User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2010/December

How to get rid of POV crap?
I have been planning to write to your talk pages for several weeks, but I see now that you have started doing exactly what I was about to propose. POV crap exists because fringe supporters have been able to start an article under a POV title. Once the title is poisoned there is no point in trying to fix the content. The only way forward is to create alternate content under a different title. To avoid initial opposition, it may be useful to start the new article in your user space. Ask for like-minded or neutral editors to contribute to the draft. Make the article far better and better sourced that the politicized crap. "Steal" and merge useful content from the povish article. Also include the fringe views, but present them from a neutral-point-view.

At first you only aim to isolate the POV crap. Neutral editors will come to your article. You can safely leave the crap to the fringe POV-pushers. They will make the article even worse, but in the end it will be useful for your aims. Only when your new article far exceeds the crap do you start merge or deletion discussion. By then it should be evident to everyone, that that the crap is a POVFORK of your article – not the other way around. If you do this well, the crap will melt away. If it does not, then maybe it was not total crap after all. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Its nice to see that Collect quoted this in full at Talk:Communist terrorism. I wonder where he got the idea that Communist terrorism is POV crap. I have never said or implied such a thing. What I have said here is completely general. Maybe this needs to be expanded into an essay. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. – There is now a related essay at WP:ACTIVIST. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.S. – I have turned this into an essay: User:Petri Krohn/How to get rid of POV crap. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * P.P.P.S – Looks like something has started melting really fast. Call it "Meltdown". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Per this arbitration request, this notice is a warning to please avoid using edit summaries that inflame conflict. This edit summary was unacceptable. Even if the "edit vs editor" distinction you make is in good faith, it is a distinction that will be lost on many other editors who will understandably be offended by the edit summary. Any further such edit summaries may attract measures such as blocks. Regards --Mkativerata (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should just say "Reverse pro-topic edits.". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnsy88 user name issue
What is the issue with my user name Johnsy88 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA
TFD, while I very much appreciate your input, at the advice of Gwen Gale, I have walked away from that report. It seems to be hopelessly muddled by unrelated concerns. Dylan Flaherty  20:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

proposed changes in 1953 Iranian coup article lead
Hi, I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of revising two sentences in the article lead.
 * Changing the first sentence from:
 * The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. 
 * to: The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. 
 * (NOTE: a new book (Iran and the CIA) provides some scholarly evidence that this sentence should be changed further but for now this is more accurate.)


 * changing this phrase (which talks about an element in the motivation for US involvement in the coup):
 * from  ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.
 * to: the '' ... resolute prevention of Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".

The change is discussed here and reasons for the change also here

Hope you have time to give it a look see, --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Editorial input
On User_Talk:Dylan Flaherty you mention procedures for obtaining the input of other editors. for my future reference, what are you pertaining to? Buster Seven   Talk  23:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Re SWP and UAF
Hi TFD. I don't suppose you know where to find the source for the claim that the SWP says it founded UAF? I can't seem to find it, and given the problems with sourcing in the UAF article, I'd like to see exactly what it does say.

P.S. Happy Christmas (or whatever excuse you have for a holiday - if you are having one). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I'll have to look into this further. I'll take a look at the other articles you mention too, when I get a chance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case
Hello! There is a mediation cabal case still open in which you are a named party. It also appears the other mediator has withdrawn. Is there still a need for the mediation cabal to deal with this? If so, I would be glad to volunteer and help out. Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I wish you the best of luck in resolving the issues in alternate ways. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)