User talk:Pol revision

Welcome!

Hi Pol revision! I noticed your contributions to Persecution of Christians in North Korea and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Workers' Front (Spain) (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Goldsztajn was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Aricle not quite demonstrative of notability, Spanish article on the group es:Frente Obrero (España) appears to have more suitable sorucing.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Workers' Front (Spain) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Goldsztajn (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pol revision! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Goldsztajn (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Workers' Front (Spain)

Hello, Pol revision. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Workers' Front".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 11:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Vaquero

Hi, thanks for your copy edit of the article. I accept that it might be better to call Vaquero's beliefs patriotism over nationalism because the source says "Hoy hemos venido a reivindicar la patria, la República y el socialismo" and "la lucha de la clase obrera y a la defensa de la patria", rather than la nación. Additionally I can concede that FO's support of the unity of Spain is patriotic not nationalistic, given that it's the same view as PSOE, or how the UK Labour Party supports union.

However where did you find in the source that Vaquero opposes nationalism? It says his movement opposes "nacionalismos periféricos" but so do Vox. There is a quote "Se consideran a si mismos "laicistas, republicanos, socialistas y antinacionalistas"." but that's talking about another republican group on the left and contrasting them with FO. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from Great Replacement conspiracy theory without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You removed debunked. It's nonsense which is why we call it a conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debunked is an opinion. And a conspiracy theory is not necessarily debunked by definition. Some conspiracies theories have been proved real (i.e Gladio Operation), some others not and some have been debunked.

If you were to ask me, I don't think the G.R.T. has been debunked since it is no a conspiracy theory like the white genocide theory.

The G.R.T. establishes that Europeans are being demographically replaced but it does not establish when will this replacement end nor it does mention an organized secret group. It is impossible to "debunk" right now, regardless of the opinion one may have of it.

I don't want to get to my opinion of it, it is quite irrelavant. My point is writing "debunked" there is an opinion, and wikipedia should focus on neutrality. Pol revision (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about natural demographic change. It is about a specific conspiracy theory, as documented in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article there is no such conspiracy in itself. It just claims a political elite is pushing for immigration, but not necessarily through a "secret malevolent organization".

In example, hypothetically, one politician could give nationality to immigrants to obtain votes from them. No conspiracy there. A different thing would be to say there is some "secret international jewish organization" that wants to destroy the white race etc., etc.

In any case, even if it was a conspiracy theory, that doesn't mean it is inherently fake. The Gladio Operation was a conspiracy theory and turned out to be real. Pol revision (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article and the many discussions on the talk page. The word "conspiracy" can be found in the article 98 times for good reason. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. What is that good reason?

By the way, you are avoiding my point, a conspiracy theory can still be true, and Wikipedia must be neutral to that possibility. Pol revision (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not avoiding your question and you have not shown any lack of neutrality. I suggested that you read the article where all of this is explained with citations from reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources that state that with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites ethnic French and white European populations at large were culturally replaced by non-white peoples, you can provide them at the article talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about the theory being real or not, it is about Wikipedia mantaining a more or less neutral position. Wikipedia is about exposing referenced information to the user, not mantaining a narrative. This does not mean that a "debunk" cannot be shown —in fact, it must!— but from a linguistic neutrality at the very least.

Again, you avoid my question despite claiming not to:

Can a conspiracy theory be true? Respond to this starting with yes or no.

You also asked me to find reliable sources that demonstrates that a replacist elite is demographically substituting Europeans or French. First of all, what do you define reliable? And if I find them can I removed the "debunked" assertion? Pol revision (talk) 14:48, 1 April 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.

Doug Weller talk 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]