User talk:Liberty5000

Welcome! Hello, Liberty5000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Hello, I'm R0paire-wiki. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Donald Trump and fascism seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. R0paire 22:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025-05 Fascism

Hello,

It's a pity that you stopped commenting in Talk:Fascism#2024-11 gallery. However the closing of the last thread in Talk:Fascism#List of oppositions in the second sentence is not of your will, so there is chances that you still engage. «There's mountains of evidence supporting the view that the Nazis were socialists.» => Such? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with the name of their political party. Liberty5000 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic/not a democracy, the Liberal Party of Australia is not liberal in all meanings of the word, the Democratic Union of the Centre of Switzerland is not centrist, the Radical Party of France is not radical, and so on. I am still waiting the «mountains of evidence supporting the view that the Nazis were socialists» and refuting the evidences that the Nazis were literally sitting on the far right of the German parliament. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the names of political parties are just random and don't signify anything? Liberty5000 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

«Are you saying that the names of political parties are just random and don't signify anything?» => No. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the name of a political party is a good clue about its alignment and orientation: Die Linke is leftist, Zentrumspartei was centrist. But a clue is not an evidence. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurd to think that seating arrangements in the Reichstag somehow nullify the political positions of the Nazis. Liberty5000 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

«It's absurd to think that seating arrangements in the Reichstag somehow nullify the political positions of the Nazis.» => Definitely. It is sometime infuriating to see persons nullify the political positions of the Nazis and put aside what they did to claim that Nazis were left-wing or socialist just because one word in the name of their political party. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstood my reply. I meant that seating arrangements in the Reichstag don't nullify the socialist economic policies of the Nazis. The Nazis didn't just call themselves socialists. They also had socialist policies. Liberty5000 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the Nazis enacted 10% socialist policies and 80% far-right policies when in power, then the Nazis were still far-right. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant you this: Some of the Nazis were socially conservative, at least on some issues. But that doesn´t mean they weren´t socialists. Socialism is an economic system. It can be combined with either social liberalism or social conservatism. Views that were normal among leftists and socialists in the past are now considered ´far right´. Marx called a socialist that he didn´t like a ´jewish nigger´. Does that mean Marx was far right? Liberty5000 (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After more than one month without mention of evidence, can you and me agree that no such evidence exist? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After more than two month without mention of evidence, can you and me agree that no such evidence exist? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After more than four month without mention of evidence, can you and me agree that no such evidence exist? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming. I have already provided evidence many months ago. Liberty5000 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Staudenmaier source and fascism

Hi, Liberty5000, I've started a talk page discussion about the Staudenmaier source for which you've removed a citation several times. I believe it's pretty clear that Staudenmaier does in fact support the classification of fascism as far-right, as I've hopefully demonstrated with direct quotes. Since you're starting to run up against the three-revert rule in terms of edit warring, I'd hope you can discuss it on the talk page, rather than continuing to revert in an edit-war style. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're seeing a trend here with regard to your personal opinions regarding fascism. Even as recently as today you have been making complaints that sources are biased. I think it's time to either put up reliable sources supporting your suppositions or WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not allowed to complain that sources are biased? Liberty5000 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because bias is not a consideration of WP:RS - and that makes your repeated complaints a violation of WP:NOTFORUM - they're entirely non-actionable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But can a source be both 'biased' and 'reliable' at the same time? Isn't that a contradiction? Liberty5000 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A source can have a bias and be reliable. In fact, objective and absolute unbiased sources do not exist. Now please remember WP:NOTFORUM. This is all I will say about this at this time.Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between objective and unbiased. It's impossible to be unbiased, because without omniscience all data is subject to some form of selection bias, outside of rigidly defined formal sets and computer databases.

Objectivity, on the other hand, is quite possible to practice. One can be 100% objective by avoiding evaluative claims or statements of opinion and being incredibly careful with how they word factual descriptions. It doesn't make one correct or even rational, but objectivity is (imo) not a high bar to cross. 2601:486:100:9780:F861:7E9F:388E:8C69 (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice. You are not making any headway on this subject, and given that the editors who have argued with you are all well-versed in the topic and capable of discussing the sources at length, the odds of you ever doing so are virtually nil. Go find another subject to edit in, if you wish to contribute to this project. Continuing to push this line of argumentation is far more likely to get you indefinitely blocked from editing than to result in any changes to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard of the Assume Good Faith guideline? It seems not. Liberty5000 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nobody but you would take me offering you this advice as anything but a gesture of good faith. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment of yours that I'm replying to now comes close to being a personal attack. And it does definitely NOT assume good faith. As for your other comment, it wasn't advice. It was a threat. You were threatening to have me blocked because I proposed a change to the Fascism article on the talk page. You can call it advice but that doesn't make it so. You can call an elephant a mouse but that doesn't make it a mouse. You want to make this into a battle between me and you, while I simply want to improve the article. So it is clearly you who is not following Wikipedia policy here. Liberty5000 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reply? Can you explain why I, a good faith editor, would be indefinitely blocked? Liberty5000 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's assuming good faith and then there's naivety. I would actually recommend that you look into what it means to argue in good faith and re-familiarize yourself with WP:HOW. It stretches credulity to believe you're arguing in good faith, and the user you're replying to is being very, very charitable. Don't waste that good will. 2601:486:100:9780:F861:7E9F:388E:8C69 (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to have someone blocked is the Wikipedia equivalent of a death threat. It is definitively not a sign of 'good will'. Liberty5000 (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page blocks

You have been page-blocked from Talk:Fascism and Fascism for three months for inveterate bludgeoning of the discussion on the talkpage. If you move your discussion methods to other pages, you're likely to be siteblocked. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 18:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked

On my page today, you refer to "an editor who is clearly mentally unstable"[1] and when you're warned about that, you specify who you mean.[2] That is a classic personal attack and completely unacceptable — I'm amazed you would talk like that on an admin's page and apparently not realize you're likely to be blocked for it. You have been blocked for 72 hours. I'll just mention that your contempt for warnings and advice from experienced editors is very foolish also. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 09:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I thread notice

I have started a thread on Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents about your behaviour on this site. You can reach it with this link. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 03:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]