User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2013/December

Rob Ford edits

Hi there, Four Deuces,

I'm a Wikimedia Communications volunteer writing about your Rob Ford edits. It's tricky writing BLPs, and I just wanted to explore that aspect of the edits for the blog. Can you send me an email jerrett@wikimedia.org? It'd be great to highlight your work on the subject!

JErrett (WMF) (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have sent you an e-mail. TFD (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

putin again

in the putin article someone restored the "mafia state" on 6 november but now by more people wanted to remove that, the rfc which i started expired without any action, so can you or someone else please remove it 77.218.234.93 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

hello? 213.101.201.15 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You should submit your requests on the article talk page, rather than to me personally, which may be seen as canvassing. Better still, set up your own personal account, which you can do next time you visit the site. TFD (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Austrian economics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 December 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice on Classic Liberalism

Four Deuces, you are involved in some vandalism of the Classical liberalism page by repeatedly removing sourced factual statements about the list of the founding fathers who were classic liberals. Is there some reason for this apparently malicious behavior? Should you continue to arbitrarily remove factually correct & sourced statements from their appropriate place your actions will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kckranger (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit war at Classical liberalism

I see that you have, quite rightly, pointed out the edit warring policy at User talk:Kckranger. However, please bear in mind that you too have been in the same edit war. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have explained my edits in edit summarizes, set up a discussion thread and another editor has agreed with me. So far KckRanger has provided vague edit summaries such as "Wrong answer", has failed to reply to the discussion page, and has made 3 reverts within 24 hours. TFD (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

CT

I dissected a slew of "sources" used in the CT article at BLP/N -- BM has accused me of being horridly biased, as always <g> and the other editor I do not know quite to make of. At least BM did not try adding Rajeev back in as a "reliable source" <g>. We now have Palestine inserted via Lebanon ... ought this be now placed under IP ArbCom rules for their benefit? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Anything that goes to ARBCOM is time-consuming and none of their decisions seem to be helpful. Probably best to resolve the content dispute by determining what should be in the article, which is now being done, and resolving any disputes through bringing in more editors, possibly with an RfC. The personal attacks are unhelpful, and could be taken to ANI.

It might also be helpful to find literature on Christian terrorism. I could only find it briefly mentioned in books about terrorism, but none of them identify many groups, or say much about them.

TFD (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The problem with CT is that in modern times, a relatively small percentage of terroists who are christians are doing terrorism which is explicitly or obviously related to the religion (the most notable exception probably being anti-abortion motivated terrorists) (One could argue that groups like the KKK claim religious motivation as well, but are their type of actions considered religious by the RSs? (honest question) . Conversely, the majority of say islamic terrorists explicitly claim religious reasons for their actions (although other politico-economic issues may be as important if not more important than their ostensible reasoning). (Or one could say that there is a bias in the reporting/research causing this imbalance, but the result is the same as far as wikipedia is concerned) This certainly does not mean one group is better or worse than the other - but just that reliable sourcing on the specific topic of CT is not nearly as available as other religious terror movements. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I posted a comment on the talk page about this. There are Christians who are terrorists, but their motivation is generally political - nationalism, or far left or right, or single issue, such as abortion or animal rights. Since terrorism as a tactic in support of an objective, then the objective is what determines the type of terrorism. TFD (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

The India section still appears to have material added which I did not think met the requirements of policy. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS. MilesMoney (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack

This is a personal attack and I have redacted it. Do not do this again. MilesMoney (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It is an accurate assessment of your contribution. I would hope instead of taking offense, you would explain to me why you proceed in this manner and perhaps we could work in a positive way. TFD (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I did; I redacted your personal attack instead of responding in kind. I didn't even ridicule you for confusing kkk.net with kkk.com. MilesMoney (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said you choose minor edits that nonetheless are certain to inflame conservative editors. You do this without sources, even in BLPs. Then someone asks for a source and you provide a weak one. When challenged, you cite policy. When your interpretation of policy is challenged, you provide another source, then repeat the process, drawing in lots of editors and using up countless talk pages.

In what way do you think that is helpful?

TFD (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You and Rocco are tag-teaming to remove references to Christianity from Far-right politics. Please tell me how this sort of POV-pushing is beneficial. MilesMoney (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of vandalism and tag-teaming are personal attacks, and you do not need to read the policy to know that.

If you want to contribute constructively, and believe that Christianity is relevant to the article, then your first step is to find good, reliable sources about the far right, see what they say about Christianity, and add that information to the article in proportion to its significance in writings about the far right. Instead you get it into your head that the second most important thing about the KKK is that they are Christians and when questioned you say that they claim to be so.

I still would like you to explain why you act this way. I assume you are not interested in having any effect on what readers find in articles, but enjoy upsetting people. But I may be wrong, and would like you to respond.

TFD (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack when I have diffs, and I most certainly do. I have citations for both of the items that were removed, yet I don't see you running to restore them. MilesMoney (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You are misreading the policies. I assume the editor removed "Christian fundamentalism" because he did not think it belonged. Whether it was properly sourced or he was misguided is irrelevant. And I have no contact with that editor except on the talk page, and probably share few of his views. You still have not answered my question. Don't you like talking about yourself? TFD (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm reading things correctly when I see that you disregarded the SPLC's summary of the KKK, just as you went to kkk.net when I referenced kkk.com. WP:AGF prevents me from speculating whether this comes from malice, incompetence or some other source of error. It doesn't matter; whichever the cause, it makes discussion with you counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I will reply to your issue on content on the article talk page. Now that I have answered your questions, could you please answer mine. TFD (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you wish to reply, or is this boring you? TFD (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you seriously think you deserve an answer, given your behavior? MilesMoney (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent Query at RSN re Muller shale-gas report

Would this "report" be considered a reliable source?

When this query was posted, the editor involved didn't give much context. Specifically, he didn't mention that the report was being used as a source for the opinion of the writer, Professor Richard A. Muller. Could you please take a look at the context? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC), OP at the article in question

Allegations of socking

Seriously? Looking at SS' contributions, he is obsessed with right-wing politics and politicians. I have devoted little to no energy to that stuff. And for the one Republican politician whose page I remember editing, Rand Paul, my contributions mostly put him in a good light (E.g. noting his opposition to mandatory minimums and trying to get rid of an undue section on the plagiarism stuff). My obsession is confined to LvMI pages, which I see no evidence StillStanding ever edit with any frequency. You embarrass yourself by making such poorly thought out accusations; if you don't care about that, please also note that frivolous accusations constitute sanctionable PAs. Steeletrap (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I told Collect I did not think another account was your sock and refrained from commenting. However, considering your edits on the day you first used your account included nominating an article for deletion and a familiarity with policy, linking, and Wikipedia jargon, it is obvious this is not your first account. It could be that you edited as an IP, or had a legitimate reason for retiring a previous account. TFD (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I was irritated, from the sidelines, that so many non-notable LvMI people had WP entries. I completely botched the AfD, and sought and received massive help from User:Stalwart111. As an intelligent and educated person, I tried to read the rules of AfD before creating one. It is absurd that you think this is proof that I have previously had an account. Steeletrap (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)