User talk:Wisconcom

Notice concerning edits

Please remember to be civil on this wiki. When making claims, especially serious ones regarding groups or individuals, back them up with specific sources. In general, before making questionable/controversial edits (as was also on the Albania and Leftist content creators pages), use the talk page or go to our Matrix server to discuss and hash out your ideas for improvement. --Capuch1n (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2023‎ (UTC)

Do not use the collapse template to hide discussions. That template is for non-contentious discussion cleanup and clearly that is not the case on the ProleWiki discussion page. Do refrain from making edits without citations, especially on contentious topics — when making a point about the criticisms of ProleWiki for example, write more than just "some people say" if the presence of such criticism is not widely known. On a similar note, it's okay for ProleWiki's leadership to write their own page so long as they have sufficient sources. If you don't have proper evidence for a page, consider researching more or contributing to a different page that you have better sourcing on. (updated 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC))

My apologies. Wisconcom (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to step over the moderators but I just finished fixing the edits you made to the Prolewiki page (see comparison here: https://wiki.leftypol.org/index.php?title=ProleWiki&type=revision&diff=9837&oldid=9812). You were notified right here about adding in "some people say" and having proper evidence for a page, which you acquiesced to. So I'm just wondering, if I may, why your edits as seen in the comparison above brought back unsubstantiated claims (the aforementioned "many critics claim") as well as non-supportive sources (such as an old revision of the Psychiatry page, a Lemmygrad comment by Forte which you amplified to be ProleWiki's official stance on Enver Hoxha, and a reference that does not resolve to anything). I remember cleaning these claims up before which means they were brought back, and I frankly don't feel having to do that all the time. edit: additionally, because it's going to come up, I removed the claim that the website functions in a top down leadership manner as the document used as a reference is old and doesn't actually represent where we are at today. I updated the relevant section to explain our current model. --CriticalResist (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)