Welcome to Wikipedia, YeOldeGentleman! Thank you for your contributions. I am Demiurge1000 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need a complete re-writing of Marxism from someone who knows what he's talking about, expansion of information about the soviet democracy in Russia (sourced data would be much appreciated, see Russian Wikipedia which has separate articles for each congress), expansion on theoretical concepts in communism, expansion of information about Russian pre-revolution elections(1) around 1917.

I once began an article titled Marxist-Leninist state but never published it. If it interests you then you can finish it. Another subject of interest is the creation of missing articles on works by Marx/Engels. e.g. Principles of Communism did not exist until I created it in Sep. 2014. The expansion of information on articles such as Anti-Dühring and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, which are started yet do not contain enough information.

The creation of articles for various leftist political parties and international organizations and expansion of information on many of them is also needed. This is especially relevant for parties which are not part of the western/first world. E.g. there is little information about Asian and African leftist parties.

The improvement, expansion, cleaning, embellishing and sourcing on articles such as state capitalism, mode of production, capitalist mode of production, crisis theory, and so on... The expansion of information on decentralized and non-bureaucratic economic planning.

1. See this page. It would be good to consult the following sources: William Rosenberg, The Liberals in the Russian Revolution (Princeton University Press, 1974), The Russian municipal duma elections of 1917: A preliminary computation of returns (same author), etc. All we have currently is Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917. Zozs (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Zozs. I will have a mooch and see if I can do something. Thanks for getting back to me. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any affiliation you would like to disclose with User:Iloveandrea?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can think of. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, TheTimesAreAChanging, you know how much I love you. Please, let me continue my lovely editings. Do not use your power of exposure to have me banned. Let us work together. Let us support one another—through the thick and through the thin. You are like a brother to me. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm VQuakr. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on The Holocaust, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please note that WP:BLP applies not only to living people, but also to living politicians. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, VQuakr! Yeah, forgot the rule applies to edit summaries and talk pages! Just as well what I said wasn't horrendous! Thanks for the polite reminder. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something that definitely needs to be removed, however, is the hammer and sickle used in the communist sidebar template. It is simply unprofessional and appeals to emotionalism based on imagery, and also is limited to the Russian and 'Marxist-Leninist' experiences. Zozs (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be multiple reports that the gunmen yelled "Allahu Akbar" and, in French, "The Prophet is Avenged." That sounds pretty Islamic terrorist to me, although I'm okay with waiting until there are more cited sources. Lahaun (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Lahaun! Yeah, I think the evidence is good regarding their religious background. I think terrorist is such an abused term, I really don't like it. I prefer militant, though feel free to discuss this with me and others on the relevant talk pages (here and here). I don't know if there is any Wikipedia policy on this. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To both: Read the policy on the word terrorist. Zozs (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk section at the Thomas Piketty article, to avoid an edit war I had explained the reason for my deletion of the sentence. However, if you still believe the sentence should be included, we should probably do a request for comment or get a outside perspective. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that article isn't useful at the GG controversy article, I did add it to Criticism of Wikipedia where that whole issue with the Guardian/Arbcom decision has already been described. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this racism or satire? Alakzi (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: All I can say is this: 'Dr' K. cannot be trusted. Why? Letme just say this: Best advice I was ever given was given to me by myself: do not trust Trojan Horses or people who try to give one to you.

Greece has demonstrated remarkable 'Trojan-ness' with this veering off to the Chinese and the Russians. This fact is undeniable. Perhaps you yourself are Greek, and resent my exposure of your betrayal of Europa Union. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this is all part of your libertarian fascist unmanifesto. Alakzi (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi:Some day, you and I are going to remember this and laugh!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Never forget: I have incredible power. I am more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Let me just close(?) this conversation by bidding you a fond farewell. ♥ --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obliged to inform you that I've posted about your message to Dr.K. and our brief exchange here at WP:ANI. Alakzi (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z8

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Heeey! Dr K. and I go back years here on Wikipedia—and I mean as friendly acquaintances, not long-term enemies. I like and respect the Greeks; he knows that. My message was merely the latest ridiculous instalment of a long-running farce about the bearing of gifts by Greeks. I nevertheless acknowledge that my message was unacceptable, and pledge not to repeat my actions. Talk pages are not the appropriate arena for such shenanigans, as this episode demonstrates perfectly. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Lankiveil's condition below has been satisfied, and this all appears to be a misunderstanding, so unblocking. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I'll be happy to unblock you once you acknowledge that edits such as this are completely unacceptable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

YeOldeGentleman, I apologise for misunderstanding. Should we assume that your user page is also satire? Alakzi (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no apology required! Yes, my user page is complete nonsense. Well, I am English, a Leftist, and male, but the fascism tripe is just pure, immature silliness. One of the reasons I am interested in Greek history is because of their left-wing political history. Please accept a ♥ from me. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, from one leftist to another, your ♥ is accepted and reciprocated. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this was all resolved amicably, but it would be best if you didn't make such jokes in the future, as obviously they're very easy to misinterpret. Happy editing! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

ThaddeusB (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nice work on the bibliography. however, i think the biography style is to include isbn in list so world cat links will work. for example, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Bibliographies. i will try to cleaning up, but if you object, let's discuss. Duckduckstop (talk)

According to reliable source policy, primary sources are at time acceptable but secondary sources are preferred. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a new section in the talk page to discuss my edit. Please explain what you disagree with. As there is a dispute on what exactly was said I believe we should add a few words to make clear the context of what he said. I am basing my edit on [1]. עדירל (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that my edit was not a deletion. עדירל (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I am an American and am more prone to bias in topics relating to United States, so sorry about that. I'm just trying to be helpful here... you need to try to focus on arguments alone, and do not call other editors "American nationalists". I'm not part of this discussion and don't plan on becoming part of it, but I still feel like I should say that even if you really feel that way about another editor, you should try to keep from displaying such thoughts; behavior such as that is going to make others not want to listen to you. Imagine how you would feel in a similar scenario. I'm not trying to be troublesome or anything, so please don't interpret it that way. It's just a suggestion. I've made quite a bit of an effort to avoid letting this thread here convey the wrong message, so please understand.

If you have any problem with this thread whatsoever, feel free to remove it. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustin V. S.: Hey! I tried to delete the offending thread, but then got told off for doing so. A few other people have given specious responses, but I'll just let the discussion die. Seems the best thing to do, especially given that I'm on a hiding to nothing with the number of petty-minded nationalists piling in. "Nationalism is an infantile disease," as someone famous once said. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, this did not ping me. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read my suggestion. Regards, Dustin (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the appreciation.

• I haven't finished with David Cameron and poverty, I'll keep on researching. I'm sure DC expected reminders about promises not fully kept to be published in media like, The Independent, The Guardian, The New Statesman where mainly his political opponents would read them. From now on DC and other leading politicians will have to remember that broken promises can return to haunt them on their Wikipedia page where their supporters will get reminders for years, hopefully indefinitely. Long live free speech.
• I haven't finished with unfair sanctions to benefits. Too much has been taken out I'll be away for a few hours, pelease help and advise. I've come back, I added the references to the numbers of sanctions, I also added references to diabetic claimants sanctioned and people in hospital sanctioned. I hope it's now OK, please check. JRPG should also be checking. Fighting Poverty (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't finished with the heartless July 2015 budget.
• I haven't finished with heartless government policy on food banks.

There's a great deal I haven't finished with. Fighting Poverty (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fighting Poverty: I fully support your editing goals. I will assist you. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this: Reverting an edit because it contains Fox as a source is not a valid reason for not accepting an edit. Fox is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Your personal feelings about Fox is not germane. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry. I did not realise Fox counted as RS. Obviously I won't repeat the mistake elsewhere. Thanks for the explainer. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what I wrote. If you cannot distinguish ancient Isreal from Judaism, you are not competent to edit the article. In any case, please do not edit war. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: You did actually mean what you wrote? I thought you didn't. I find most people usually don't mean what they say. Thanks a lot for clearing up my misapprehension.

I'm quite capable of distinguishing between the two. I mean, Judaism is a religion, right? And Ancient Israel was a kingdom, right? Two quite different things. It is a relief that even you seem able to grasp this fact.

What you are whimpering about is… I just can't even see where you are coming from. The only use I made of Solomon 2005 was to immediately close off in the first paragraph ("General views on war", or whatever it's called) exterminatory war as a historical curiosity perpetrated by Ye Olde Israel. The obvious point being made is that Judaism and exterminatory war are mutually exclusive. A summary of my summary of the start of Solomon 2005:

Proposition 1 Ancient Israel was told to carry out an exterminatory war.

Proposition 2 The Jewish God himself explicitly said this war was unique to this time and this enemy.

Conclusion Judaism and wars of extermination have nothing to do with each other.

How can I possibly make my thinking any clearer?

Anyway, you seem like a dreadfully unhappy person. For that reason alone I have no intention of further interaction with you. The article—replete (as it is) with typos, shitty layout, and so on—is yours to take care of.

Don't post on my talk page again. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a quite horrendous sentiment; one that I and pretty much the whole community certainly does not share. The user restored it before I could delete it, so if if wants to keep it there on his page, he can. But I don't recommend you ever say things like that ever again to anyone else here. Seriously in very poor taste. Doc talk 09:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I was trying to stay out of this, but this post is a wildly inappropriate thing to say to someone. Don't do that again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) He was already warned about this above. He made no more edits but was blocked anyway... half an hour later. Then you warn him again. Wow. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a bit overreactive considering the slew of personal attacks made by Alakzi to... pretty much everyone. He didn't get blocked for calling me a "piece of shit", but I'm not going to whine about it either. Block length far too long as well. Not a fan of this block at all - it's purely punitive. Doc talk 10:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc9871: While I'm entirely willing to shorten it after discussing with YOG, or have someone else do so, there is a big difference between a reactive generic insult like 'piece of shit' and making unprompted insulting comments about someone's mental health. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the policy there aint. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to revert it when Alakzi restored it. I also issued the warning condemning the statement as horrendous. There is no part of me that condones the statement, but the fact is the block was excessive and out of process. Especially when we're talking about civility blocks, which a great portion of the community thinks applies only in certain circumstances to certain editors. Doc talk 10:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Doc, I saw your earlier post; thank you for that. I am the last person who is going to make a great fuss over mere "incivility"; I don't believe in generic civility blocks for established users, card-carrying cabal members or otherwise. (My card got lost in the mail, I assume.) But insulting someone's mental health in that way is not merely "uncivil"; it is unempathetic, ill-advised, and exceptionally insensitive, and is more comparable to attacks based on other personal characteristics or identities than to the usual sorts of cursing and flaming that cause people to start wikilinking WP:CIVIL.

YeOldeGentleman, as Alakzi has been blocked upon confirmed request, I expect that I or (probably) anyone else reviewing an unblock request that recognized the inappropriateness of that type of comment would accept it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's our "process" to allow someone to make negative comments about someone's mental health on that person's talk page (which was clear baiting, by the way), then our process is not very good. This was a good block, hands down, although the length could probably be shorter. Alakzi was not well-liked and their behavior was not always positive, to put it lightly, but that does not excuse a blatant personal attack from being placed on their talk page. Alakzi has a temper, and this was not something that was lost on their detractors when they wished for more shit to fling. This whole situation is regrettable. ~ Rob^Talk 15:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the block as it is. I plead no mitigating circumstances. I should not have made that post; we are all agreed on that. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]