User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2012/December
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Completely compelling and the opposite
You made the point that my sourced criticisms of forensic psychiatry experts also applied to experts in other fields, like environmental science re safety. You pointed out that the criticisms of those experts did not belong in the parent environmental science article, so the criticism of forensic psychiatry experts did not belong in the psychiatry article. As you saw, when I found your argument compelling, I said so, and I immeditely stopped arguing my position.
But I find this edit completely uncompelling in its reasoning that I undid it. I started a talk page section to discuss it. You did not respond at that talk page section but instead posted a 3RR on my talk page. Since in the previous example, you clearly demonstrated an ability to reason in a way that is commensurate with my way of reasoning, I am mystified that you would call this 3RR. Is it possible that you are in error this time, not me? You can comment at that talk page section[1]. ParkSehJik (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Third time's the charm?
You nominated this entry twice for deletion and have been fighting tooth and nail over it. Why? Now you go into coordinated removal of sources while ignoring the talk, which you have never done before... Why you do that? Would you suggest I go through some kind of formal inquiry along the old EEML demarcation line to get answers? I believe this is completely unasked for. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 07:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I only nominated the article once for deletion. The other nomination was for an article about a different person but with the same name. The further reading section appears to fail WP:EL and I have referred it to the EL noticeboard. Is there any reason why you would create an article about this mayor of Faversham, rather than the hundreds of others who have no articles? TFD (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Please be assured, this is not a threat nor a sign of bad will on my part. You have no reasonable policy basis for revert warring without consensus. Would you rather have me reopen this case at ANI as continuation of the previous incident? Please tell, if you do. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 02:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- It appears to be a content dispute, rather than policy. The ANI issue was whether an editor should have closed the RfC. You of course are free to do as you wish. Also, could you please not say that I have a conflict of interest.[2] "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." IE, there would be a COI if you created an article about yourself. Also, I have only nominated the article about Mayor Richard Tylman for deletion once, of which you must be aware. TFD (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not forget that your AfD nomination was rejected by our community, therefore, promoting your own position any further, this time around by edit warring in an attempt to enforce your controversial point of view from before is in fact a conflict of interest. Please examin again the follow up discussion at ANI. If you think that the results at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Richard Tylman and the case of the uncloseable RFC were not satisfactory, let's reopen the case. Poeticbent talk 03:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The failure of an AfD does not mean that an article is a good article status and needs no improvement. A specific problem is that reliable sources do not exist. Also, you claim that Tillman (who may or may not be the subject of the article) was the only merchant shipping corn to London, when the source actually says he was the only merchant shipping on a specific ship. I believe the reason you chose to write this article is that the subject's name is the same as the anglicised version of your name. Otherwise you would be working on bios of the other 900 mayors of Faversham. Also, your ignorance of English history shows - you introduced text explaining the value of shillings in Anglo-Saxon times, which was before the Norman conquest of 1066. Yet the article is about someone who lived in the 1500s. You might as well have used a closer date - 2012 - and said that a shilling is worth almost 10 cents US. TFD (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not forget that your AfD nomination was rejected by our community, therefore, promoting your own position any further, this time around by edit warring in an attempt to enforce your controversial point of view from before is in fact a conflict of interest. Please examin again the follow up discussion at ANI. If you think that the results at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Richard Tylman and the case of the uncloseable RFC were not satisfactory, let's reopen the case. Poeticbent talk 03:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Organic food".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC) The dispute resolution process needs to be observed with Darkstar1stI opened the request for comment as per the guidance given at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution on the topic of content disputes.--R-41 (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
re United StatesPlease don't think it's just you arguing against VirginiaHistorian; I went through that for weeks and it was exhausting that no one else entered the conversation, but because of that exhaustion I'm watching but not engaging at the moment. So far you're doing somewhat better than I did. --Golbez (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Holidays to you and yoursI've run out of cards and envelopes. Please refer to last years card. The message is the same. :~) ```Buster Seven Talk 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are no administrators addressing the Darkstar1st noticeboard incident? It is about a serious case of disruptionAs you have commented on the noticeboard incident, I am both inquiring and asking for your advice of what to do on the ANI on Darkstar1st. I regard the situation at Talk:Socialism as involving serious disruption caused by Darkstar1st's tendentious edits that requires immediate attention. But no administrators are arriving to overview the situation. What are the appropriate means to request for an administrator to observe this noticeboard incident if no attention is being given to it on the noticeboard?--R-41 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
|