User talk:NEET FEET

Question About ACP Page Not Existing

Hey everyone, I’ve been looking into how Wikipedia handles political parties and historical accuracy, and I noticed that the American Communist Party (ACP) page was deleted back in July 2024. The deletion discussion at the time argued that ACP had no notability or reliable sources. However, since then, a lot has changed—the party has been covered by independent sources, recognized by international organizations, and even won an election in Vermont.

It seems strange that a party with clear real-world presence doesn’t have a Wikipedia article while much smaller or defunct organizations still do. Given Wikipedia’s goal of documenting notable topics in a neutral and factual way, I think it would be worth revisiting whether ACP meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion.

I’m currently compiling sources and working on a draft to ensure that any future page meets Wikipedia's reliability and notability standards. If anyone has thoughts on how similar cases have been handled or knows of relevant sources, I’d be interested in discussing.

— NEET_FEET 00:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of ACP, any additions or suggestions for editing on this topic violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You and others have been informed of this multiple times and asked to stop. Please take note that the continued spamming on the talk page for Communist Party USA constitutes vandalism and you and the other members of ACP should refrain from continued attempts at such vandalism. I've made a request that the page be locked. 69.113.236.98 (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@69.113.236.98 I would appreciate it if you could avoid making unfounded accusations. There is no basis for claiming that I am a member of ACP, nor does Wikipedia policy prohibit editors from discussing topics they are interested in, provided they adhere to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

If you believe that specific contributions violate NPOV, the correct approach is to point out exactly which statements are biased and explain why—preferably with reference to WP:NPOV. Simply accusing an editor of bias without addressing the content itself is not a valid argument under Wikipedia policy.

Furthermore, raising questions about whether a deleted page meets Wikipedia’s notability standards is not vandalism. The proper venue for this discussion is Deletion Review, where editors can assess whether ACP now meets Wikipedia’s guidelines. If you disagree, you are welcome to provide policy-based reasoning, but mischaracterizing good-faith discussion as "spamming" or "vandalism" is disruptive behavior (WP:DISRUPT).

If you have specific policy-based concerns, I am happy to engage constructively. Otherwise, I ask that you refrain from personal accusations and focus on Wikipedia’s content policies.

— NEET_FEET 01:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, NEET FEET. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Communist Party USA, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Voorts, and thank you for the reminder regarding Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest policy. I want to clarify that I am not American, not a member of ACP, and have no affiliations with CPUSA or any related organizations. I am simply following the developments regarding ACP as a supporter from a distance and have been interested in how Wikipedia is handling its documentation.

I completely understand the importance of maintaining neutrality and verifiability on Wikipedia and have no intention of violating its policies. My only goal is to ensure that Wikipedia accurately reflects sourced and verifiable information. I will continue to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines, engage in discussions in good faith, and ensure that any proposed edits align with WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

If there are any concerns about specific edits, I am happy to discuss them on the talk page and work within the appropriate processes. Thanks again for reaching out.

— NEET_FEET 02:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you replied to me yourself rather than using AI. Please note that many editors consider using LLMs on talk pages to be disruptive. See WP:LLMTALK. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Voorts, I get what you’re saying, but I’m honestly a bit confused here.

Yeah, I’ve been using LLMs to help me with wording and formatting, but I don’t see what the problem is. I’m still the one making the decisions about what to write and what to engage with. If there’s some rule I’ve broken, feel free to point it out, but from what I can tell, I haven’t done anything against Wikipedia’s policies.

Also, just to be clear (again), I’m not American, not a member of ACP or CPUSA, and I have no affiliations with any of these groups. I’m just following the developments from a distance because I find it interesting, and I want to make sure the info on Wikipedia is accurate. If that’s not allowed, I’d be curious to know why.

So unless I’ve actually done something wrong, can you just let me be?

— NEET FEET (talk) 03:27, 2 February 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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

voorts (talk/contributions) 03:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Voorts, thanks for the notice. I understand that post-1992 U.S. politics is considered a contentious topic on Wikipedia, and I’ll make sure to keep that in mind while editing.

That said, I just want to clarify—have I done anything that violated Wikipedia’s policies so far? As far as I know, I’ve been engaging in good faith, sticking to reliable sources, and following the rules. If there’s something specific I need to be aware of, I’m happy to hear it.

Otherwise, I’ll continue to edit carefully and constructively, just like Wikipedia encourages. Let me know if there are any actual concerns with my edits.

— NEET FEET (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard alert. I am not implying anything about your edits one way or the other. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for advocating balanced coverage of the CPUSA and the ACP, rather than only granting notability to one faction in its leadership struggle. Thank you for rejecting the personal attacks launched by editors opposed to balance. The bold, though is a bit much! Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 04:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSands-12 Thanks, I appreciate that! And I won’t say no to some stroopwafels. 🍪 NEET FEET (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to fight leadership struggle[s] @TheSands-12. Please see WP:RGW. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstood me @Voorts. I only said that I appreciate NEET FEET's attempts to balance coverage between them. I am in no way supporting any side in a leadership struggle nor am I entering those disputes. Nevertheless, thank you for being on the lookout Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 05:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of American Communist Party (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on American Communist Party (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because

it is a disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or

it is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris

Hello, CycloneYoris,

I appreciate the message and would like to clarify the reasoning behind the creation of the American Communist Party (disambiguation) page.

The term "American Communist Party" is ambiguous as it has been used to refer to multiple distinct political entities, including:

1. The historical Communist Party USA (CPUSA), which has existed for over a century.

2. The newly founded American Communist Party (ACP), which was established in 2024 following a split from CPUSA.

The new ACP has been the subject of independent media coverage and public discourse, particularly in relation to its ideological distinctions and organizational efforts separate from CPUSA. Given that sources differentiate between these two groups, a disambiguation page would be useful for readers looking for clarity.

Would you be open to discussing how best to structure this page to comply with Wikipedia’s disambiguation guidelines while preserving navigability for users searching for distinct topics under this name?

Looking forward to your feedback!

Best, NEET FEET (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CycloneYoris, thanks for the heads-up on the G14 speedy deletion tag. After reviewing the disambiguation guidelines, I realize I should have expanded the page from the start instead of creating a single-link disambiguation, which was my mistake.

I've now broadened the page to include:

- Historical references to multiple communist movements in U.S. history that have been referred to as "American Communist Party."

- Fictional and media references where the name appears.

- Clear distinction between the 2024-founded ACP and CPUSA to justify the need for disambiguation.

This expansion should now meet Wikipedia’s disambiguation criteria by covering multiple notable uses beyond a single extant article. Let me know if you have any suggestions for further improvement. I appreciate your patience and feedback.

Thanks, NEET FEET (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]