User talk:MarioSuperstar77

Welcome!

Hello, MarioSuperstar77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Massacre in the Rue Haxo has been accepted

Massacre in the Rue Haxo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello, I'm Pablomartinez. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to GypsyCrusader—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. PabloMartinez (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pablomartinez: How was that not constructive? I added multiple sources and added more information to the article. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77: Converting "white supremacist" to "racist troll" is what triggered my edit. After further review, I do see you made a large number of edits at the same time. It was that comment that triggered my edit. - PabloMartinez (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Un compliment

Please accept this compliment - from what I have seen of your contributions, in my opinion your ability to communicate in English approaches en4. Narky Blert (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :) MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Your thinly-veiled threat

"Before I undo your edit on anti-French sentiment" was what you titled the section. It made me laugh. It's poorly sourced AND it's WP:UNDUE and that addition would stand zero chance in an RfC, and I think you know that. So before you start an edit war and risk getting blocked by an administrator, consider these facts. I'm happy to ask the community about your POV edits. You will absolutely get slapped down on that one. Cheers! Benicio2020 (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I would not talk if I was you since you seem to frequently get into edit-wars with other editors and have been warned several times now. The Guardian is a poor source you say? Have you verified that on WP:RSP? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You're not me. I'm me, and I'm telling you that you're not going to re-add that tripe that you attempted to add, because multiple editors have explained to you that it's WP:UNDUE. Have a nice day. Benicio2020 (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course I won't, I'm a reasonable guy. I'll try to find a compromise, but if they think it's not good enough I'll be on the lookout for more reliable sources. You're so abrasive and authoritative for someone who's been warned several times for edit-warring. By the way, have a good day. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"Before I undo your edit on anti-French sentiment" is definitely something I'd expect to hear from a "reasonable guy". In any case, I'm glad you've seen the error of your ways. See ya. Benicio2020 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

MarioSuperstar77 keep on editing on WP. Please ignore Benicio's outlandish and brazen behavior on here. Your edits are appreciated. I may not agree with you fully on your proposed edits to the anti-french sentiment article, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't express your opinion or edit. Please continue to be a worthwhile WP user! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mario, I just wanted to second PerpetuityGrat’s comment. I also may not have agreed with your argumentation at the article, but that is strictly a content disagreement and the consensus could just as well end up in your camp. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior from Benicio. That said, I hope you can see why the section title came across as a bit aggressive also, and if you could tone it down a bit in the future, that would help keep interactions more civil on all sides. As PG said, by all means edit the article and add your thoughts about content (not users) on the Talk page as well. Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I like that both of you ignored the fact that the introduction of this editing disagreement was "Before I undo your edit on anti-French sentiment" from Mario. Once I see that, it's clear that someone typing that is not interested in a discussion - so I chose to make it clear that his attitude wasn't going to get him far. Maybe you disagree with my approach. Fine. Fact is, he was wrong in how he wanted to add content and he was wrong in how he aggressively chose to antagonize me. I'm the one who started a discussion on the talk page of the article, not him. I'm the one who asked for consensus, not him. A less civil editor would have just told him "go fuck yourself", but I didn't do that - I treated him exactly the way a combative editor should be treated - sternly. Benicio2020 (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Benicio2020: just because you didn't use profanity does not excuse your lack of civility. Get yourself together. This isn't war, it's literally just WP. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

BLP redaction

I've redacted part of your comment on Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting on BLP grounds. As he was found not guilty, we cannot be saying that he is guilty of a crime. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please be careful with statements that accuse a BLP subject of committing crimes without evidence. Springee (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

ARBPIA

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Further, editors with fewer than 500 edits may not participate in project discussions related to the topic area. Your post on ANI is such an edit within the topic area. Please do not continue making such edits or you may be reported and restricted from editing. Thank you. nableezy - 22:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Oooh sorry for standing up for an editor who was the victim of harassment all the while not participating in the discussion itself. I am not interested in middle East politics, I just came across this discussion on ANI and despite the clear showcase of abuse from user Huldra themself they did not get reprimanded by the moderators although they infracted Wikipedia policy on two counts. Way to go internet stranger, I would have not replied further if you had ignored that comment or had you silently removed it. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

cool story, all the same kindly abide by the restrictions in WP:ARBPIA. Thank you. nableezy - 00:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

––FormalDude ^talk 06:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

DS notice

The user whom you notified was previously sanctioned, so he does not need a DS notification. Just keep that in mind for future. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please, don't react at his attacks. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, too late. I would have checked my talkpage sooner, I would have noticed your comment. But sure, I will ignore him from now on. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

In regards to this, I hope that you do not mind if I comment here, so as to avoid further bloating the talk page. I also hope that The Four Deuces can reply you back because I think that it would be an interesting exchange, especially to finally discuss it with not the same users. My comment is that you engaged in a slippery slope that is unjustified, and that all those topics you mentioned are closer to the World War II because while there may be disagreement, as is often the case in academia, I am not aware of any mainstream scientific sources that dispute those topics as a whole; on the other hand, there are mainstream scholarly sources that have disputed the grouping in this context.1 It does not mean that the Communist grouping is never done or acceptable, which is not something I have ever said, but that in this topic it is inadeguate and not supported by sources.

The grouping is applied to sport and religion (e.g. "Religion under Communism" and "Sport under Communism") but not to mass killings or excess deaths, and not to Communism as a whole. We say Communist regimes but in practice the few sources that do the grouping (again, they do it in works about mass killings in general, so why must we cherry pick passages and chapters, as if their main focus is Communism, and do this only for Communism rather than Mass killings in history?) mainly limit themselves to three Communist leaders (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot) who are recognized to have engaged in mass killings (50,000 killings within five years, which is the most used criteria).

Finally, no other encyclopedia does this; the only other one who did it is not the Encyclopedia Britannica but Conservapedia and Metapedia, and we do this only for Communism (your argument is precisely why we do not do it for other regime types like capitalism or fascism because it would be OR/SYNTH to do so without scholarly sources establishing mass killings under ... regimes as a topic). This should be telling and is something to consider very seriously. I support treating the topic as majority of sources do, e.g. mass killings in history, not mass killings by ideology, geography, language, regime type, etc. Scholarly sources discuss them in general works about mass killings,2 and we should respect this.

Notes

1. Dallin, Alexander (Winter 2000). "Review. Reviewed Work: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Jonathan Murphy, Mark Kramer". Slavic Review. 59 (4). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 883. doi:10.2307/2697429. JSTOR 2697429. Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss.

David-Fox, Michael (Winter 2004). "On the Primacy of Ideology. Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia)". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 5 (1). Bloomington, Indiana: Slavic: 81–105. doi:10.1353/kri.2004.0007. S2CID 159716738. Malia thus counters by coining the category of 'generic Communism,' defined everywhere down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals. (Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris thus comes across as historically more important than the gulf between radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism.) For an argument so concerned with justifying The Black Book, however, Malia's latest essay is notable for the significant objections he passes by. Notably, he does not mention the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count, especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger.

2. It is Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, not Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide under Communist Regimes; The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing, not The Dark Side of Communism: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing; Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide, not Purify and Destroy: The Communist Uses of Massacre and Genocide; and Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder, not Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Communist Mass Murders. Can one truly look at their own publisher's synopsis and tell me that Communism is their main focus?

Davide King (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The intention of the article was likely to cover Communism as a summary style article which is fair if it gives due weight to individual Communist regimes. You are correct in that academic sources do not use these sources to discuss Communism as a whole and that is a thing I never disputed. The issue with Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes as of present is the fact that it attributes those deaths to the Communist death toll instead of individual countries, so since you showed support for B which instead focuses on causality of such deaths, then the article may still suffer from WP:SYNTH once the RfC concludes. The title is another part of the article that is not appropriate for this article which I hoped would change sooner than later, but nope. Additionally, I would like to ask, since when had Autism, Schizophrenia and gender anything to do with World War 2? Unless, you are confusing this diff for another.

An article on mass killings under Capitalism could work like a charm and make up for a competent encyclopedic article if written correctly and thoroughly. The reason why such an article currently does not exist is due to the previous one being nominated for deletion and going through the AfD process to be removed entirely. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thanks again for your reply and comment, and for thinking that I am correct about academic sources. If there was an option to simple delete the article, while moving around all information in more appropriate articles, that would be my first option; as things stand, B is the least bad option, while my favorite option is to actually expand Mass killing to cover correlations (there is not sufficient sourcing to justify as a standalone article,1 unless we actually covers the killings themselves, in which case the SYNTH issues re-emerge) and create Mass killings in history as a summary style, which should make it much less prone to SYNTH issues. It also depends on how B is going to be structured in practice, e.g. I agree that the example you provided would be SYNTH or not a way to write a good article.

My proposal of B is more similar to this, which you semmed to appreciate or support — it would discuss the "victims of communism" narrative, or to quote Neumayer, "Advocating for the Cause of the 'Victims of Communism.'" Rather than being a noble cause to honor the many victims of Stalinism and people who were killed or prematurely died under Communist regimes, they are used politically as a body-count, with 100 million being the common number, and as an anti-communist propaganda to criminalize communism as a whole and that murder is the inevitable result not of authoritarianism but of left-wing politics in general.

I prefer an article about mass killings under capitalist regimes to be more like Colonialism and genocide (e.g. Capitalism and genocide or Capitalism and mass killing) because there is no book that ties all the events together, same thing for fascism; therefore, I think SYNTH would just as equally applies to those two. The fact that we do this only for Communism, it is a clear double standard — indeed, I try to be consistent in that either both should exist (A would still be SYNTH but if apparently A is not deemed to be SYNTH, or is found to be fine, for Communism, then the same should be applied to capitalism, fascism, and the like; B would be less SYNTH because it would discuss the link between capitalism, colonialism, imperialism, and genocide, and would avoid many issues due to the grouping) or neither should be. Unfortunately, this double standard is also reflected in reality, in that we right have commemorations, condemnations, and memorials about the crimes committed by Communist states, Nazi–fascism, and authoritarianism and totalitarianism in general but not for capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism, or other ideologies like conservatism, liberalism, etc.

I obviously did not mean they were related to World War II; rather, I meant the World War II counter-example that was provided, e.g. this:

"We have a lot of books and monographs that provide a neutral and balanced description of WWII as a topic. However, we have virtually no such books about MKuCR: a couple of sources that discuss this topic are highly controversial, and other works do not discuss the topic as a whole, and they focus on subtopics (or more global topics) instead." —Paul Siebert

"WWII is also a single unified topic with no serious (overarching) dispute over what falls under it, or over if and how the things that fall under it are connected. None of this is true here, which means that collecting events, framing them as mass killings, and lumping them together into a single unified topic becomes WP:SYNTHESIS unless the discussion is informed by, structured according to, and attributed to secondary sources, with appropriate text in each case being devoted to underlying academic disputes." —Aquillion

"The reason there is an article on WWII is that there is academic consensus that the various wars were part of a larger war, viz, WWII. There is no consensus that killings in Stalin's Soviet Union, etc., are part of a pattern of MKuCR." —The Four Deuces

I meant to say that like World War II, the topics you listed all have a literature that provide a neutral and balanced description of them as a topic. Perhaps Autism and Autism spectrum should be merged, or perhaps they are fine as they are; either way, I do not think they apply to this case, and I think it was a fair criticism if you thought I was talking in general but I was criticizing the use of the grouping as a monolithic in this specific context and not in general. As I wrote here, sources may treat it as a monolithic when it comes to sport and religion but they do not do it when it comes to mass killings. As I have showed, there are chapters about sport and religion under Communism, though I do not think they are enough to be standalone, main articles; there are only chapters limited to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and not "Mass Killings under Communism."

Notes

1. A summary would be that "autocratic regimes, especially communist, are prone to mass killings generically, but not so strongly inclined toward gene-politicide." But I would not know how this is to be structured, or how a table of content would look like; as showed by Valentino and reality, remove leaders like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and large-scale mass killings are going to prevented. While they still ruled authoritarian regimes, there were indeed no large-scale mass killings under Khruscev and Gorbachev. You may find useful what I wrote here, especially the collapsed notes No. 4 and No. 5. That is why I prefer, and understand, B not as you summarized, which I agree it may still be SYNTH, but rather to be more like my proposed sandbox, which you commented as such:

"Your sandbox would definitely improve the article by a margin, but that is assuming that all the offending sources within the article are removed, but from your previous comments I learned that you intended to remove them anyway, so it would be a step toward the right direction."

2. Victims of communism, and not victims of Communist regimes/states, is indeed what the name entails — that many, many people indeed died (true) and that generic communism was the cause (controversial/disputed/false), and also ignore the fact that such victims were communists and other leftists themselves; in general, they link it back to Marx (Watson linked Hitler and Marx together), something that is not supported in academia (e.g. centre-right Juncker honoring Marx rather than blaming him for the deaths of million of people after his death), and attempts to do so, such as the introduction to The Black Book of Communism by Courtois, have been strongly criticized and rebuked (e.g. as a Soviet specialist, Werth drew a link between Lenin and Nechayev, and not with Marx, who actually criticized the latter as barracks communism).

Davide King (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

RSN on CounterPunch

Hi, obviously I agree with your position there, and obviously if this were a partisan thing I wouldnt be making that note. But since the discussion substantially focuses on the Arab-Israeli topic area I have marked the accounts that, per an arbitration decision, have fewer than the 500 edits to participate in project-space discussions related to the topic area. As there has been no formal determination on whether or not it is covered I have not removed your comment or stricken it. But I do think the closer should be aware that if they view this as related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic that accounts with fewer than 500 edits should not be factored in to the consensus. I am sorry if this feels unfair, but this specific topic, CounterPunch as a source, has seen a ton of disruption, with substantial sockpuppetry and banned users mass-emailing for votes. You can leave your comment there, but please dont remove my note. Thank you. nableezy - 23:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Images

There are a couple of images on your page that are eye-catching, and while I haven't tried to unravel the context you provide, reds and whatever yellows are, wouldn't their absence be an improvement? ~ cygnis insignis 20:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, that's my user page, I decorate it however I feel, so long it does not violate any WP guideline. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a user page, are my comments in response to perplexing provocations trollpedia worthy? I can't sleep for fear of yellow fascists now, a previously unrealised terror that may be alurking under me bed :) ~ cygnis insignis 16:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you doing here for? Just wasting both of our times? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Simple curiosity, maybe trolling, it's not really about you. ~ cygnis insignis 13:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision

Hi MarioSuperstar77 can you approve my revision on Keem's page on trollpedia. My account is ToDelete Aaron106 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)