Amazing PatienceEdit

  The Barnstar of Infinite Patience
This barnstar is to award you for displaying a superpower level of infinite and invincible patience.
  // Timothy :: talk  03:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say -- I appreciate our discussions regarding the Antifa articleEdit

Obviously, we have our disagreements with respect to how to handle the article Antifa (United States), but I just wanted to thank you for taking my points into consideration and for creating good compromises in response to them when appropriate (and of course, for maintaining a respectful dialog when you disagree). It makes the process of dispute resolution a lot more pleasant, and I'm grateful for that. I hope I don't come off as hostile toward you on the talk page; I think you have good intentions with respect to the article and to the handling of disputes with other editors, and it really shows in the measured and respectful way you respond to content disputes. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hadger, thank you so much, I really appreciate that! :-) I also have no problem with this edit, I think it was a good improvement. Davide King (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips (false balance and false equivalence). Studying... Will reply on Article Talk page if I find anything relevant to add to the discussion. Jared.h.wood (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Evolutionary socialist" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Evolutionary socialist. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 18#Evolutionary socialist until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Right-libertarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Self-reliance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Davide King (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe an interesting article for youEdit

Hi there! I recently started It's Going Down (collective), and I thought you might be interested in taking a peek based off of some of your other editing. Jlevi (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28Edit

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

Anarchism and nationalism
added a link pointing to Cosmopolitan
Black anarchism
added a link pointing to Black culture
Contemporary anarchism
added a link pointing to Class war

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed them all. Davide King (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctionsEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cabayi (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is White supremacy and the Proud Boys.The discussion is about the topic Proud Boys. Thank you. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mutualism (economic theory), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul McLaughlin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed it. Davide King (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

what was the purpose of thisEdit

I am curious what your reason was for making this edit. The version before your edit was human legible; the latter really is not. Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, I don't know, what was the purpose of this inquire? Especially considering you removed the whole thing anyway? Like, most of the article's ref and most articles I have seen and read are formatted the way I did, or leave only a blank space after the =. If every single ref was formatted that way just to make it "human legible" (I do not see how it is not in the first place; it is not like the infobox where it makes sense to leave some blank space; what needs to be "human legible" is the note itself, not the template cite), we would have so much space just for the refs than for the text in body. Again, it makes sense to leave that kind of blank space for things like infobox, it makes less sense for refs, especially when most refs in the article were formatted that way, so I do not see why you took issue with my edit. That is also why I believe we should have a section where we put all refs there and use sfns for the text and main body. Now that would be much more "human legible", but alas. Davide King (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Because, I was curious why you did it. I'm not sure which method was used to generate the original template, but codes are often laid out that way so it's more editor friendly while editing in source mode. These spaces don't show up in reader mode anyways. oh and why didn't you remove that whole and the personal website thing anyways when you first visited it? Graywalls (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, I did that because it saved some space and for consistency with the way most other refs were formatted in the article. I understand that, but most articles, including good ones, did not do that, so I thought it was not a big deal. I did not remove it because there was no discussion on the talk page and actually expected you to do that as you wrote in one unrelated comment. You did your bold edit by removing that, I do not think anyone is going to revert you back or dispute that, so it is fine. Davide King (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summaryEdit

Can you please not use a deceptive edit summary like this one, where you remove a tag and claimed it was ce (copy-editing). --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

Emir of Wikipedia, can you please assume good faith? I removed the one related to the primacy source inline which I removed as well and I did not realise at first about the other because I thought it was a reliable source and there was no need for the tag. I did not revert or removed it again. Davide King (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I would have assumed good faith if it was my first interaction with you, but I have seen you disruptively removing tags elsewhere recently so you can see the confusion. I apologise if it was an honest mistake, and I shouldn't have been so quick to jump to unproven conclusions. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia, I believe I had a valid reason to remove them (they are supposed to be discuss on the talk page, not just added as you did; and you stopped replying me there; Braune is a reliable source, etc.) and I would not have opposed if someone else would have restored the tags. Davide King (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I did not say Braune was not a reliable source did I? And that has nothing to do with the tag you removed? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
See response here. Davide King (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I like the changeEdit

I support the edit you made now it makes sense.7645ERB (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

7645ERB, thanks, but to which edit are you exactly referring to? :) Davide King (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The Grover Furr edit you made.7645ERB (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your encouragement on my editing! Especially today, everyone should know the truth about communism. Otherwise, we will suffer a lot from it. LoftusCH (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Planned EconomyEdit

What's the reasoning for the undo on my edit on the planned economy page? Fephisto (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Fephisto, it did not look like an improvement and there was no need to separate the paragraphs. Davide King (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusionEdit

You might have saw my "edits"(I didn't change anything, nor did I save) and sorry if that caused any confusion, i was having some trouble getting my own infobox set up and i was just copy-pasting the source code. sorry if that caused any confusion. Im really new to wiki editing and i am trying to get some bearings. Osric the Brash (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Soviet Union vs. USSREdit

In your recent edit to Soviet Union, you changed several "Soviet Union" to "USSR". What are you trying to make them consistent with? I am not sure what the right thing is here, but if I could follow the same rule you are following, it would be better than nothing. Note, by the way, that in a Wikilink, you should use the title of the article. So [[Nostalgia for the USSR]] is not right, but [[Nostalgia for the Soviet Union|Nostalgia for the USSR]] might give the result you had in mind while still using the correct title. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, in the body USSR and Soviet are more consistently used over Soviet Union; it also saves some space, too. I do not understand your issue about the wikilink; that is what redirects are made for. Nostalgia for the USSR still links to Nostalgia for the Soviet Union and, again, saves some space. Davide King (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I looked around for guidance about linking to redirects, and I found WP:NOTBROKEN, which specifically discourages what I was recommending you do. So, sorry for the false alarm! Bruce leverett (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Bruce leverett, 👍 Davide King (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

1RR violations at Andy NgoEdit

Your latest edits at this page violate 1RR. You need to self revert to this version or I will file a report at AE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, what exactly did I revert? Because I made several other unrelated copy editing such as using redirects or copy editing refs cite such as the date format, etc., fixing refs' order according to their proper number and so on. Here, it appears the reverted tag, but what did I revert exactly? I did not revert anything; I only added a better source tag and used a redirect. The only thing I feel like I truly reverted was your edit that you capitalised antifa when the majority of given refs I checked used antifa, not Antifa; and I removed unnecessary primary sources when given refs already there were enough to verify. Davide King (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not debating the merits necessarily (I disagree with a lot of them, frankly, but that's not the issue). Your edits over-lapped with those by NorthBySouthBaranof. Look at the edit history. Both of you made non-consecutive edits as you were working on the page, and that violates the 1RR DS. This was the last version that didn't violate 1RR. One of you should revert to that version so that 1RR is complied with. We've all been careful to do so. I'd appreciate it if it would be you that restored the page (again, this was the last version before the non-consecutive changes). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, well, frankly, I would not want to lose and waste all the unrelated copy editing I did, so please clarify what exactly (refs, phrasing, etc.) should be re-added, so that I can return to that version without losing the copy editing and improvement I did. I would also appreciate if you could tell me why you "disagree with a lot of them" and which ones you disagree with. You also did unjustifiably remove this, so you violated the self-revert rule too with this, or am I misunderstanding the rule? Davide King (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Your edits qualified as WP:REVERT and went beyond "copy edits." The page is subject to WP:1RR. I immediately self-reverted because it's not my place to restore the pre-1RR violation version. I'm asking you to restore the version that preceded the violation or I will take it to AE and ask an admin to do it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, technically we should return to this, since you also made a revert by essentially removing this. I think this is nonsense and we would do everyone a favour if we could compromise such as keeping my good copy editing (refs fixing, use of redirects, use of author, re-addition of this, which was the pre-1RR violation long-standing consensus which you removed without any discussion, etc.) while removing my more controversial edits. It is a fact that the majority of given refs in the article used antifa and only a few used Antifa, especially when quoting Ngo; so I do not see how this should not be considered an improvement. You violated the long-standing implicit consensus to use antifa (which is also consistent with Antifa (United States) by capitalising it without any legit reason since most refs in the article use the lowercase. If you have a problem with my removal of primary sources, I do not see what is the issue when there are already much better secondary sources. If my removal of those primary sources is considered a revert, then so is your removal of sources for 'provocateur' in the body; and all three violated the rule anyway. The only thing I reverted was the revert to the long-standing consensus to lower antifa (with your edit not supported by sources) and the sources for 'provocateur' in body (there seems to be consensus to not have them in the lead, but they were not in the lead anyway and have been in the body for a long time). So I ask you again to please list me which edits violated the rule, so that I can revert them back without removing all other unrelated edits by us three. This was also a reverted, but you linked to this same version which violated the rule; so either you put the wrong link or it makes no sense and we should return to this instead. Davide King (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, what version is that? The version I linked was the last version before the violation occurred. Consecutive edits qualify as a single revert. Read the rules before you start making changes to a page. It's not "ridiculous" that we all follow the same rules. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, I followed the same rules - I self-reverted my revert, and then used my one revert to go back to status quo ante, since you don't seem to want to work constructively with other editors on this. Making wholesale changes to the article and then screaming "1RR!!!!" when other editors make constructive attempts to work within your version is incredibly bad-faith behavior, and it encourages simple, plain full reversions. Which I have done, because it's apparently what you want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, I meant to this version as NorthBySouthBaronof did since it could be argued you started the whole thing by removing, without discussion, without consensus (I thought we agree that it was not lead worthy, but it should have discussed in the body, explain why sources say so and so, so outright removal, I do not get it), sources describing him as a right-wing provocateur. "Consecutive edits qualify as a single revert." So one can only edit once?! So all my actual copy edits and legitimate improvements such as fixing refs cite, dates format, etc. qualify as a single revert"? I agree with NorthBySouthBaronof and I reiterate this is ridiculous. All my copy editing gone. That rule should count only for edits that may be challenged, not from copy editing. While not all my edits were copy editing, some indeed were and it is absurd to count them as a revert; only actual changes to the article content should count, so I hope I can re-add my copy editing while we discuss the other edits on the talk page. Davide King (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
You made more than copy edits, and frankly the version that was left after yours and NBSB's edits was a mess. The subject's op-ed was removed from the lead as "undue" despite WP:ABOUTSELF being obviously applicable, the sensational and unverified claims about him having ties to the "Proud Boys" based on him covering a protest were restored to the lead. Follow 1RR. We all do it, regardless of how great we think our changes might be. And stop ranting about me on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, all of this could have been avoided if you had clearly told me the more controversial edits so I could remove that but keep obvious improvements such as ref and date formats fixing. Still, a non-primary and green source (National Review is yellow) would be preferable and some users may and did consider that as "unduly self-serving". The Proud Boys were in the long-standing version before the page was lastly removed from protection and that you removed in the first edit after the removal of protection, so I do not understand what you are ranting about. That our edits were "a mess" is your opinion and the use of primary sources are unnecessary when there are already at least two green secondary sources. So you disagree about "sensational and unverified claims about him having ties to the 'Proud Boys' based on him covering a protest were restored to the lead", even though it is reported by green sources; and I disagree with the unnecessary use of primary, usually yellow at best, primary sources when there is already at least one secondary green source. We were being bold just as you claimed here. Davide King (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The subject's op-ed was about why he was fired. It is due. Your suggestion about it being "unduly self-serving" is a biased, opinionated assertion that has nothing to do with policy. Wherever accusations are made against a public figure, it is not just appropriate, but required that we note their response. "Bold" is fine. Violating 1RR is not bold, it's brazen. And it's a violation of the rules. To borrow a line from a great TV show, if you can cite them, you can follow them. I have nothing more to say about it. Thanks for self-reverting, now put an end to the drama by keeping your comments at the article talk page focused on content, not me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Would it not be better to use secondary sources that discuss his opinions on why he was fired? If there are no secondary green sources, perhaps it is undue. Also it was not my suggestion, I was not necessarily agreeing with that, I was just saying I read users making that argument on the talk page and as Wikipedia is based on consensus, they are worth considering and discussing in reaching a consensus. Finally, let me reiterate I did not start this drama, I did not remove outright green source content; I gently asked you to tell me the more controversial parts of my edits so I could revert; I removed yellow, primary sources; that, in my view, is not the same thing and I suggest you to calm down and stop acting like you did nothing wrong and it is all mine and NorthBySouthBaranof's fault. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Important noticeEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- SummerPhDv2.0 01:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanksEdit

On my input on the cultural marxism content. Brianshapiro (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The InterceptEdit

I mentioned like Forbescon, because I noticed the writer appeared to be a contributor even though its green. Reading through the RSP commentary it says "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed.", so that's what I'll do when I can get around to it. Graywalls (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, that makes more sense and is what I thought you might have meant by that, but I wanted to make sure. However, there is no distinction between between a green and yellow Intercept as we list Forbes at the Perennial list and I do not think that justify outright removal as you did; perhaps it could be reworded and attributed. I also suggest us to follow BRD and open a discussion on the talk page to hear what other users may think, whether it is fine as it is, whether it could be reworded or attributed, or whether it should be simply removed. Thank you for taking the time to write me here, I really appreciate that. :) Davide King (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That author also does not appear in the staff roster, either current or at the time the story was written and his profile shows an email address at his own domain rather than the newspaper. I will need to conduct additional research. Graywalls (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, I believe a thread should be opened on the talk page (you can open it yourself if you want), so that more users can made additional research and we can reach some consensus. Davide King (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

On images on articles.Edit

Hey so I just want to get you're opinions on me adding images to everything, more specifically the thumbnail and maybe I could get some advice. Do you think every article like anarchism should have a thumbnail, or do you think it's better to leave certain articles with no thumbnails? I saw you moved the symbol of Platformism.

If you don't know I am on a jihad (I am an atheist it is just a saying) to add images to every article because they add so much to articles actually seeing examples of what is being talked about. Certain anarchist related pages lack necessary images. Just wanted to find out what you're opinion is and what should be done. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, thanks for your comments! :) I do not think we should be "adding images to everything", especially if we adding for adding's sake rather than a more rational argument. I also believe the sidebar should go first and that if the addition of an image to the lead causes mess to the text flow, it is better removed or moved. We also should not add flags, especially when they are not widespread associated to it as is the case of the bisected black and red flag, hence why I removed the flag for anarcha-queen. For example, I did not remove it, but I think this flag is probably undue or it is better to use an another image, for it actually says "The flag is meant to represent anarchism. The dimensional ratio of the flag is length:11, and width:8. The horizontal length from the hoist to the far point of the star is the same distance as the overall vertical width of the flag. The red field, representing socialism, transitions to the black field, representing anarchism. The five-pointed star symbolizes humanity." There is no mention of the CNT or the Black Army, so it may not be an accurate caption; and even if true, it would be better to verify that it has been widespread used by the CNT and the Black Army, which I do not think is possible to prove simply because they did not use the exact same flag; this flag seems to be created by an user and we already have the black and red star in the sidebar. In addition, this image is better and more relevant than a flag, but it should be moved, perhaps in place of the flags in the Contemporary queer anarchism section. Davide King (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Make America Great Again EditsEdit

Hello. First of all, thank you for being an avid contributor. I wanted to address your edits to the Make America Great Again page. Could you shed some light on how you believe the Detroit Free Press is an unreliable source? Other than that, disagreeing with a contribution that contradicts your political stances does not constitute a legitimate reason for removing content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav214 (talkcontribs) 16:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This is probably better discussed on the article page, since it's content-related. Jlevi (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Jlevi and Mav214, this had nothing to do on whether the Detroit Free Press is an unreliable source and everything to do with the fact the quoted part was literally written by an user in the comments. It was not the author of the article saying that, or even the same author attributing the quote to an accredit expert, which would have held much more weight. Frep readers and users are not a reliable sources and hold no weight. The full quoted part actually says that "[m]y definition of 'Make America Great Again' is making America an economic powerhouse, a military powerhouse, pride in being an American. Nobody complained when Ronald Reagan & Bill Clinton used the exact phrase in speeches they gave years ago. People are just miserable because their own scumbag Hillary Clinton didn't win. You don't have to love your government but support your country, be a Patriot." The definition of MAGA according to "Freep readers" and users are not reliable and hold no weight. Davide King (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you must have misread the article then. The quoted part was a portion of the main article. The whole point of the article was to poll people in regards to their stance on the phrase. The inclusion of this stance in an accredited article thus makes it a reliable source. Unless you can prove the specific individual is unreliable. Likewise, this edit has been settled for over 6 months before you vandalized the page with it's removal. In the future, please address major changes on the talk page first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav214 (talkcontribs) 16:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Mav214, that is nonsense. If I search the name of those who commented, I find nothing because they are not journalists or other accredited experts; they are users like us and readers; that is undue and unreliable, hence I just proved that "the specific individual is unreliable." That it was been "settled for over 6 months" does not mean anything; many times actual vandalism like yours remain and whether IU "vandalized the page with it's removal" will be settled at the talk page. I see you wrote on your user page that "I have found that there is a noticeable slant towards the leftist point of view. My goal is to fight the censorship of right-wing points of view and keep this great site neutral." But Wikipedia is not for those who want to right great wrongs. Davide King (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

irrelevant remarksEdit

"That you seem to have a thing against squatting and The Intercept does not mean they should be outright removed." - your comment. What does your perception of what I am for/against have anything to do with the Antifa article? You don't see me making attributions to what I think you're for/against or reference to your announced political affiliation of anarchism in your profile. Graywalls (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, that having biases does not imply one cannot be neutral and contribute but that too much bias regarding one issue may cause troubles, hence why topic ban exists. I am not saying you should be topic banned, I simply noted that some users have noted the same thing and that you have a tendency "to erase things", as you write on the talk page, that may not be helpful and would be better discussed first. That you left the Beinart's negative comment led me to think you have a bias against antifa and anarchism (an an example, see your repeated attempts to link any self-declared antifa committing any crime to be added). In addition, I wrote my remarks before you wrote that "I simply took out the material that was past the quotation." So I apologise for my "irrelevant remarks" but so are yours about my alleged "announced political affiliation of anarchism in [my profile]", even though I put a note that it is more of a tongue in cheek joke and that I believe I always tried my best to stay neutral. I am so biased for antifa that I put the negative Beinart's comment in the first place and added myself the mentions and comments on the killing of Aaron Danielson. But apart from our disagreements, let us highlight more things we agree more such as this suggestion of yours that I think it was valuable. I hope you see this as good-faith criticism and suggestions (my suggestion is to be a bit less reckless in deleting things, especially if they are sourced; if they are not well-sourced, they will be deleted anyway after a discussion) and that you have also made many comments and edits that I found valuable, for which I thanked you for. Davide King (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I already gave you the whole explanation. I trimmed out the portion that was clearly delineated as portion related to "some journalists..." expression. You can't just assume I selectively left out the other piece. Please try to keep out remarks that may side track things, just as I have been keeping them out myself. The BRD cycle is working just as it should. You boldly added something, it was reverted, and discussed.
I may not have seen every discussion in talk, but it doesn't look like you discussed prior to ADDING contents. If you're requesting that I engage in talk before removing, then I'd like you to engage on talk before you make substantially addition. That's fair Graywalls (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, I did assume that because I thought you were referring to all journalists and that you were referring to Beinart too, so my bad for not understanding at first what you meant, which was fair. I agree about the rest, so it was more my fault on that, but I hope everything is fine now. Thanks for your comments. Davide King (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, perhaps we can agree on something here. Surely readers' comments are not reliable, as the quoted one is currently in the lead ("My definition of 'Make America Great Again' is making America an economic powerhouse, a military powerhouse, pride in being an American. Nobody complained when Ronald Reagan & Bill Clinton used the exact phrase in speeches they gave years ago. People are just miserable because their own scumbag Hillary Clinton didn't win. You don't have to love your government but support your country, be a Patriot."), are they? Davide King (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, they haven't been given the welcome template, so I left them one. People don't start editing here with knowledge of reliable sources. This should help if they're here in good faith. Graywalls (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
and btw, if you did actually see some of the squatting related articles before I started working on any of them, some of them had significant sourcing to totally unacceptable sources like Independent Media Center, wordpress, blogspot,,, and sources of nature that are on par with comments section of newspaper and forum posts as well as non expert self published contents. Graywalls (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  For your recent contribution to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Your recent contributions have significantly improved the article, the content is considered and well written. Bacondrum (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Brooks.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A little confusingEdit

Sorry this is partly my fault for replying in several places but we are having the same conversation in three places. Would you be ok with just moving it to the new bottom section, the Main Topic header? PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)