User talk:GayCommunist1917

May 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Alliance for the Union of Romanians, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 17:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism is a far-right ideology. GayCommunist1917 (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who vandalized? 193.150.247.69 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary to articles, as you did at Child marriage. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to discuss the article, please use Talk:Child marriage. Thank you. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 17:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is commentary? GayCommunist1917 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down

Hey. I think it's great that as a new editor you're enthusiastic about editing as much as you are.

However I'd advise you slow down a bit and discuss changes on talk pages where political ideologies are concerned first. Political ideologies are always contentious on Wikipedia and often become a battleground (which is why I created this page). A lot of people come into a political article and think the ideologies or political positions have been wrong this whole time and so unilaterally change it - even though it's been discussed to death for years previously.

You will draw extra scrutiny with your username, too. It's totally fine to advertise your political views, but you have to also be aware that'll come with people seeing your edits through that lens. For example, I see you've made several right wing parties appear even more right-wing; that in conjunction with your username does spell something out - we shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions.

I think your passion as a new editor is commendable, but I recommend instead of diving in head first you spend more time on talk pages first to achieve consensus for what you're after. Politics on Wikipedia is a battleground, and a lot of newer editors have found themselves swiftly blocked for ignoring longstanding processes. — Czello ^(music) 10:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice

Hey there and welcome to Wikipedia. I can see, from above, that I'm not the first editor to notice your recent contributions. I wanted to somewhat echo some of Czello's advice above. One thing I've learned from being on Wikipedia for a long time is that almost nothing here is urgent. It's always a good idea to collect your thoughts, make sure your edits are supported by reliable sources and be thorough with any given edit. Another thing I wish I knew when I started is that it is far more productive, in the long run, to leave up another person's bad edit and thoroughly discuss that edit than it is to rush to correct mistakes without prior discussion.

I for one think that Wikipedia could more gay communists but, specifically, we need more long-term gay communists who have learned the goals of this project and the norms of this subculture. When you've just started editing Wikipedia is often the most perilous time for a new editor because it's very easy to stumble into a pretty bad mistake just from not having learned that Wikipedia is a rather particular part of the Internet with a very unique set of norms and folkways. This is a dangerous mix when combined with initial enthusiasm compounding a focus on what we call contentious topics and a username that will attract scrutiny.

Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about editing. Wikipedia editors are generally approachable and will generally take good-faith inquiries about rules, norms and expectations as just that - good faith enquiries. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Springee (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Democratic Socialists of America. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Removing incorrect BLP notice. Good faith, but I made a mistake. Driftingdrifting (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? GayCommunist1917 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences were taken directly from the body of the present article. The issue of Israel and the Gaza War (and allegations of genocide) have played a major role in the campaign and it's weird mot to mention them. GayCommunist1917 (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nowhere on that page or in linked citations that it claims that the individual is "Ideologically adhering to socialism". Driftingdrifting (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? There's multiple citations in the article that state that. It's also found on his campaign website. GayCommunist1917 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no that's totally my fault, I was going to fast. Sorry @GayCommunist1917 Driftingdrifting (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, that's my bad, sorry, I've been reviewing politics vandals too long tonight. Do you want me to revert or do you want to update. I'll remove the tag here.

I find the shift from saying he is a member of DSA to saying he has socialist ideals a little bit of an odd rephrasing, but that's totally a nit. Apologies again. Driftingdrifting (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. Could you revert? I already got false flagged above for edit warring on the DSA page. I just learned that there's more restrictions regarding Israel/Palestine-related topics today but nothing there seems to violate WP: BLP.

Zambani doesn't identify himself as a strong, reliable member of the Democratic Party and prefers to emphasize his DSA and democratic socialist stances. Therefore, I don't think it presents a BLP issue by focusing on his DSA affilation, as that is the specific reason he entered the race.

No worries! I was a bit confused. GayCommunist1917 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, apologies again, there are folks constantly trying to add "IS A SOCIALIST" to every politician left of Reagan, and I misread your edit and jumped the gun. Driftingdrifting (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GayCommunist1917! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Democratic Socialist Party several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Democratic Socialist Party, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. I also think including Marxist-Leninists as the first group listed when they are an almost non-existent minority in the party is wrong. Des Vallee (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary socialists make up a majority of the PNC and have since 2023. WP: ONUS dictates that the original version should stay that a false consensus doesn't emerge. I am however happy to talk about revising the article (or being overruled) if a consensus develops. The suggested edits are WP: PEACOCK and WP: OR. GayCommunist1917 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

as a fellow gay propalestinian editor, i strongly suggest you use edit requests on the talk page if you want to edit in the israel palestine topic area (broadly construed).

any admin who sees your edit summary suggesting that you already know about the conflict area, that you arent supposed to be editting yet, but that you are deciding to do so as provocative and may place sanctions.

if you want to show goodfaith understanding maybe consider self reverting any of your israeli palestine changes and doing WP:EDITREQUESTs on the talk page Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it considering getting involved in the topic area if the text is already contained within the article? I've only been an active editor since last month and I'm not entirely familar with the somewhat Byzantine rules surrounding Wikipedia and politics. Do the edits seem alright with you? I'm not planning on touching the Israel/Palestine articles for the foreseeable future. I'm going to focus on where I live and national politics for the most part.

And thanks for reaching out! :) GayCommunist1917 (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

anything even somewhat related to israel palestine conflict anywhere on wikipedia is considered off limits before 500 edits. (i was told that by an admin and had to wait to 500 myself) as per WP:ARBECR anyone may revert your edit if they want without any question, though they dont necessarily have to.

im not an admin and most admins would probably just post that alert above.

however, mentioning that you know about the sanction in the edit summary means you cannot completely plead ignorance, which means an admin is slightly less likely to be forgiving. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i dont mean to scare you, but best to work up to 500 edits and tread carefully if you want to stick around in the most controversial topic areas Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Will do! GayCommunist1917 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in regards to Mamdani article

Hello,

The edits you keep making to the article's lede are unnecessary and frankly seem to be in bad faith. I believe you've been consistently breaking consensus by adding "socialist" to the lede, I know you reference the Eugene V. Debs article's inclusion of "socialist", but Debs was a member of the Socialist Party who was very ideologically committed to socialism as it existed in early 20th century US. Mamdani is, if anything, ideologically aligned with democratic socialism, and I could understand using that descriptor instead.

Also, the Gaza war has not been a significant part of this campaign and his life in politics at-large. It's definitely worth including information in the body, but the Israeli-Palestinian is not central to his existence and most secondary sources don't see that as such. There are few times when he discusses it outside of being pressed by media.

Lastly, I do think you've been editing a bit too fast as another user mentioned in this talk page, it's better to take time making careful edits. Please discuss your thoughts with me. Vintastic7 (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith? I'm literally a communist. Mamdani's socialism has been a central part of the campaign and deserves mention. Democratic socialism is a much more amorphous term. (However, I think it's fine.)

Israel-Palestine has been a big issue (hyped up by both Mamdani and Cuomo) and deserves mention, imo. However because it's sanctioned I'm not going to touch the part of the article in the foreseeable future.

Let me know if there's anything I can do! GayCommunist1917 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved in left-wing politics for a significant period of time. I also used to call myself a communist, but being involved in canvassing and politics as they exist on the ground has made me realize how badly that term sits the general public. Mamdani seems to have specifically designated himself as a democratic socialist, as in all of his social media and as reported by many sources. "Socialism" can imply a wide range of different tendencies, as I'm sure you know, and Mamdani has chosen to specifically identify with democratic socialism. While I agree that the definition for that can be a bit vague at times, I believe it has certain qualities (at least in the US) that distinguish it from other forms of socialism.

By the way, I saw your edits to the DSA article and being someone who's spent years in YDSA and DSA, I don't think it's worth including small ideological caucuses in the article's lede. Groups like Red Star (the ML caucus) are small and are worth mentioning in the article's body, but the vast majority of DSA members tend to be reformists in one form or another. A minority of Dems identify with democratic socialism, but that isn't mentioned in the article for Democratic Party.

Also yes, I think the Gaza war issue is a bit too sensitive to include so high up in the article. If he had dedicated his entire political life BDS or the cause in general, I could see it being mentioned in the lede. Mamdani is trying to win this race, and if it isn't necessary to mention such a sensitive topic so prominently, we should put it where it needs to be (within the policy positions section). Vintastic7 (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GayCommunist1917, I visited your talk page to discuss the Mamdani page and found that Vintastic7 was two steps ahead of me. For the last couple of weeks, you've been editing the Mamdani page pretty frequently. That's fine. The problem is that you keep making the same/similar edits over and over despite the fact that they keep getting reverted. What you are doing is known as edit-warring, and it isn't constructive. For now, I'd suggest that you take any ideas for potential edits to the Mamdani article to the talk page and run them by other editors until you get a better idea of what material to include and what material to exclude. Just a helpful suggestion for you to consider. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 15, 2025

Your recent editing history at 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators 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. Mikewem (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors were making changes. There's no edit war. See the talk page of the article. GayCommunist1917 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you make me collect diffs (links to individual edits) to prove your edit warring, those will be the evidence used to ban you. I'm trying to engage constructively instead of just getting you banned (probably for a day or two).

You clearly want the anti-abortion content in the article. Other editors do not. Please stop, and take it to Talk instead of edit warring. Mikewem (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Could you join talk? GayCommunist1917 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Democratic Socialists of America. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I really don't need someone who stated I'm communist and my friends who are in DSA would be very surprised to hear that they're not far-left, not set on abolishing capitalism, or prefer Bernie Sanders-type reformism. as rationale to an article to try to explain OR. Des Vallee (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]