User talk:TheUzbek

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that in this edit to Central Committee elected by the 8th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that in the future :) --TheUzbek (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could not edit you're talk page, but I've also added more features such as if they were reelected or not or if they were long-standing members or not. --TheUzbek (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk page is protected due to prior harassment involving a separate issue, but if it helps, consider using Page preview for future edits. Thanks! :) Jalen Folf (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Egeymi. I noticed that you recently changed content from Arkady Volsky 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. Thanks. Egeymi (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced info about his nationality and it is not a big deal. --Egeymi (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Egeymi: I see that Ukrainian and Russian WP refer to him as Belarusian. --TheUzbek (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But these are circular sources. There should be a third-party source. If you find a reliable source, you may add, of course. Happy editing, --Egeymi (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Apologies, I meant to give a heads up on some of the recent edits. Now categorizing historical figures by ethnicity on Wikipedia is always complex, because present-day understandings of ethnicity and nationality don't necessarily match the way those identities were construed at the time. For example, people living in the lands that today constitute the Republic of Lithuania weren't necessarily Lithuanians - in Vilna/Vilnius Poles and Jews outnumbered Lithuanians. The notion that Grigory Sokolnikov would be 'Ukrainian-Jewish' is also dubious, from what I can gather the categorization is based on applying the label 'Ukrainian Jews' to Jews that lived in areas that constitute present-day Ukraine. The label 'Russian-Jewish' is a political minefield, as implying that those categories would be mutually exclusive is contested. And so forth. Ideally such a categorization scheme would need a reliable, independent source. --Soman (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: I understand what you mean. The reason why I added the ethnicity column is that this was of scholarly interest when foreign observers analysed the Central Committee/Secretariat/Politburo make-up. It also showcases Russian-Ukrainian dominance of the Soviet political scene.

I do, however, concur with you. Ethnicities, especially for the early CCs, is hard to find and have their own peculiar meaning in contrast to the ethnic categories in let say the 1960s.--TheUzbek (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Busy creating a timeline of members for the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union here. Good work on revamping the Politburo pages! Having said that, could I ask for your help in checking that the dates in the timeline are correct, and other improvements like simplifying, etc, where possible? Thanks! SuperWIKI (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: Sorry, I've been inactive of late. Do you still ned help? :) --TheUzbek (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I'm taking a significant break from it because there's so many of them? Finishing off the last few in particular. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: If I was you I would remove mentions of "Party leader", "head of state" and "Premier". Party leader is not really the correct term, and head of state and premier were not that important (what was important was Politburo membership). I would also change "Full member" to just "Member" and "Candidate Members" to "Candidates". I would also remove "military" and "security" background. For instance was Andropov a security man? He became one, but wasn't one at the beginning. In fact he was a civilian head of the KGB. Same goes for the majority of them. Military men too.. Was Voroshilov military? In some sense yes and in some sense no.

I would simplify the timeline since it would both make it easier for the reader but also convey the information as factually as possible. --TheUzbek (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheUzbek

Thank you for creating Central Committee of the 2nd Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Thanks! :) --TheUzbek (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presidium of the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hao Peng. 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) 06:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 4th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hà Đông.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siz o'zbekmisiz? 178.120.16.135 (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:3rd Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Members of the 8th Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheUzbek. Thank you for your work on 13th Central Inspection Commission of the Communist Party of Vietnam. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! I hope you will write more articles. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Template:Infobox Central Committee outline 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. Since you unaware of how to resolve duplicate parameter errors, you should ask for help before changing the infobox again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just wanted to thank you for updating the information regarding WPK politburo membership. Really great job. Rakoon (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) --TheUzbek (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My job is not to concern myself with what you think is or isn't the "proper" history — my job is to ensure that Wikipedia process is followed.

If you think a page is incorrectly titled and needs to be renamed, you may certainly propose a renaming through the requested moves process, but you are not entitled to just arbitrarily move the page from its longstanding title of many years yourself without discussion to establish a consensus that renaming is actually warranted. And if you think a category is incorrectly titled and needs to be renamed, you may propose a renaming through the categories for renaming process, but you are not entitled to just arbitrarily create new categories yourself, and empty out the existing ones by replacing them with your new ones. If there's a problem, you follow Wikipedia's process for fixing the problem, because if you don't follow the correct process you're creating other problems that you hadn't considered, such as emptying out categories and leaving pages filed in categories that don't exist.

So, again, if there's a problem with the names of our articles or categories, you may follow the processes that are in place for getting them renamed; you may not just arbitrarily go in and mess around with everything yourself, and if I ever see another redlinked category on the cleanup list of redlinked categories that was put there by you, I'll be reporting you to WP:ANI for being disruptive. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article back to its existing title after somebody else moved the article away from its existing title without following the rules is not the same thing, so there's no rule that just because you were supposed to follow a process you didn't follow before you were allowed to move the article in the first place means that I had to follow the same process before I was allowed to put the article back where it was originally. So if you think you're gotcha-ing me, you're not.

So, again, you're welcome to follow the proper processes to propose moves for discussion, but you may not just move content yourself without discussing it, and I will be going to ANI if you give me even one further word of clapback about this. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not failing to get anything, because you're not telling me anything I'm supposed to understand any differently than I do. You can't just discuss a major series of page moves and category name changes with one person — you have to propose them for a proper discussion through the requested moves and categories for renaming processes. I don't give a flying honk what you did or didn't discuss with one person on their own personal user talk page: you didn't list the pages for proper discussion through the established processes for getting content renamed, which is the thing you have to do.

And you're the one breaking stuff: you're emptying out existing categories without discussion, you're leaving a trail of redlinked categories behind you that aren't allowed to be on pages, and you're moving pages that rightly or wrongly have been at their current titles for years and thus require discussion about whether renaming is warranted or not.

Follow the proper processes, and leave me the hell alone. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said there are processes you can follow to get content renamed if it needs renaming. But doing it the way you're doing it, you're breaking things — emptying out existing categories out of process, leaving a trail of redlinked categories that don't exist to have articles in them behind you, and on and so forth — that can't be left broken. So by doing it the way you're doing it instead of through the proper process, you're making a mess that other people have to fix. Which is precisely why we have processes for getting content renamed if it needs to be renamed, so that stuff doesn't get broken.

FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCESSES, AND LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: How did the title "Central Committee of the 6th Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks)" leave redlinks? You can't explain; I thought so... --TheUzbek (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said redlinked categories, sunshine, not redlinked page titles. You left a trail of redlinked categories behind you in your arbitrary out-of-process renaming of categories. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I find it incredible that you started an argument, and a whole process no one needed, because of a stupid rule and you can't seem to admit that you were wrong. You've failed in every message you've posted here to be collaborative and helpful. And you've proven that best by blocking me from you're talk page because you don't like to discuss the problem you alone created. No one asked you to fix this; this is one you and no one else. You're mistake, you're uncollaborative behaviour. And you know what the worst thing is? I wanted to collaborate and I showed good faith, but showing good faith doesn't mean getting anything in return it seems. TheUzbek (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create a problem. You created a problem, by moving content out of process which had the result of breaking stuff — and if stuff is broken, then somebody has to fix it. You're not allowed to empty out existing categories without discussion, and you're not allowed to leave a trail of redlinked categories behind you, and if you do those things somebody has to fix them.

There's a reason that we have processes for getting pages and categories renamed if they need to be renamed — because you can break stuff if the process isn't done correctly. Categories don't just exist in isolation, but are part of a relational tree with parent and child categories that can be impacted if you aren't careful, and edit histories that get broken by the change because you used the wrong method to rename the category, and you can sometimes even break templates or maintenance tools that were depending on the old category — so you do not rename a category by just creating a new one and manually moving all the pages out of the old one, because there are a lot of other moving parts that also have to be taken into account. So you rename a category by listing it for the categories for renaming process, so that all the moving parts get dealt with, and there aren't old empty categories and broken templates and things left sitting on the floor.

So whatever this is, it isn't me failing to be collaborative. You caused a problem that had to be fixed, and then you started flinging shit at my head when I explained that we have processes in place for doing what you're trying to do, and I'm somehow the bad guy here? Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: You're talking about renaming categories and I have no clue what you're talking about.. I've created new categories to correspond with the electoral terms.. --TheUzbek (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: You also forgot WP:BeBold. I saw a factual inaccuracy and moved the article to its correct name... Then you started a discussion no one sought and gave the article an historical inaccurate name about an organisation that did not exist in the time span. You broke WP! --TheUzbek (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I broke no rules, and I'm not the one who had a responsibility to initiate a discussion about anything — you are.

You are, once again, never allowed to file anything in a redlinked category that does not exist to have things filed in it — so if you leave content filed in redlinked categories, then somebody has to make the redlinked categories go away, because the redlinked categories can't be there. And this also goes for your user sandbox page, by the way. It cannot be filed in redlinked categories that do not exist, and it cannot be mixed with articles in categories that do exist. And neither of those are optional rules that you're free to disregard at your own personal leisure — they are mandatory rules that must always be followed. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Then explain to me why WP:BOLD is not valid, that you moved the article to a historically inaccurate name and so on? I wonder what the excuse is going to be this time! --TheUzbek (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheUzbek,

You seem to be creating a lot of categories that then need to be deleted. So, in trying to improve the project, you are creating work for other editors, in this case, admins, to clean up after you. Please do not just create categories that you think you might want only to later change your mind. Or create categories that you later decide should have a different page title. Be thoughtful and intentional in your page creation. Only create categories that will fit into the existing Wikipedia category structure.

This behavior has happened with other editors in the past and it can lead to a topic ban from working with or creating categories. So, please be a productive and conscientious content creator and do not create pages that need to be deleted minutes later. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: You're right, I was working a bit to fast and made categories with the wrong name. I am sorry about that! I'll try not to make that happen again :) --TheUzbek (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You made some changes to this template a short time ago but it looks like the groups at the end were incorrectly numbered. I changed the numbers – please check that I did so correctly. This template is used on several hundred pages, and the error showed up on all of them.

Ira Leviton (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page Category:Central Auditing Commission of the 19th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) has been deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. As the page met any of these strictly-defined criteria, it was deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been deleted are:

• The category had been empty for seven days or more and it was not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories. (See section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page Category:27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (section) has been deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. As the page met any of these strictly-defined criteria, it was deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been deleted are:

• The category had been empty for seven days or more and it was not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories. (See section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Central Committee of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First issue: please don't remove categories like you did at League of Communists of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Croatia/Kosovo/Macedonia/Montenegro/Serbia/Slovenia/Vojvodina and whereever else. I presume you did it because you saw them redundant with categorization of their own categories, but that is not a practice followed on Wikipedia. Both articles and their own categories should be appropriately categorized to same categories, when both exist.

Second issue: WP:SMALLCAT. You seem to have created a ton of one-page and one-subcategory categories and all this does is make navigation slower and less convenient. I think you should slow down with that and discuss with other editors whether this is something Wikipedia wants.

Your non-category contributions seem great on first glance, though. Please consider these remarks and have a good day! –Vipz (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: Thanks, I learnt something new about categorisation today! :) While I knew I created some of these categories early, I intend to create articles on every Central Committee term of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (and its republican and autonomous provincial branches). But I agree, I was a tad early, but when I first began I thought I could at least create the basic structure. I am surprised how badly the articles about the League of Communists are developed. --TheUzbek (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to have been of help in that case. While I don't see them as of utmost importance, these CC term articles/lists can come in handy, like when writing a new bio for one of these politicians. And yeah, these articles just like Yugoslavia in general aren't too well covered on English Wikipedia, but to tell you the truth, local language editions aren't much better either and sometimes even lag behind (efforts towards this coverage are being dispersed accross four Wikipedia editions based on varieties of Serbo-Croatian). I admire such an effort here on English-language edition being made by a non-speaker of any ex-Yugoslav language. As for the basic structure of categories, do try to assess in advance whether some of them have no prospect of growing past one (page/sub-category) member, especially those categories that match an article. I assume all those CC term categories that currently have only the matching article categorized into them are going to be expanded with members of each CC term? If yes, will they be categorized directly into those categories (e.g. this one) and not yet another subcategory called "Members of the Central Committee of the ..."? Cheers! –Vipz (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: See Category:Central Committee of the 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I've created a similar structure for the Vietnamese CC and its organs.

These articles are essential to a) showcase the changes in the communist elite, b) show who governed Yugoslavia, and c) create a detailed list with basic information (birth year, death year, branch, ethnicity el cetra) that can be used as a foundation for future WP articles. Ideally, these articles should be split into several for each term: Central Committee of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, Central Committee Apparatus of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and Members of the Central Committee of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. See 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, an article I wrote that I've taken a break from and needs much work to improve further.

If you have any suggestions on how I should structure these categories, please say so :) --TheUzbek (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll be able to reasonably populate all these categories while developing the structure, go ahead! I don't have any suggestions at the moment, but will let you know if/when I do. As for the further branching of articles, I'm not really inclined towards this. You have to keep in mind you'll have much, much less to write about an average CPY/LCY CC congress than a contemporary CPV CC congress. I would rather see it all written on one article first then discuss with other interested editors whether a split is warranted. And much, much was not an exaggeration... that's one huge article! Can't read it at the moment, but seems like good work. –Vipz (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: I entirely agree with you! First, splitting these articles is only warranted (as you say) if someone comes up with the necessary references, but I am not that man. But considering that the LCY decided on actual policy direction, one would think that it is notable enough to have its own stand-alone article. Second, you don't need to read it! My point was just that it is possible to split these articles up, but that's of course a lot of labour. --TheUzbek (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to categories, but just so you know, apart from the logos I also updated the color scheme of {{League of Communists of Yugoslavia}} to make better contrast and for links to hopefully stand out with brighter yellow. I used some of the existing communist party navbox templates for the shade of red used. Great progress with the articles by the way! –Vipz (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lovely! :) Thank you--TheUzbek (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again TheUzbek, we haven't interacted in a while. Just notifying you that Central Committee of the 4th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia lacks an infobox and Central Committee of the 13th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia lacks tables. So far so good, you quickly turned a whole bunch of red links into blue. –Vipz (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm still working on adding the missing candidates for the 4th CC and, as I wrote on you're talk page, I fear that I might not be able to complete the 13th CC since I neither can access the official documents or can speak Serbo-Croation. --TheUzbek (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to find something accessible but in Serbo-Croatian, do tell me or one of many other Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian / Croatian / Montenegrin / Serbian) speaking users here on Wikipedia to help out. –Vipz (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some time in the future I happen to come across relevant material, but unfortunately can't promise anything. –Vipz (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have noticed that there are no articles about members of Politburo and Secretariat of the ruling communist party in East Germany. There are only articles in German Liste der Mitglieder des Politbüros des ZK der SED and Liste der Mitglieder des Sekretariats des ZK der SED. Maybe it makes sense to create such articles in English. Of course, if you are interested. FlorianH76 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FlorianH76: Hi again! Yes, that's the plan! :) I aim to create CC articles for all the ruling Eastern European communist parties. My order of labour is as follows:

1. Finishing the Yugoslavs
2. Albanians
3. Hungarians
4. Romanians
5. Polish
6. East Germans
7. China
8. Only after this will I begin with the national republics of the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

Maybe I won't complete it, but that's my goal! The Yugoslav CCs are the most difficult because of the widespread use of ex-officio members and by-elections so it will take time. --TheUzbek (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are doing a great job! FlorianH76 (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam ordinal category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hi. I created the article Karl Rozental. Per a post in an online forum ( https://mytashkent.uz/2011/03/22/kratkaya-istoriya-razvitiya-svyazi-v-turkestanskom-krae/ ), Rozental would have moved on to work hold government roles in Uzbekistan, but I find no WP:RS to back this up. Is there any good listing of people's commissars in early soviet Uzbekistan (with deputies)? Notably the forum post get a lot of stuff wrong (like confusing Latvia and Lithuania), so perhaps it is from a non-Russian source where the poster mistranslates. The person answering the comment seems to be more accurate, getting the birth date and death date almost exactly as in one of the reference I got. The birth year 1886 seems to be a mix-up with K.G. Rozental. -- Soman (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: Thanks for asking me of all people! Not as I know of, sadly. I usually use the Handbook on History of the Communist Party and the Soviet Union 1898–1991 (knowbysight.info). I see from that source that he sat on the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Lithuania and Belarus ([1])

If I were you I'd send a PM to Ukrainian WP user MikeZah. He added the list of "Secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan". I am assuming-but I may be wrong-that if he held government offices in Uzbekistan (minister or something similar) he'd be a member of the CC. However, if this was in the early 1920s the odds are against that. However, given he managed to find a list of Secretaries of the CPU Central Committee I'd assume he might be able to find a list of cabinet members or so on.

At last, great article! :) --TheUzbek (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I found a Belarusian reference, that at least backs up that Rozental shifted to Uzbekistan at some point. My problem with the knowbysight.info ref is that the birth date and party entry date refers to Karl Gertovich Rozental [ru], although I presume that it is likely the info about CPLB CC membership. --Soman (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: What site? :)

Knowbysight: not this time! Look more closely; the CC candidateship is for you're Rozental. --TheUzbek (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that the info on CC candidateship is likely correct. However they give the birth year and party membership year of K.G. Rozental. --Soman (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: Aha! Yes, that database seems to have many "minor" errors. I understand why. It cannot be fun only adding numbers and years to individual people. That is a major problem with Yugoslav sources; official sources are terrible at recording birth years... They mix up years on several occasions. MOreover, while the books Who's Who in the Socialist Countries of Europe are good, they also have major problems with birth years.

In either case, thanks for asking me of all users this question. Sorry that I wasn't of much help. Good luck! --TheUzbek (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category2nd Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Incorrect title/namespace. Should’ve been in category namespace

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheUzbek,

You are creating hundreds of categories. And then you create hundreds of category redirects for some unknown reason. Please do not overcreate categories that won't be used. It takes no time to create dozens of categories but if they need to be discussed at WP:CFD, that takes at least out of people's lives. Make sure that the categories you create will be full and used by more than one article. Please do your page creation more thoughtfully and slowly. And category redirects are not necessary unless a category has been moved. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I've created them for specific articles, see Category:1st Standing Committee of the Indochinese Communist Party and Category:2nd Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Vietnam as two examples :) --TheUzbek (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam ordinal category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, TheUzbek! The list you nominated, 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well! –Vipz (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) TheUzbek (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

19th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party

added links pointing to President of China and Liu He

18th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party

added a link pointing to President of China

20th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party

added a link pointing to President of China

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TheUzbek, I wanted to reach out regarding the recent edit of mine you reverted. Sorry about that, that was definitely an airheaded mistake on my part. I think I made that mistake based off your name and because I reviewed a number of your past Uzbekistan-related articles, for which I added the Uzbekistan WikiProject tag to. Glad you caught my mistake. Thank you for your contributions and please do keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem but I've never created an Uzbek-related article before (maybe Soviet Uzbek...) :) In any case, thanks for helping! TheUzbek (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 12th Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheUzbek,

Please do not remove all of the contents of a category so that it is tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion. This act is called "emptying categories out of process" and is considered disruptive editing. If you believe a category should be renamed, merged or deleted, then nominate it at Categories for Discussion following the instructions on the main page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could I remove the graduate sections of the tables starting from the 13th Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party? That extra column is causing the other columns to be too narrow and the entire table to stretch unnaturally off the webpage. Births and deaths could be moved to a bracket under the member's names as well. SuperWIKI (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: Huh, I don't have that problem on any browser. I disagree with removing the graduate section and merging the year and death columns as well. The tables are small and has room to stretch on my computers and all browsers I use. It worked very well on this FL 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam: the only difference between that one and these lists are the images. --TheUzbek (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I will keep them as is. Please note that I did not mean any offence with that question. SuperWIKI (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you worry, you can be honest with me... I won't take it personally. The reason why I have birth year and party membership separate is that these two are essential indicators (especially in the present-day situation) of who will be re-elected, who won't be and who has a future in CPC politics. Being able to sort these columns also gives the users/readers the ability to see if the rejuvenation of the elite took place (it is more challenging when it is in a non-sortable column). The death year column, however, is unnecessary, but most people want them. Why is it uncessary? Death year has nothing to do with you're Politburo membership, especially in the post-Mao era when leading politicians retire before they die in office. TheUzbek (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheUzbek. I hope this note finds you well. I am lifting a partial block that currently applies to your account, in accordance with this discussion. Please continue avoiding the talk page in question. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you decide that it's meaningless. The editor changed sourced materials. Couldn't you see that? Egeymi (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Egeymi: He added way more sourced materials and removed a bit - a small amount - which sometimes happens when one edits articles. --TheUzbek (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No the editor removed most crucial parts and added secondary gossip-like content. Besides, I put a message to editor's talk page to add what he had deleted, but no response. Such removals cannot be considered ordinary acts and hope you don't remove something sourced from the pages while adding info.--Egeymi (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Secretariat of the Chinese Communist Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lin Feng.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheUzbek, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you! :) TheUzbek (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central Committee of the League of Communists of Macedonia has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Congress of the League of Communists of Macedonia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Organisation of the League of Communists of Macedonia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Central Committee of the 11th Congress of the League of Communists of Croatia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ivan Babić and Ivan Marković.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your unsourced edits will be reverted. You should provide sources. Egeymi (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, some of these are obvious.. like who was the premier of the USSR during her ministership... This is not controversial, and you chose to remove it... Removing the appellation "All-Union" is also stupidity because that was the official rank of the ministry.

But more annoyingly... You could have asked for a source before you reverted, but you chose to initiate a conflict for no apparent reason. Why? Have you forgotten that Wikipedia is about collaboration and not conflict? TheUzbek (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Egeymi (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the text above. You started a conflict, but you could have opted to write a nice text on my talk page and asked me for a source or asked me for a reasoning. You opted not to, and I have no clue as to why. TheUzbek (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should report you for your rudeness. You provide the source in your edit summary, why don't you put it into text?

Thank you for uploading File:Hamdija Pozderac.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 06:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it need any of that information when this is based on Fair Use? it is copyrighted. TheUzbek (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because non-free files must meet all 10 points of WP:NFCC, this is the fourth one. — Ирука¹³ 09:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I stumbled across your fantastically organized list of the 6th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party. I was impressed, and then I realized you've improved all the Politburo pages! Take this barnstar—those lists took effort, and are much appreciated. I look forward to seeing what you do in the future. SilverStar54 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverStar54: Thanks for the compliment! I will come back and fix the remaining articles when I'm finished with the Yugoslav LCY :) --TheUzbek (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, TheUzbek! The list you nominated, Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I mentioned you at Template talk:League of Communists of Yugoslavia and I'm wondering whether you missed my post. Still waiting for a response, cheers. –Vipz (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xi Jinping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capitalist mode of production.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Workers' Barnstar
		This user has shown great editing skills in improving articles related to Communism or Socialism.
		this WikiAward was given to TheUzbek by –Vipz (talk) on 22:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's always a nice feeling that the work you put in is appreciated! It helps, of course, having users like you here Vipz. It makes it a lot more fun and makes it even more addictive to edit this encyclopaedia. TheUzbek (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate! You're giving a good treatment to underdeveloped articles. Many high-importance socialist and communist articles are in a relatively unsatisfactory or poor state. I'm looking forward to more from you, so keep yourself busy. ;p Many thanks back for nice words! –Vipz (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote in your edit summary "I dont think you understand the infobox..." I assure you that I do. There were two name parameters and two different names in the infobox. You undid my revision and inserted another name so that there were again two name parameters, and both had the same name. I have deleted one, so now there is one name parameter with one name. I think it's all correct now, but if it's not, please insert the correct name. There can be only one name parameter in the infobox. Ira Leviton (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit fast, but you're fix turned the header into this: "2nd 2nd Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Vietnam" But what I didn't understand was that I had to identical columns, and that you removed one of them! TheUzbek (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party's individual terms are DRASTICALLY DAMAGED by leaving no clue as to which of the members are on that term's Standing Committee. It has always been conventional to include this information by some form or other in any roster of a Politburo, separate article or not. Even fifty-year-old almanacs I have that list Politburos designate the inner circles of them. Please leave this information alone! 71.105.190.227 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. They have different articles for a reason
2. This could be stated in the lead
3. You think this is a good edit; I don't. Instead of trying to force you're opinion, start a discussion on the talk pages. The old version is the old consensus version pr WP:CONSENSUS.

TheUzbek (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheUzbek! Thanks for all your work reformatting the Politburo articles and starting the Standing Committee articles! The unregistered editor who started this thread has twice now asked at the Helpdesk where to have a discussion to find consensus on the topic of whether and how to indicate Standing Committee membership in the individual Politburo articles, so I opened a discussion at Talk:Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party#Should Standing Committee members be indicated on individual Politburo articles?.

Your input would be super valuable there. Respectfully, Folly Mox (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lazar Mojsov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the 20th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, you can use data-sort-value to order the ranks of the members in the relevant column, rather than sorting them alphabetically by default. Here's a sample below:

Just for your information and convenience, have a great day! SuperWIKI (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll do that after I've finished referencing the individual members! TheUzbek (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to 20th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, however many of the names are links to disambiguation pages and there is often not enough information to identify which politician it should link to (if there is an article). A useful trick is to go to our preferences (drop down list top right), select the "gadgets" tab & scroll down to appearance & then put a tick next to "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange".— Rod ^talk 18:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know yet either, I thought it would un-disambig them after going through the list and referencing each individual member :) I probably should have done in the sandbox, but I felt the article needed a drastic working through so I gave myself the freedom to edit the article. I, however, hear what you are saying and I can tell you now: I'm working on it! TheUzbek (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

20th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party

added links pointing to Wang Jian, Liu Jun, Li Xiang, Wu Qing, Zhang Jing, Liu Qiang, Wu Hao, Wang Xudong, Kang Yi and Wu Qiang

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FenrisAureus -- FenrisAureus (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and Talk:Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FenrisAureus -- FenrisAureus (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia for comments about the article, and Talk:Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FenrisAureus -- FenrisAureus (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheUzbek. You added "Tito 1982" to Auditing Commission of the 8th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, but that's not defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the Bibliography section, or let me know what work this refers to?
Also if you haven't already you may want to turn on the error messages associated with short form refs, you can find the details of how to do so here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Tito 1982b" is also missing from Central Committee of the 5th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, there were others but I was able to find those. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing Central Committee of the 5th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, is that the same cite that is still missing from Auditing Commission of the 8th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for checking my lists! I can only take that as a compliment that you bother to do it! To be honest, for most of these individuals I just go on Google Books and search "[last name] [first name]" and then year, party year and death if I have, like this search where I searched "Đakonović Nikola" 1911 1937 1965

I have added both books now! TheUzbek (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheUzbek. I'm working on clearing down Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, which tracks such errors. Only another 6,500 or so articles to go.
I've noticed you solid progress in creating these article, happy editting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing great work! Heads-up, I created Conference and Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia; there are citeref errors there as well lack of refs more generally. I'll add them, hopefully, tonight! :) In other words, don't worry about these articles. TheUzbek (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You really should turn the error messages on, your latest is missing cites for "Staff writer 1971", "Staff writer 1973", and "Zaninovich 1974". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know; I tried to inform you about it above :) Read it, please! TheUzbek (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I missed that, I had unsubscribed from the thread. I'm trying to juggle to many things at the same time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but these are still missing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested I'm on it! Took a bit of a detour, but I have not forgotten about it. I'm on the finishing stages on the Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and Leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia :) I'm currently trying to translate some Serbo-Croatian sources; thats why its going slow! TheUzbek (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While looking into the footnote issues, I found that the ninth congress conference was held in April 1969, but that's not reflected here. Is there a difference between conference and convocation?

Thanks.

Reference:

Auty, Phyllis. “The Ninth Congress of the League of Yugoslav Communists.” The World Today, vol. 25, no. 6, 1969, pp. 264–76. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40394280. Andy02124 (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy02124 you are confusing conference and congress :) See Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia TheUzbek (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you again, but it's been a week and these are still outstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply! I've been busy in real life!

It's still on my list. What is the hurry? You already said there were more than "6,500" articles, and I'm focusing on this one. I'm more or less finished with Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and Leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia so, as I promised, my devotion will slowly creep into this direction! TheUzbek (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to have time for cleanup work, many Yugoslav office navboxes in Category:Yugoslavia political leader navigational boxes could be merged into one. In particular, I'm referring to all the separate navboxes for each period (19xx-19xx) that could easily just be sections in an unified navbox for each office. 👋 –Vipz (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I have merged some with the Template:League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Do you approve? It is now very massive, but it uses collapsible navboxes. TheUzbek (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this one: Template:LCY Presidency. TheUzbek (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the massive {{League of Communists of Yugoslavia}} merge, I think LCY branch navboxes should stay apart. On another hand, {{LCY Presidency}} is exactly what I meant. –Vipz (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of your honesty!

I just believe there is a comparative advantage of having one template than 8 ones since, as you know, there are two many pages where the are two many templates... I have tried to alter the Template:League of Communists of Yugoslavia more to your taste. TheUzbek (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each branch having its own section makes it more digestible, so I approve. However, I think the "Central Organisation" section should not be expanded by default when somebody expands the navbox. Instead, there should be a parameter akin to sidebars that opens an appropriate section, so that readers don't have to look for it. For example, Secretary of the Presidency of the League of Communists of Serbia would display the "Serbian Branch" section of the LCY navbox, given an appropriate parameter. –Vipz (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't get what you mean, except the part about treating the CO similarly to the branches (which I can do) TheUzbek (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe for example on article Social ownership how the section "Ideas" of the Socialism sidebar is uncollapsed/expanded by entering the "ideas" as the first parameter (in the code). –Vipz (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will get around to this if you don't, probably sometime tomorrow. –Vipz (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, please ping me so I can notice your replies quicker! Thank you. –Vipz (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz: Were you pinged now? ... But yes, that seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure how one implements it. So, if you are up to the task, please do it! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUzbek (talk • contribs) 08:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't pinged by this reply, but you forgot to sign your message, maybe it's related to that. –Vipz (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of placeholder images on the project in mainspace articles has been deprecated now for more than a decade. Please see the top of Category:Wikipedia image placeholders where it says "The use of these placeholders is deprecated. Many editors objected to their appearance, though some felt that they worked for the intended purpose.". Please see the top of Wikipedia:Image placeholders where it says "Image placeholders were formerly used on Wikipedia for biographies of living persons but have since been deprecated. As of 2020 all placeholder images have been removed from the main namespace.". There's been various WP:AN/I discussions as well that I could link to if you like. Bottom line, their use is deprecated on en.wiki. Please do not restore these images again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FenrisAureus -- FenrisAureus (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepest apologies, fellow traveller. I have been trying but I just don't have the focus to review your nomination of 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam right now. Extenuating circumstances necessitate that I withdraw as the reviewer. A bot will put the nomination back into the cue so you can find a new reviewer. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk)

The article 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FenrisAureus -- FenrisAureus (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct that it fails? Shouldn't you just leave the "review" and I can wait for another reviewer? TheUzbek (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has not failed. I do not know why the bot said this. I checked. The bot has put the nomination back on to the nominations page. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good! :) TheUzbek (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Central committee of the requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Central committee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apparatus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheUzbek. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You are doing great work so far! The best copyeditor I have had so far :) TheUzbek (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; i do my best! :) I've now finished my c/e, which was quite straightforward. I have reformatted some quotations into blockquotes; this includes a long-ish Tito quote that was in a {{quotebox}} in "History" --> "Collective leadership: 1978–1990", which I removed per MOS:PULLQUOTE; if the quoted material is relevant, it should be in the article. There weren't any other major problems, though the "Members" section seems to need more references. Good luck with the article and cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, and again, thank you! TheUzbek (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at East Germany 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. Moxy- 17:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your going to have to stop the mass chnage of goverment type all over. r WHY because many of this have been discussed a lot to get what we currently have. Moxy- 17:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pls see User talk:Nikkimaria#‎Government type Moxy- 17:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is why!

I, hopefully, hope you did not remove all my improvements on the communist state and socialist state article because of me! If you've read the Talk:socialist state you would have noticed that people agreed that the version you reverted to was bad.

But getting me blocked to only revert my changes seem "low". But I have to accept this punishment I guess. But, hopefully, instead of sticking to you're views you will listen to facts. Laos is not a socialist state, read its constitution. Angola never called itself a socialist state; read its constitution. TheUzbek (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Trust Is All You Need per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trust Is All You Need. 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 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I've checked the investigation, but I see no proof? Can someone at least prove that I am this person? I agree that I edit the same articles, but I have not, as far I know, had the same POV, for example. I do know, for instance, that Trust Is All You Need wrote Politics of the Soviet Union and the Government of the Soviet Union, but I strongly disagree with everything that is written in it. Notice that I have created unified power and the highest organ of state power? This user believed that there was separation of powers in the Soviet Union... As far as I know, I have been fixing errors these editors have made throughout my time here. At last, I have not been blocked here on WP, and I have for the most been very cooperative. Hopefully, you will give me a chance to prove myself. I am a good editor who has good contributions, aren't I? Concludingly, I will say that I am utterly shocked and saddened by this, and hopefully, there is a way out for me! TheUzbek (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In addition to the behavioural evidence that led to this block, there is technical evidence linking your account to Politikk (talk · contribs), including overlap on a very narrow IP range. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

@Ponyo: Fuck it, I was young, dumb and stupid, and I am still very stupid. But I also mean everything that I said... Have I been unproductive as of late? Can I never be forgiven? I am not even thirty years of age.......... can I never edit again, even if I contribute well? The reason why I lied is that I honestly did not believe I could ever be unblocked if I admitted it. Can't there be some process to re-include me? I mean, I haven't murdered anybody... I follow referencing procedures and do everything by the books (mostly). I mean, people serve a sentence for murder, paedophilia, and corruption, and they serve their due time. Can I never be unblocked? Don't my edits prove - at least in this more mature version of me (who is how much older?) - that would be a sad fact? --TheUzbek (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your only, very narrow pathway towards being unblocked is the standard offer process- and every time you evade the block on your original account the path gets narrower. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@331dot: But I can accept that if it means I can stop this nonsense: half a year block will do? --TheUzbek (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I accept the Wikipedia:Standard offer, which is

1. Wait at least six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion; i.e. having made no edit, using any account or anonymously, on the English Wikipedia.
2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
3. Don't give people reasons to object to your return.

But I hope the admin in question can be reasonable. I am a young man that doesn't even remember what he has done; I doubt even the Wikipedia community does! Look through my edits with this user, you will see that I have acted mostly very constructively and collaboratively. That is, I hope the standard offer can be reduced from six months. TheUzbek (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you're going to follow the standard offer, then just follow it. Don't tell us now that you're going to make an unblock request later. Also, please keep in mind that the standard offer is six months. If you're trying to haggle, you haven't agreed to the standard offer. The whole point of the standard offer is to prove to us that you're capable of following rules as they're written (and give us a brief respite). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The SO process is not a guarantee that you will be unblocked at the end of that time, it means it can be considered. With your long history of evasion you have a long hard road to being unblocked. It may take more than six months, there is zero chance it will be less. I'm skeptical you're willing to give us that show of good faith, but if you are, withdraw your request and come back under your original account. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I managed to log in, but I can't edit because I'm blocked... But can I not use this user page instead? --TheUzbek (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should do nothing more about this for at least six months. At that time, you can request unblock via WP:UTRS. No request from you will be considered before then. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But 331dot; you have not really answered the philosophical part. What does Wikipedia get for blocking me now? Have you ever thought that this rigid procedure is why people establish other accounts in the first place? I've made good edits on this account for three to four years and it means nothing? TheUzbek (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bank robber cannot erase the bank robbery by doing three years of charitable work before turning themselves in. This is not a philosophical debate. Clearly you have no intention of abiding by our policies and guidelines and my good faith is wasted on you. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Sorry, I did not understand that asking a rhetorical question showed bad faith... I thought that was OK.

Yes, I agree that a bank robber cannot do that, but why was I even blocked in the first place? Was it that bad? Did I really rob a bank? Or did I do pick-pocketing?

If you interpret my sending messages here as showing bad faith, I'll stop. --TheUzbek (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In six months go to UTRS under your original account and say the good edits you made under your sock account should be taken into consideration. Not here, not now. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I promise I will do that. I know that a sockpuppet can be reverted by anyone, but as an admin, you do understand that Moxy got me blocked so he could revert changes at the communist state and socialist state articles that were completely referenced by secondary sources? I've gotten so many "likes" and thanks for these edits, and they are reverted because he has something to grind. I cannot do anything about it, but it should be bloody obvious also what he is doing. Pressing his POV at the expense of secondary sources. See the talk page at the socialist state article as well. I also think its obvious which version is better prose wise and fact wise. If you want to do anything about it, that is your choice, but this is harmful for Wikipedia...

My last edit for half a year. Goodbye! --TheUzbek (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't withdrawn your unblock request. And your personal attack against Moxy is just one more confirmation that you should not now - or ever - be unblocked. You claim to be more mature now, but everything you say and do belies that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:I didn't know that I had to withdraw my request.

Do you feel that was a personal attack, but his comments "Last good copy i can see" regarding my edits was not? Again, sorry. I feel often these situations I must admit 100 percent guilt, but no one else has to, and to be frank, I've admitted 100 percent guilt so what more do you want from me? TheUzbek (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason some edits were reverted was related to concerns raised about them . i.e Talk:Communist state#Communist state. This is the same pattern as before Talk:Socialist state#Huge change on the concept of Socialist state. Moxy- 15:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange examples, because CJ Griffin did not oppose my edits on communist states. he opposed the removal of the criticism and not the new content itself.

The socialist state section you are referring to is making socialist state equal to communist state. my recent edits did not make socialist state equal to communist state. In fact it did what the current socialist state lead already said: "A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-party liberal democracy governed by a self-described socialist party, where the state is not constitutionally bound to the construction of socialism." Did you even read my edits or did you just remove them because you could? It seems like that from this post of yours.... TheUzbek (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And at last, if you've actually read my edits on communist states you see that I have not done written anything new. The first also focuses on unitary power, but I've shortened if and structured it better. If you have read you would have understood that i've not rewamped the article essence at all... TheUzbek (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is closed. Standard offer given again. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]