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

TFD nomination of Intro-synonyms
You posted this nomination using erroneous code. After checking over your history with the template's author (user:Introman), I've decided to simply remove the nomination rather than fix it. A TFD was held for this template a month ago which resulted in a no-consensus decision; but more importantly, I think your heated history with Introman precludes you from making such a nomination, as it seems like a bad-faith nomination and might also be considered wiki-hounding (yes, even though he's currently blocked from editing). Equazcion (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Carol Browner
FOUR DEUCES, i just finished reading the Washington Times article referring to SI, and i would be fascinated to know the statements in it that are inaccurate. please tell me. Kenatipo (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize
For pushing my POV and being a bit of dick with the edit-warring. I'll ease off, as your suggestions are reasonable. You didn't address my point of labeling populism and other movements as "liberal" movements though. Some distinction should be made IMO. Soxwon (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, LK (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to this, but edit warring continues on the project homepage. LK (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

SI
--Soman (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Google Books
Hi Four Deuces,

Thanks for the insight! I'll try to remember to use that url in the future.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

RJII
Yeah, I read the RJII explanation. Personally, I think it is bullshit - RJII was a jerk who like many disruptive editors had one POV to push and never did research. This fancy explanation is I am sure a hoax, just one guy who was being kicked out of wikipedia's attempt to sound pseudo-scientific. People can say anything and I have neve had any reason to believe anything RJII including this. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 05:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you all around. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines
Hi there. Please refactor your statement so it's under the 250 word limit - it's simply going to get out of hand if anyone had more space than that given the number of parties. Kind regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RJII
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Equazcion (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhhhh
Regarding this reversion, in which you pretend I didn't discuss something on a talk page... did you just not look? I clearly notified and explained said edit. Additionally, it's been discussed and agreed upon on the talk page. Please don't pretend you didn't hear it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You asserted I did not discuss my reversion on the talk page -- I clearly did so before I made the edit. If you didn't see it, look more closely.  If you did, then it's just a spurious accusation.
 * Ironically, you did not join in the discussion on the talk page, you simply reverted on sight.
 * News sources are always preferred over "books" (clearly noted in policy -- see the News organization section and statements about fact checking).
 * It does now appear that there is still some resistance to including the text, however none of the objectors participated in the discussion or indicated it was contested during discussions -- you guys simply started undoing edits. See point number 2 above.
 * Your assertion about needing specific sources for "many observers" is wrong -- the text has been approved by multiple RFC's and is and has been the consensus version for years. This is very clearly explained in the FAQ on the talk page, if you'd bother to look.  Your belief that we need exact sources using that language is flat out wrong, which has been demonstrated by multiple consensus processes.
 * //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are obviously confusing my proposed changes (which have existed only on the talk page) with a previous discussion between Ramsquire and IndyObserver in which everyone agreed to the change you now reverted. The two are entirely separate, you can't argue against my proposal as justification for reverting a change from another thread.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit War
I have no intention of participating in an edit war. However, reverting on sight edits that I make is very antagonistic. You present the attitude that edits must be approved by you or you will revert them. Please don't do this; it only makes the situation more volatile.

Regardless, I have posted two potential compromises which I believe are both reasonable on Talk:Capitalism. Macai (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
You wrote: "The article had an inbuilt bias that made it unencyclopedic." You are not obliged to explain yourself further. But I would be very grateful if you could try to be specific about the bias you saw, because I must be missing something, because I don't see it.

I saw an article that cited a series of WP:RS. The references seemed to be cited in a fair, neutral, responsible manner.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
I have noticed that you have a custom of warning other editors to stop "edit warring", while at the same time you don't see nothing wrong with edit warring when you are doing the reverting. -- Vision Thing -- 13:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the same thing as when you had posted a Fascism 1RR warning on my page, and then you broke it. You are asking others to do something that at the same time you have no intention of doing. -- Vision Thing -- 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Collect
I haven't heard anything. I didn't just conjure that out of thin air, though. Less than two weeks after he violates his restriction, reverts a good faith edit, and gets blocked, he vanishes. (He once went on a wikibreak that had him editing five times a day.) Did he decide he can't do anything here if he can't go around trashing edits that don't conform to his politics? I'd put money on it. Lord willing, he's gone for good, but would you really be surprised if he showed up exactly, on the day, his restriction runs out? Sluggo &#124;  Talk  04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that qualifies. We'll see if I'm wrong.  Sluggo  &#124;  Talk  22:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

UAF
Do not acuse me of introducing bias or of using WP:OR when all I have done is summarise the existing source in a broader fashion. Your accusation on the talk page is reprehensible and I would ask you to withdraw it. Leaky Caldron  20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Before I revert your edit, please explain using this dif how using the same source that was used for 3 right wing politicians to more broadly summarise their wide support, is introducing bias? In case you don't know, the 3 politicians are/were  Conservative or conservative (Smyth). Surely a summary of overall support is fairer to UAF than selecting 3 right wing individuals? If you agree I would apprecate you doing a quick self revert. Thanks.  Leaky  Caldron  20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)