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

Hi
Make any further comments towards me which may imply i`m a nazi as you did here will be deemed a PA. You know bugger all about my politics and i doubt you ever will. Do not make comments on my person again. mark nutley (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that implies that you are a Nazi. Would you care to explain how you reached that conclusion? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Was i talking to you? No, right then run along pal. mark nutley (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think you were talking to User:The Four Deuces, but I think I'll stick around anyway. So anyhow, why don't you try to explain how that implied you were a Nazi? If you can't provide a coherent argument supporting the validity of your accusations, how do you expect anyone to take your concerns seriously? We are here for you Mark, but you need to help us help you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He's been accusing me of PA as well, I expect we will see a "Oh how am I persecuted for my righteous beliefs" ANI posting next -- Snowded TALK  08:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Communist terrorism, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. '' This drive by revert reinserted WP:SPS into the article, as you are no doubt aware this is against policy. Please self revert. You are also aware no doubt of WP:BRD which had just been called. Another breach of policy. '' mark nutley (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark! I had a look at the climate change ArbCom case and noticed that this proposal Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision was not getting much support in early September – because of the claimed "limited scope of the problem." I then looked at your recent edit history and it seems to indicate that you have migrated your CC behavior to other topics. Maybe you should seriously consider abandoning politics and work on history or something.


 * I was not going to bring this up anywhere, but sense you have opened to discussion on policy, this seems like a perfect place to take note. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The similarities between his current behavior and his CC behavior has already been pointed out to him numerous times in several articles he's currently disrupting. He doesn't seem to care, which is not surprising considering that he gave no indication that he was going to change his behavior after the CC case. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you believe that to be that the case, than maybe you should take this up at the CC ArbCom talk page and ask the arbitrators to take another look at the reasons for opposing the proposed remedy. The case is still open. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 6 October 2010

See
Here mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Your last two comments on Communist terrorism would appear to be comments aimed at me, i am commenting on sources and you seem intent on commenting on me, why not focus on content and not me? mark nutley (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussions of what Marx and Engles meant is original research and should be avoided by all editors. No idea how we got into this discussion.  In each case I commented following your comments but it applies to us all.  I will refactor the comments to make them more general.  TFD (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Marxism and revolutionary violence
Reading through the talk pages at Talk:Communist terrorism it is becoming more and more evident that the people pushing Valentino and friends have in fact completely misunderstood the terminology. The issue they are discussing should be covered in an article on Marxism and revolutionary violence. I am just about to propose that the article be renamed and split to List of Marxist and left wing terrorist organizations and Marxism and revolutionary violence. Do you think we would find editors willing to work on these topics, apart from those wishing to push fringe views? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the notice
Hey, 🃒🃂🂲🂢. Thanks for the blurb on my talk page. I noticed you added no such blurb to the pages of the other editors in the dispute, though. Interesting؟ ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Mass killings under Communist regimes, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. When you note that an edit war is in progress, please do not join in even if you are in the right. The slow slog of consensus is the only way that article will ever become a high quality stable encyclopedia article. The article is locked from editing for the next month; please discuss proposed changes on the talkpage in the meantime. As always, template:editprotected and requests for unprotection may be used when a firm consensus is reached. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you do not remove this warning I will complain at ANI. TFD (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the warning given by 2over0. Due to the quirkiness of the Digwuren warning system, warnings need to be given even in pro-forma situations that may not seem to be a big deal. (It is not like the situation with 3RR warnings where experienced contributors are believed to know the score and do not need to be warned). If it were up to me, I would prefer a system where people would be assumed to know the rules in the same style as 3RR, which would avoid the need to officially notify them of Digwuren in many cases. For example, you yourself cited Digwuren in your AE complaint, so you could be assumed to know the rule. Arbcom does not give us this flexibility. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I relocated your comment that was left in the uninvolved admin section of the AE request. Please fix if I made a mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems you have been given a formal warning. I've alway thought that Communism was an international topic, certainly population wise it has less to do with Eastern Europe and more an Asian phenomena, more so in the 00's. But now you have been bitten in the arse by an EE sanction. I've always argued that including Communism in the scope of Eastern Europe was too broad an interpretation, you should too. --Martin (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Explanation or refactoring requested
"That your proposed edit violates OR, NPOV and RS has already been explained and no further explanation is necessary."  I hope you wrote this in haste and didn't actually mean it. Could you simply remove it and take some time to clarify your position, or let the editor I was addressing answer my questions to him without interjection on your part. Alternatively, an you could explain here as why you feel this is a productive way to build consensus. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * After North8000 and I provided policies and guidelines, you asked that we provide policies and guidelines. The discussion is provided below (with my emphases).  Why did you ask for these when they had already been provided?
 * WP:NPOV says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Unless you can should that these views are widely held, NPOV does not allow its inclusion. TFD (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD is right. And, to put it a couple of other ways, sources fulfill sourcing criteria. There are other criteria for inclusion that must be met. For example, synthesis, undue weight and being germane to the article. Also, if the source is the one initiating the assertion, then they are primary and not suitable even if they meet other RS criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What you just said does not address what I wrote. And wp sourcing standards apply even if the topic is new. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ... Sorry, I believe I already had. Please explain what specific policies, guidelines, etc you're think are applicable. You didn't mention any in particular, so I assumed that they were the ones already mentioned and addressed. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So, how is this a productive way to build consensus? --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus does not mean unanimous. It must be clear however that some columnists have used the term "Know Nothing" because of its double meaning (i.e., KNs claimed to know nothing about their organization but it could also mean unknowledgeable in general), which is certainly not neutral.  Rjensen has pointed out that there is no scholarly work comparing the Tea Party to the KNs.  I actually created an article about the American Radical Right, which I think shows I accept that the Tea Party can be described in these terms.  However, none of the sources by scholars (e.g., Robert Altemeyer, Sean Wilentz) that I have read have been published in academic sources, and papers that have been are not available free on the internet.  But be patient.  If the known facts of the Tea Party are available to readers, they are free to form their own conclusions.  TFD (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you not interested in answering my question? --Ronz (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We reach WP:Consensus through discussion on talkpages, referring to sources, policies and guidelines. I have done that.  TFD (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see how stating that "no further explanation is necessary" helps anyone reach consensus. You don't appear to be able to nor want to justify it, so I'll just assume you didn't mean it. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You asked for policies and guidelines with which you had already been provided which wastes everyone's time. If you have any arguments to make then do so but please do not ask other editors to provide you with information they have already provided.  TFD (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I wrote you quoted above. I'm sorry that it has you so confused. I wasn't clear if editors were referring to other policies or guidelines that had yet to be mentioned, or those mentioned which I believe had already been addressed. Certainly, it was a case for further explanation.
 * Of course, refusing to provide further explanation is problematic in almost any situation. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

American exceptionalism
Hi, your post on the talk page was like a breath of fresh air in that semi-coherent debate. Please rewrite the lead section if you find the time -- pointing out the two uses of the term. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 16:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States
Uncle Dick (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)