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

Socks
I supported the request - and also added the notice to his page -- Snowded TALK  06:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment on the "sock puppet" page about "Can I". Is "BobIsBob2" in the same category, or different?" Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Hugo Chávez
Look, your edit warring on Hugo Chávez is not acceptable. I did block you, but undid it when I saw that I had neglected to account for you starting to discuss on the talk page of the article. An edit like this, after SandyGeorgia had explicitly listed the reason for adding each one in her edit summary, is disruptive. Please stop. NW ( Talk ) 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Will you please refactor the section of your edit here that consists of a personal attack? Also, please note, e.g., that I support the article name change and also believe that anthropogenic global warming is occuring.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've answered your response on my talkpage (though would have preferred this remain here).--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 18:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am certain now that Caremerger is a sockpuppet of Immoral Moralist, have evidence to prove it
Hi The Four Deuces, I see that you are investigating Caremerger for sockpuppetry. An important point to note is that Caremerger began editing in February of this year, which is the same time that Immoral Moralist was found for sockpuppetry. Secondly Caremerger's first edits were on the Fascism page, and I believe they were argumentative, like that of a user who has already been debating with other users and is not fresh to the debate. Just examine the contributions page. Also Caremerger like Immoral Moralist and the associated sockpuppets of that user all are very interested in U.S. politics, particularly classical liberal politics like Adam Smith, John Locke, the U.S. Constitution, etc. I am certain that Caremerger is a sockpuppet of Immoral Moralist. If you like I will present such evidence to back up your claim, or you can use me as a reference to back up the claim. Mention that Caremerger and Immoral Moralist have identical interests in debating about fascism and U.S. politics and history involving classical liberal figures and ideas. I think that is enough to prove the case. Tell me what you think of this.--R-41 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are administrators doing nothing about Caremerger. I added very reasonable evidence.
Hey The Four Deuces, are the administrators asleep or just not paying attention to what I've added as evidence about Caremerger being a sockpuppet? I think you are going to need to wake them up by getting their attention, because the evidence is fairly concrete that Caremerger is active in all the areas of interest that RJII and that user's associated sockpuppets were, there seems little reason for them to be dragging this out.--R-41 (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
You seem to think that calling someone a "neocon" is a decisive epithet. I find this tremendously uncivil. Please edit collaboratively, and let's figure out neutral language to describe TWS's critique of Moyers. THF (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I called a neoconservative publication "neocon". They call themselves "neoconservative".  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE self-revert

 * Every* single one of my changes was discussed on the talk page. THF (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation
Thank you for letting me know.UberCryxic (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name
Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Template
Much thanks! UberCryxic ( talk ) 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

JBS
I've responded, albeit a little late, at RSN. My rationale is that some of the sources cited may be RS, but using them in the lead amounts to cherry-picking. And some of the other labels applied to this group in the lead are even further off-base. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)