User talk:Arcanicus

The importance of avoiding political double standards.
I replied to your comment on my Talk Page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VictorD7#United_States_-.3E_poor

Text of Discussion reverted by VictorD7 from his talk page
Wherein I apparently had the outrageous impertinence to disagree with a conservative on the deletion of material concerning the "poor" in the US, "published" online by right-wing political activists of the so-called Heritage Foundation.

Wiki page: United States -> poor

"Added government sources, but next time effort to verify something before deleting." VictorD7
 * You added material from a biased source. Don't blame me for the problem. You started it. Arcanicus

"If you want to purge biased sourced we can't be one sided. Plenty of leftist ones in the section and on the page we'd have to delete." VictorD7
 * Thank you for using inflammatory rhetoric like "leftist." And now you're threatening me that material I might approve of might have to be deleted? Let me ask you a question: Are you a paid employee of the Heritage Foundation? Because you don't seem to have the interests of Wikipedia foremost in your mind. Arcanicus


 * Bottom line: I refrained from describing Heritage as a right-wing extremist organization led by Jim DeMint, one of the most vicious partisan politicians in Washington DC, with the objective of ending all social welfare programs. And I could have pointed out that quoting these people on the poor is a little bit like quoting the KKK on African-Americans. But I didn't. Out of respect for you, based on WP:AGF. Please don't make me regret that decision. Arcanicus (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Heritage is America's most prominent mainstream conservative think tank and this inclusion was discussed on the Talk Page a year or so ago. It's been up since then without challenge. VictorD7 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling Heritage a "mainstream conservative" anything does not make it mainstream. It is not mainstream. And the length of time that anything has been on a Wikipedia page really doesn't prove anything, though it does certainly suggest that the only reason it's been there so long is because no one noticed it till now. Arcanicus

If you have a complaint about long standing consensus text you tag it and/or start a Talk Page section to discuss it.
 * You do not own Wikipedia.

If you had simply done that I could have easily answered any questions you had.
 * You were challenged several times by people deleting your biased content and you did nothing to address their concerns but to "claim" you had govt statistics.

...adding them to the article wasn't needed
 * I disagree.

because we had a consensus.
 * That you claim to have had a consensus doesn't make it a fact and it doesn't mean you will continue to have a consensus for all eternity.

Virtually every source on Wikipedia is "biased" in some way.
 * Yes, I'm sure as a conservative you would see it that way because you're trying to support your own argument with imaginative claims and anyone who disagrees with YOU must obviously be biased. Myself, I don't look at the world that way. I think the vast majority of information placed on Wikipedia by editors with any integrity is as close to objective as possible.

You can't purge conservative sources while leaving loads of leftist sources, including think tanks like CBPP, activist academics like Smeeding and Saez, and even liberal blogs.
 * I can do a lot of things and I don't need your permission. If you think there's terabytes of evil "leftist" biased information, then why are you telling me about it? Are you asking my permission to delete it?

I have my own political views as you clearly do, but I do have Wikipedia's interests in mind, which is why I'm fair and always willing to hash things out in a rational manner on the Talk Page.
 * Sorry, I don't happen to believe that anyone who would post Heritage "articles" here to be "fair" or "fair-minded." The very president of the organization is the least fair-minded person in DC, possibly on planet Earth. Also, it sounds a little too much like the absurd "fair and balanced" tag line used by your favorite Murdoch house organ.

Finally, it's taking enormous restraint for me to refrain from saying what your disgusting "KKK" comparison actually says about you.
 * Anything you might say on that subject I would probably regard as a compliment. But if you want to go ahead and insult me personally it's really not a problem. I might only be trying to goad you into a statement that would get you banned. Arcanicus (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Further Discussion with VictorD7 quoted from his talk page
'''Wherein a "Conservative" Reverts my comments off his Talk Page, then Flippity-Flop reposts my Comments back onto his Talk Page in Order to Educate Me about the Manifold Errors I Make, and also to Advise me that I am a "Deluded" "Hypocritical Halfwit," and a "troll," and I "get boring fast." Oct 4-7, 2013'''


 * Don't directly chop up or alter someone else's post. That's basic Talk Page etiquette. I reverted you and will respond to your reposted commments below:


 * Calling Heritage a "mainstream conservative" anything does not make it mainstream. It is not mainstream.
 * Of course it is. You obviously don't know much about American politics.
 * And the length of time that anything has been on a Wikipedia page really doesn't prove anything, though it does certainly suggest that the only reason it's been there so long is because no one noticed it till now.
 * No, the text was shaped by several different editors and discussed on the Talk Page. It's been there so long because it contains undisputed, notable facts.
 * You do not own Wikipedia.
 * Neither do you, but there are rules and standards.
 * You were challenged several times by people deleting your biased content and you did nothing to address their concerns but to "claim" you had govt statistics.
 * Wrong. A dimwitted, dishonest political propaganda spammer with a throw anything at the wall (even when it's poorly written and he demonstrably hasn't even read or understood his own sources) and see if it sticks shtick tried to delete it out of spite without even offering a rational reason for doing so in the summary section, much less accepting invitations to discuss the matter on the Talk Page.
 * That you claim to have had a consensus doesn't make it a fact and it doesn't mean you will continue to have a consensus for all eternity.
 * Which is why the Talk Page is there, to challenge consensus. In the absence of a consensus for change the status quo rules.
 * Yes, I'm sure as a conservative you would see it that way because you're trying to support your own argument with imaginative claims and anyone who disagrees with YOU must obviously be biased. Myself, I don't look at the world that way. I think the vast majority of information placed on Wikipedia by editors with any integrity is as close to objective as possible.
 * Clearly you're deluded, but you're the one here whining about bias and intolerantly trying to purge sources with whom you disagree, not me.
 * I can do a lot of things and I don't need your permission. If you think there's terabytes of evil "leftist" biased information, then why are you telling me about it?  Are you asking my permission to delete it?
 * No, because biased sources are allowed, especially when they're only being used to support verifiable, undisputed notable facts. It's the article itself that should be as neutral as possible. I'm only rejecting your proposed absurd double standard where political sources you disagree with are purged while agenda driven sources you agree with are allowed to stay.
 * Sorry, I don't happen to believe that anyone who would post Heritage "articles" here to be "fair" or "fair-minded." The very president of the organization is the least fair-minded person in DC, possibly on planet Earth.  Also, it sounds a little too much like the absurd "fair and balanced" tag line used by your favorite Murdoch house organ.
 * That's nice. You're clearly a hypocritical halfwit who's getting boring fast, but go on.
 * Anything you might say on that subject I would probably regard as a compliment. But if you want to go ahead and insult me personally it's really not a problem. I might only be trying to goad you into a statement that would get you banned.
 * So you might just be a troll? I can't say I'm shocked. VictorD7 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Don't directly chop up or alter someone else's post. That's basic Talk Page etiquette." And, regardless, you just couldn't resist responding to me point by point.  But then I'm used to seeing conservatives violate their own so-called "principles."  It happens so routinely.
 * But let's see how many personal attacks you tossed around so far: "A dimwitted, dishonest political propaganda spammer..."  "Clearly you're deluded..."  "...you're the one here whining about bias..."  "...your proposed absurd double standard..."  "You're clearly a hypocritical halfwit..."  "So you might just be a troll?"
 * So I must say: job well done.  You're certainly living up to expectations.  Arcanicus (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And Still More Discussion with Victor D7, Oct 8 2013
Wherein Yet Another Conservative Once More Bases His Weak Excuse for an Argument on a Fictional Reinterpretation of Events.


 * Your response left me with no option but to alter your post since it had altered mine. No violation, though your one sided ideological focus is noted. Your whining about personal attacks might be less laughable if you hadn't started this by attacking my motives (I'll leave it to you to look up the rule about Assuming Good Faith), accusing me of not having Wikipedia's best interest at heart, and even at one point speculating that I might be a paid agent of an outfit you hate. Clearly you're the one behaving trollishly here (you all but admitted as much), and when you're done tiring yourself out here I might delete this section as trollish spam. Update: One clarification from earlier for the record - I indicated I couldn't remember precisely how long the Heritage inclusion had been there; it was added in early April, so six months. Still a long time. VictorD7


 * Thank you for attacking me personally yet again. "Your whining..."
 * "Your response left me with no option..." Your talk page doesn't appear to be broken so it looks to me like you can freely edit text any way you might want.
 * "Clearly you're the one behaving trollishly..." You started the deletes and you contacted me on my talk page.  If you don't like the responses you get after trying to impose your perspective on everybody that's your problem.
 * "...accusing me of not having Wikipedia's best interest..." You have a very short memory:  "But I didn't. Out of respect for you, based on WP:AGF."
 * "...speculating that I might be a paid agent..." I didn't "speculate" about you being an "agent."  The following is known as a question:  "Let me ask you a question:  Are you a paid employee of the Heritage Foundation?"
 * "...and when you're done tiring yourself out..." And yet you continue trying to prove that I'm wrong when you have already admitted I'm right by posting links to govt sources as I suggested.  Arcanicus (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Classification System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Automated Fingerprint Identification System (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Adaption
Ya, it's a slang word derived from people making mistakes. Not worth disputing, if you like crappy English instead of what's proper... so be it. I ain't gonna bother fixing your lazy adaption no more.

And sign your posts when going to someone's talk page.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Cebr1979 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)