davide King (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

My comments here are limited to the Wikipedia process side. I don't think it would be good to start / duplicate the main discussion here. But one quick note....what you are describing as the argument/goal (phrases inverted) of one side isn't that, it is merely the significant pragmatic compromise offered to put this to bed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better to discuss it here, if we're going to repeat the same things and argument, going in circle on that talk page. If that's the case, then I agree with Aquillon's argument that if you concede the article should exist, most of your arguments fall apart and there isn't much to discuss at such lengths. That compromise simply isn't going to work, for the main body backed by sources describes a philosophy/theory/type and the term itself refers to that; and the term issue is addressed in the second sentence and it can't get more pertinent than that.--Davide King (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

For those who know me here, I'm really only vehement about the proper wiki-process side. And so for me the process issue brought up above is most urgent and important. I also have some mild concerns about some of your conversational wiki-tactics which is a bit of a process issue which stokes things a bit, but that is only that. What I care zero about here is real-world advocacy-type POV. Fortunately I don't think that the dispute here is fueled by any such issues. I think it's mostly a matter of everybody simply wanting to make the best possible coverage and there are disagreements on how to do that.North8000 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Where were you, then, when JLMadrigal literally did the same thing, edit-warred with your changes at Right-libertarianism? At least I sourced my own section; JLMadrigal didn't provide any source to support those changes; and in that case it was even worse since we were literally discussing that at length and did it multiple times (you actually did the same too); it was the main dispute.--Davide King (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. My so-called controversial “wiki-tactics” merely means following the guidelines (not making up processes as you did for months) and what reliable sources say about the topic. I certainly wasn't the one writing that another user should be “blocked”; arguing that only “libertarians” should discuss this; showing a lack of understanding about the topic and writing outright falsehood; etc.--Davide King (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

???? I never said anything like that about anybody. BTW, if you want an example, it's what you just did. Vaguely implying that those that disagree with you are violating guidelines. But again, for me the big current issue is just the process issue at libertarianism in the US. Could you self-revert on that? North8000 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't write you did any of that; it was JLMadrigal who did all that. I didn't imply that and I certainly didn't do that merely because you disagree with me, but rather because I believe your lead proposal doesn't satisfy the requisite as the main body is much more than just a term and so we should first establish what the main topic is. So the discussion is going nowhere as it doesn't change the main body which supports the current lead.--Davide King (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

My next step would be to get into this at the article. I thought this would be a nice way to skip that. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I did just that. Briefly, noting that the current temporary damaged state of the article is based on edit-warring in disputed and un-discussed material. This explains how the article got to its current temporary damaged state because I declined to pursue any further reversions of insertion of the disputed material. It is NOT saying that you violated the bright line 3RRR rule, and is not raising or pursuing any sanctions related to wiki-behavior. That is not my dance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

pls stop editing for a while

Pls stop editing for a while. I am trying to remove all the unused sources but am doing it programmatically. If you alter the line count of the sources, it all becomes wrong. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

pls fix the final seven (7) by hand. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help copy edit for Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you. Vomli (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't edit war

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please work collaboratively to improve the article rather than delete massive amounts of cited material. I'm happy to have the article change significantly and willing to work with you to improve it. Address specifics don't just delete most of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liberal socialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amoral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it.--Davide King (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Economics of fascism into Criticism of capitalism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your changes to social democracy

Social democracy is not socialism, while historically it was true that social democracy was a socialist movement i.e under Berstein and the early German social democrats, this is not true in modern times. Your change to social democracy contradicts socialism as defined in socialism's article and in communism's article, as social democracy is an intrinsically capitalist system (this being acknowledged in the article itself) . It is now inaccurate to categories social democracy as "within" socialism for various reasons, such as numerous philosophies including but not limited to schools of liberalism (John Rawls and Lib Dems UK) and christian democracy, have adopted social democracy as an aim and goal, and both of these philosophies are explicitly anti socialist/communist in both principle, praxis, and in their respective political science. Christian democracy having emerged in partial opposition to socialism in the first place. As well as most social democratic parties abandoning socialism or outright condemning it, this happening during the emergence and ascendancy of neoliberalism. Your citation regarding the defining of social democracy as being "within socialism" does not appear to be from any philosopher, or political scientist though please correct me if I am wrong here. The social democracy page is currently protected due to a recent edit war and vandalism, and id prefer discussing these changes with you directly before potentially winding starting up another one. --Arctictothpast (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We need to define the topic. Social democracy can be used as a synonym for socialist ideology, or to refer, usually disparagingly, to the right-wing within socialism or to the comprehensive welfare state established by socialist and non-socialist governments in Europe. By conflating the three, we come up with the misleading implication that the goal of social democratic ideology is the establishment of a welfare state or that people who advocate them are necessarily social democrats. It's accidental that the welfare state is called social democracy, because conservatives advocated and implemented the welfare state when most social democrats opposed it. TFD (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Social democracy is indeed socialism (ironically, it's mainly more left-wing socialists that say it's not socialism; this isn't much different from far-left politics, which unlike the far-right, doesn't have a clear definition and is basically more left-wing than you), otherwise what would be the difference from social liberalism? John Rawls (whom some describe as a liberal socialist, by the way) and the Liberal Democrats, just like the American Democrats, are (social) liberals, not social(ist) democrats. That's one problem I've seen in many users and which The Four Deuces, whom I personally thank for the prompt and clear comment, clarified many times. Even if today many social democrats are mainly concerned about the humanisaton of capitalism, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have abandoned socialism; in practice, its humanisation must in the end result in some form of socialism, economically or ethically, for capitalism to be truly and fully humanised would be much different from modern capitalism (obviously, more left-wing socialist argue that it's impossible, that capitalism can never be truly, full humanised, as discussed in sources, but I digress). Many users confuse the social liberal paradigm (1940s–1970s) for social democracy. However, social democrats adopted it for largely different reasons (again, The Four Deuces made several interesting points in the Archive which I have incorporated in the article). Even then, post-war social democracy was considered by those socialist a compromise between capitalism and socialism, believing that it would avert capitalist's crisis et all (indeed, social democrats like Crosland thought this was irreversible), but this has been replaced by the neoliberal paradigm.

As argued by The Four Deuces elsewhere, it makes no sense to make social democracy what social democratic parties do; do we now say that social democracy supports neoliberalism, privatisation, deregulation, Rogernomics, (everything post-war social democracy stood against), etc. because some social democratic parties did that? It also doesn't make it clear the difference between why some socialists, liberals and conservatives adopted social democracy as a policy regime. Socialists such as the Swedish Social Democrats adopted the social liberal paradigm because they believed it was fundamental for the development of socialism (people need to be healthy, secure, etc.), which is fundamentally different from the reasons argued by liberals and conservatives. All three also have their own critics who reject it as a policy regime. I think I have been more than inclusive in discussing social democracy as both an ideology/political movement and a policy regime (although the policy regime thing should be about the one adopted by social democrats, i.e. they adopted as a compromise between capitalism and socialism, saw it as a development towards socialism like the Swedish socialists, etc., not conservatives and liberals; for that, we have Welfare state). The given source (Eatwell & Wright 1999) clearly discusses social democracy as one of the many traditions of socialism. Democratic socialism is about modern socialism (while maintaining the social ownership of all previous socialisms, it adds democracy as a fundamental part of it, hence democratic socialism) and originated in the 18th and 19th centuries while social democracy is one strand of it, originating in the 1860s as contrasted and opposed to liberal democracy.

It's not social democracy that has abandoned its socialist goal (whether a full socialist economy, or a socialism in ethical terms which doesn't discuss the economic system, which may range from an actual socialist system to humanised capitalism), some social democrats did; but by doing so, they stopped being social democrats and became social liberals. This doesn't mean that social democracy did too, otherwise it would stop being social democracy and would be no different from social liberalism.--Davide King (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay...

No problem Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You Thanked me! Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)