User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2011/March

Hello.
Given your previous warning to myself regarding perceived personal attacks I find myself surprised that you would say that I am engaged in Advocacy. Might you consider removing this as it is quite offensive to be accused of such, given all content proposed by myself is both verifiable and neutral. Tentontunic (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Reincarnation
Re your comment on my talk page. This edit is interesting and the dates of account formation and other activity might be an indicator. What do you think? -- Snowded TALK  06:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism
I noticed you removed the POV tag from this article with the edit summary Remove neutrality tag - no current discussion on talk page There is a section on the talk page regarding neutrality. Is it standard practice to remove POV tags when the discussion stalls? Tentontunic (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was curious, you seem to remove templates from articles you approve of with undue haste, yet on articles you dislike you edit war to keep tags in place. But thanks for the link to Template:POV. It means I may remove the POV tag from the Mass killings article. Tentontunic (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Father Stalin look at this
Are you happy now? Tentontunic (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is your issue with me? Tentontunic (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am
quite certain I asked you to stop doing this, why are you persisting? Tentontunic (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. I may be wrong, and therefore request that you show why this article is notable before I recommend its deletion.  TFD (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please respond to my question Tentontunic (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ( talk page stalker ) Hi, Tenton, Ohiostandard here. I know it annoys you when TFD AfD's the stubs you've been creating, but it's my opinion that he's right to do so. Opinions on the matter differ, but I also wish you'd stop creating one-line or two-line articles without doing any research to show why they're notable. I'm thinking of the bogus journal article and "Father Stalin", of course.


 * I know you mean well, but creating such short articles with nothing in them that generates any belief that they're notable is, in my opinion, pretty much asking for a deletion tag. I'd really appreciate it, myself, if you'd develop articles a bit in userspace before moving them to mainspace, or would at least do some serious research to determine notability first, and include findings of the same in the article you create. Not doing that just creates a lot of work for other editors, either to do that research themselves when the article inevitably comes up for deletion or to convert a one-liner into something useful.


 * As I said, I know opinions differ about the creation of stubs, and it seems to have turned out okay re HMS Constance, but the article development process shouldn't be (1) Create one liner, (2) It gets AfD'd, (3) That creates interest from other editors, (4) Those other editors expand the article... or (5) It gets deleted. That's just a very inefficient use of other editors' time, in my opinion. I see at the AfD that other editors have commented that you need to keep articles in userspace longer before dropping them into mainspace, and I couldn't agree more. Again, I know you mean well, but what you've been doing really does impose on other editors time, either to research a subject's notability at AfD when you should have done so yourself, and should have included sufficient evidence of the same in the article before "publishing" it, or to expand the stub you'd created, in order to keep it from deletion.


 * I've personally found it necessary to spend around six hours doing research that, in my opinion, you most certainly should have done yourself. No hard feelings, but I really wish you'd stop creating articles that place that kind of burden on other editors. Just keep them in userspace, please, until they're ready for prime time, i.e. at least until you've added at least a couple refs that unequivocally show notability, and have been able to add more than just a couple of lines of content. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Abuse Responce Report
Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 24.116.219.146. - Rich (MTCD) Talk Page 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche
Re the RfC, I've trawled through Google Scholar and brought up some academic sources that call LaRouche an economist, in addition to the various media sources that were already listed. Have a look at them, and see if they change your mind, or not. I tried to avoid the ones that I know are LaRouche's own publications.

Let me add that I'm not a particular LaRouche fan. But if the man and his views have the ear of various foreign governments, notwithstanding his lousy standing in the US, then I believe we shouldn't minimise that, and give the reader the impression that he is nothing but an inconsequential local cult leader. Cheers, -- JN 466  18:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. I had resigned myself to the likely outcome of the RfC, and removed the economist label, but now see that LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed in the American Economic Review, published by the American Economic Association.

The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.

To my mind, this changes things, and I feel less happy to let the matter drop. Surely, having your work reviewed in the American Economic Review, which according to our article on it is one of the most prestigious journals in the field, counts for something. Add to that the fact that he was considered quite an important economist by various Latin American governments, according to reliable sources, and I feel uncomfortable not calling him an economist. What's your view? -- JN 466  03:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, if it makes any difference, that the AER snippet is from an ad in the back matter, rather than a review. (This info comes courtesy of User:Volunteer Marek, who checked the relevant issue.) -- JN 466  22:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for taking an interest in the request for arbitration another editor started with me. I appreciate your efforts towards resolution and neutrality, and naturally I have no requests or advice, I only hope you don't get bored with the minutia.
 * 

Best wishesLeidseplein (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)