ErickTheMerrick

July 2024

Hello, I'm Yue. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Popular Movement of the Revolution, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yue🌙 19:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Libyan Arab Republic

Stop reverting my edits for the Libyan Arab Republic. Your edits make the pages way too oversimplified and broad, they make the pages worse WildRaptor777 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking to me: no, actually. It's hardly an issue unique to you, but you do not understand what infoboxes are designed to communicate. They are not meant to be complicated or detailed. There is an entire article you can write, so stop fixating on stuffing as much detail as possible into the infobox until it becomes totally useless to readers. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. — Remsense ‥ 论 03:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It isn't too much and it is not totally useless to readers. It clearly states the form of government in a comprehensive way. It's really not that much text, nobody is going to get overwhelmed reading it. Plus you keep removing the anthem and langauges too. Those are there for most other country's wiki pages so I don't get why they shouldn't be for this one in particular. WildRaptor777 (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I also just realized I made this comment on my own page lol WildRaptor777 (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fascist Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitary. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Userbox name

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Userbox name, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello ErickTheMerrick! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Userboxes, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Hasmonean dynasty. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 14:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Savoyard state, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States of Colombia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you bot, good bot ErickTheMerrick (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You're edits at People's Socialist Republic of Albania

Hi

You're edits on the People's Socialist Republic of Albania article are downright wrong, and you should, instead of reverting, start a discussion about it on the talk page. Don't pretend there is a consensus when it clearly does not exist! TheUzbek (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, now you have started one and now we are discussing, are we not? You dont need to start a discussion on my talk page. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Karakalpakstan Sovereign Republic

friend, what I changed is not vandalism, the constitutions of Uzbekistan and Karakalpakstan say that Karakalpakstan is a Sovereign Republic, part of Uzbekistan, if you don’t believe me, you can read the constitutions of both republics Qaraqalpaq patriyotı (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It says a sovereign republic within Uzbekistan, as in an autonomous republic. Its the same t ErickTheMerrick (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• it's the same thing ErickTheMerrick (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

Please do not add or change content, as you did at National Congress Party (Sudan), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi ErickTheMerrick! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Cameroon 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:Cameroon, 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. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 00:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, it is completely unacceptable that you reinstated your change without a word after a discussion was started where clear reasons disputing it were given. Remsense ‥ 论 00:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Clear the air

Hey, I know we've quickly come to loggerheads over these issues, but I don't want to fight and I don't want anyone to feel frustrated or afraid to edit or whatever. Can we clear the air and settle things on a more abstract sense, without relating to any particular article? I know I can be pretty vociferous so this might sound hypocritical, but you directly mocking the way I wrote on Talk:Cameroon made me feel briefly like I couldn't work with you. But that's not true. I hope we can work it out. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 00:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m sorry for my mocking among other things. I’ve been going through a rough time with life stuff and have been overly rude. I do hope I can convince you on some things and that we can try and work to find a common ground. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate that. Remsense ‥ 论 00:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

What I want to make more clear is that, while I've often been the one to first notice much of the time, I do not feel I have a particularly strong or limiting interpretation of the guidelines here. There are absolutely other editors with a lot of experience with even stricter tastes. Remsense ‥ 论 00:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Another example that might be illustrative: with Beiyang government specifically, note that we've needed to add years awkwardly so that it is not totally ambiguous what the presence of the Empire represents. That we need to "hack" the presentation like that shows we are trying to do something that is not what the parameter is designed for. Really, I think it's important that parameters can be read as straightforward, uncontroversial answers to the most basic questions about a topic: "What followed the Beiyang Government – the split into Nationalist- and Communist-controlled areas, of course." Remsense ‥ 论 01:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I see your point pretty well, but I still think it would be a good idea to show that the empire existed there as a successor and predecessor. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It's just conflating two relations of totally different qualities. You cannot really describe the Empire as a "predecessor" or "successor" state of the Beiyang government and leave it at that—that would be completely misleading, wouldn't it? Remsense ‥ 论 01:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Possibly. I dont really know. I don't have strong opinions on this particular subject. I think it should be mentioned somewhere close to the top in the article. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it's not presently mentioned in the body of the lead, and probably should be. Would that work? Remsense ‥ 论 01:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

CEDA

So were you using the IP range 2800:2503:9:C355:0:0:0:0/64 to make prior edits diff 1 and diff 2 to the CEDA article? — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No. I did see you accusing someone else of that though. Why not include the far-right label? They had plenty of sources for it ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted that IP's edit because they were evading the block of User:Holiptholipt (SPI archive). When someone is blocked from editing due to block or ban evasion, their edits may be all reverted even if they are supposedly correct or sourced, which is why I removed it. Your restoration of that blocked IP's edit got me a bit alert here as a result. Anyways, thanks for answering, no worries. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for explaining ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Please use Preview

Hi there, not real sure what happened in your recent changes at Sudan People's Liberation Movement (fixed now, no worries), but please use Preview, and please only use nowiki when it's really called for. It can easily make a mess. Just a heads up - thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’m new to adding sources and stuff like that on here and I’m not really sure about how to fix it. I wanted to do it by myself because nobody else added the info and it ended up not working out well. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I do apologize for causing such a mess with my citations. Thanks a lot for fixing them. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Your recent WP:OR edits

So as to avoid an edit war, I'd like to discuss your recent edits to political party pages that add uncited political positions (or positions puportedly supported by citations that actually don't directly support the position). The No Original Research policy on Wikipedia defines Original Research as

material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists

and is unambiguous about the fact that

To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

I think several of your recent edits ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) violate this policy, and I would ask that you don't make more such edits. You said in this edit summary that

I looked for a source and couldn’t find one.

and

You have to infer sometimes.

which aren't valid exceptions to the NOR policy. I understand the compulsion to draw conclusions from other information present in the article, but adding uncited information only diminishes the encyclopædia's credibility. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I know. It’s just that your needless reverting of my edits is starting to get on my nerves. I don’t believe you need a source for literally everything. It should be obvious for example, that a left-communist group would be far-left. They are to the left of Marxist-Leninists, an ideology already positioned on the far-left. You don't need to find a source for that. Plus, despite my looking, I sometimes just can’t find any sources for some of the obscure political group/parties. In these cases, it should be fine to just go off of ideology alone. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

it should be fine to go off ideology alone I hope you understand that that isn't your call, it's not even my call, the original research policy states that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. That's a blanket rule. It could be considered WP:SYNTHESIS to say The party is described as Marxist-Leninist, Marxism-Leninism is described as far-left, therefore the party must be far-left. "A + B, therefore C" isn't how Wikipedia works, as Wikipedia editors we aren't supposed to draw conclusions from multiple sources and insert those conclusions into articles. I don't want to give the impression that I'm making personal judgements about you as a person or as an editor, I just want you to stop making edits that aren't backed up by reliable sources. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what else to tell you. It’s simply ridiculous to not label left communist and maoist group as far-left just because there’s no source. This is like seeing as group called “The Nazi Party for Hitler lovers” and saying “oh no, we can’t label them as far-right, there’s no source for that”. You need to make these decisions sometimes. It may not be the most policy perfect thing, but anything otherwise is frankly, ridiculous. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

If you find Wikipedia policies to be ridiculous, then maybe editing the encyclopædia isn't for you. I don't know what else to say at this point. You're arguing against a strawman now, there isn't a party called "The Nazi Party for Hitler Lovers", if there were, we'd be having a conversation about that, (side note: a name like that would be a believable name for an insensitively-named frivolous political party, so watch out). If you continue to add unsourced content to articles, I'll have to put a report up on the Administrators' Noticeboard, since I feel I've exhausted all other options. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I’ll keep being an editor, thank you. I’ll leave this issue alone, but I still believe myself to be right on this issue. Your hyper sensitivity to having no source for things that frankly, don’t particularly need them, is quite damn annoying so please make sure I never have to interact with you ever again. Kindly leave my talk page, get a life, and don’t let the door (A fictional thing! Like the Hitler party thing, which was hyperbole btw so don’t get your panties in a twist (Can’t really think of a more PC term sooooo…)) hit you on the way out. Have a lovely evening. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Could have rephrased some things better here, case Jin point, *Your hyper sensitivity to having no sources to things that should already be obvious and don't really need them* ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Going back to the original point, the arguments of 'X ideology is left, thus Y party is left' is faulty. Especially when the sourcing stretches from other countries decades earlier. Take your edit on Libyan ASU. The notion that Nasserism was a left-wing movement in Egypt is debatable, but not necessarily untrue. On one hand Nasser promoted nationalizations and independent foreign policy, on the other hand he repressed the Egyptian left and labour movements. But to say that Nasserists, decades later, would be leftists by default does not hold up. Nasserism was factured in left and right tendencies. In South Yemen at one point, Nasserists were the main right-wing force. And so forth. --Soman (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks a lot. I hope your truly have a lovely day and perhaps maybe think about spending your time in a better way. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ErickTheMerrick,

It would help a lot if you commented on this discussion. I'd like to hear your perspective on this dispute. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed I wasn’t supposed to. I’ll share my own perspective on this then. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Again? Buddy, leave it alone ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have some personal gripe with me? This is getting comical now ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said before, participating in these discussions, which can involve a loss of editing privileges, is better than ignoring them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add there that I can think of. I stand by my edits and what I've said, though some of the language had been harsh, I've restrained from using vulgar language as to not warrant an actual ban. I do enjoy editing on Wikipedia so I wouldn't want to be banned from it, but it isn't really in my control right now. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@ErickTheMerrick, I don't want to split this discussion over two different pages. Please come to the ANI thread. Right now, you're letting other editors speak for you. Those editors want you blocked; if you say nothing, it is inevitable that you will be. -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

Hello, I'm JayBeeEll. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Bulgarian Communist Party that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JBL (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kingdom of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOB

As I've mentioned more than a few times, WP:SOB is a guideline you keep violating in your edits. Like all guidelines it is not considered optional, and it is a guideline for a good reason. Please abide by it. I do not know how not to sound passive aggressive about this, but I am trying my best. Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

What specific edit do yo have issue with? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• you ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  Each one where you violate WP:SOB. Remsense ‥ 论 00:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Examples would be good. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  What is your understanding of what the linked section says? Remsense ‥ 论 00:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  ? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Broadly, what does WP:SOB say? I am not trying to play mindgames, but it's not fair to put the entire burden of comprehension here on other editors—especially those who have explained the specific problem vis à vis a policy to you before. Policies are written down for a reason—for editors to read. Remsense ‥ 论 01:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Okay. Thanks? Do have a nice day regardless. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Could you please answer the question? I do not want to have to fight with you about this anymore. I want to be able to leave you alone, and this is the only thing I can think of to accomplish that. Remsense ‥ 论 01:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully, back off. I don't have to answer a question from you. I also do not want to fight with you but you are currently bothering me with this insignificant argument and I really just don't feel like doing this shit right now. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully, I'm asking in good faith and want to work with you, but I don't know how else to do so. If you really think providing specific examples of your edits would help, I will provide them, but I don't see how unless you actually know what the policy you're violating says.

  I don't want you to get blocked out of apparent refusal to abide by our Manual of Style—in turn creating semi-perennial disruption and work for others to do. If you find it impossible to take me in good faith here then I am sorry, but that is how it is meant and that seems to be where we are headed. Remsense ‥ 论 03:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trumpism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nativism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

ideologies

Hi. I'm trying to maintain good faith here, but I think a number of editors are concerned about your approach to sources and facts. Finding yourself in multiple edit conflicts in parallel ought to be an indicator of something. For example,

• look, the notion that PFLP would be 'Christian socialist' is really a WP:FRINGE point. You've now reinstated the obvious troll edit twice. Granted that this term exists in one document, but the point here is that we can't just grab anything available on the internet and extrapolate on it.
• Adding a 1962 unpublished document as a reference on present-day positions is not ok. And as illustrated in Talk:Left_Front_(West_Bengal)#Socialist_Unity_Centre, it seems you had not read it before using it as a reference. I apologize if my tone might be somewhat snarky, but what part of that text did you intend to use as a reference?
• On Labour Party of Indonesia you misread the article body. The use of the term 'anarcho-syndicalist' was clearly a pejorative used by Sukarno.
• National communism clearly isn't an apt label for KPRF. It refers to a specific historical phenomenon, of which KPRF clearly isn't part of.
• On the discussion on Stalinism, you seem to be under the impression that Strasserism is a variant of ML (!).

Overall, I'd suggest trying to avoid being disruptive across a large span of articles, to be more cautious of how sources are used, listen to the inputs of others and avoid sticking to labels when accuracy is placed in doubt. -- Soman (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Not a troll edit, but I think the others were right on this specific edit and I'll leave it out.
• I did mess up that, yeah.
• You linked the wrong thing, but looking back at that edit, I did misread it. Apologies.
• I concede.
• You seem to have misread what I said, I meant variants of all ideologies. I see how my wording could be confusing here though. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)