User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2009/November

notifying skip
In spite of Skip's request that you not post on their talk page, I think you have to do so in this case to make sure they're notified of the arbitration. It's annoying, but that's the way it goes, and I don't think Skip's *request* can be considered anything more than a request, which might be relevant for annoying chit-chat, but can't be considered binding when rules require notification. C RETOG 8(t/c) 20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration
As filing party, would you be able to include the other regular editors of the Sustainability page? They have all had extensive dealings with the subject over the past year and I'm sure their comments would be useful. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You were right the first time. There were three omitted: Granitethighs, Nick Carson and OhanaUnited. Granitethighs added himself. You added Nick Carson. That leaves OhanaUnited. Sunray (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

edit summaries on Arguing with Idiots
Hi TFD, this regard this edit. Please use clear edit summaries when adding, removing, or undoing changes to Arguing with Idiots. Because it has been such an inflammatory page, edits, especially undo/rollbacks, will be considered edit warring and will lead to being blocked with no further warnings or WP:3RR-style leeway. tedder (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration again
Hi, I absolutely can't understand what the ArbComm are voting on in relation to your arbitration request on Skip. Some seem to be declining on the basis that the block is a good thing and should stay, but I don't think this is what is meant by all of the "decline" votes and I'm not at all sure that the block does stay if the ArbComm request is declined. Is this yet another Wikipedia process that is just a total mess and everyone gets to vent before nothing happens?

Skip seems to want a fair hearing and I can see that editing WP is important to him, so just being blocked with no notice seems not to be an appropriate process, which means it will probably be overturned at some point.

Any chance that you as the initiator of the ArbComm request can step in and clarify what the vote is about? There seem to be three logical choices, "Current indefinite block stays, no further process" "ArbComm process on whether or not to unblock SS" or "Unblock and no further process". What I can't fathom is, who's voting for which choice in the current system?--Travelplanner (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Vichy liberalism
Hi, The Four Deuces. Just letting you know that I closed Articles for deletion/Vichy liberalism and opened an entry at RfD instead. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCabal Case
Hello! I have taken a mediation cabal case that has listed you as a party to a content dispute. Before we can proceed to a process of discussion and mediation, I need each party's confirmation that they are willing to proceed with the process to find a solution to end this problem.

Please indicate this approval, if given, on both my talk page and the case page that is linked above.

Cheers! -Reubzz (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Appeal notification
Please see my appeal at the noticeboard. I was known as MoonHoaxBat, but for abusing (i.e. appealing) on my talk page, I had no way to find out how to appeal to ArbCom. I would appreciate it if you could see the noticeboard. I am notifying you because I am not trying to slip something past the community. Thank you,--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Communist Genocide 3rd.
Possibly a bit early, only a month and six days since the close. I expect a horrible snowball / pile-on will occur. Additionally, researching the article's histories, and other articles, indicates that there have been repeated attempts to Neutralise POVs by article movement, and renaming, and that people keep remaking Communist Genocide for very bad reasons. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate that.radek (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just want you know
Hi! It seems an attack on you has been prepared. I have announced this discovery here:. I also suspect Amauter Editor to be a sockpuppet of Digwuren.--Dojarca (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just want you to know I have removed the G10 tag as it is not appropriate. While it would be better to prepare his case against you off line, this is not an attack page and would only turn up in whatever proceedings you two are headed for anyway. May I suggest that you work constructively to resolve your differences/ Perhaps cool off and stay away form this other person?  Dloh  cierekim  22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

AmateurEditor
I am now pretty sure that AmateurEditor is in fact Ultramarine, a user who edited Wikipedia since early 2005 and abandoned Wikipedia just 4 days before AmateurEditor appeared first. Ultramarine was also havily involved in The Black Book of Communism disputes and related topics.--Dojarca (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this comedy hour? Ultramarine quit the project in 2008, i.e. 1 year and 4 days, not 4 days before AmateurEditor joined. lol --Martin (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello?
Sorry, I don't know anything about that cat, do I ? Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't wrong about anything I nominated it for deletion as is my right and the template was removed and the cat was populated, so actually I was not wrong as you put it in your edit summary, you shouldn't do that with the name of another editor in the edit summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was mistaken to tag it with the reason I gave, I am quite new to the correct reason to tag things, I am more in learning mode with that..but please don't do that with my name in your edit summary. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)