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

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence was reopened after a review at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228. I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26 to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Rb
Sorry about that, im on an iPhone and didn't mean to hit rollback Kevin (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. TFD (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

yes i am aware the inter-webs were not around then
perhaps i have not made my point very well. lenin used the term national socialist, not, "socialism in one country". Darkstar1st (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * btw, the reason i comment here much of the time, is most of your comments are directed toward the editor not the content. notice any post you make about content receive an answer on the article discussion.  Darkstar1st (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your last comment posted here was in response to my reply to your question about whether a document would be a reliable source for Nazism. The discussion about what is rs for an article is a discussion about article content.  If you have not made your point very well on a talk page, then improve it there.  TFD (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * you have yet to explain your "no" on the talk page. lenin is a RS in wp therefore a direct quote from him could not be OR.  Darkstar1st (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will reply on the talk page. TFD (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * great, do so in the future as well and we can skip this part. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I really think User:Bryonmorrigon should be reported by people like me or you outside of disputes with him for his continuous ad hominem personal attacks other users.
User:Bryonmorrigan on the Fascism article has been engaged in endless ad hominem personal attacks against users whom he disagrees with. Me and him have not however sparred on any topic of an article so it is not some personal vendetta by be against him. The point that I am bringing this up because I have seen that he has drawn out discussions into viscious, derogatory, and especially belittling mudslinging and I would like support for reporting him for deliberate violation of Wikipedia etiquette policy and for regular personal attacks against multiple users for a prolonged period of time that has disrupted constructive editing and constructive debate. I adviced him to back down towards a user that both me and Bryonmorrigon disagreed with - I told him that his tone was very derogatory and belittling to the user that was in violation of Wikipedia etiquette policy and was of a personal attack nature; and said that he should focus on the issue and not the person. He responded by approximately saying "I don't care" and that he somehow has the obligation to fight with alleged "edit-warriors" - without recognizing the irony of it all that by doing so, he is an edit-warrior. And at present he still doesn't care about Wikipedia etiquette policy nor the disruption that he causes on discussion pages by turning the discussion from rational debate to vicious belittling and personal attacks, resulting in the discussions trailing off into hot angry exchanges ending with no resolution other than a final insult, unless other users intervene like I have to bring the issue back to the topic, but it is very tiring for me because his derogatory behaviour never ends. I'd like both your support and advice on where and how to report Bryonmorrigon for deliberate violation of etiquette policy and personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think that any of his comments could be used in a successful WQA or other action. If you do not like the way he addresses other editors, you may wish to express your views on his talk page using a specific example.  There are btw a number of editors who come to these articles and want them to say that fascism was left-wing.  As you see from previous discussions, this has involved many editors in countless hours of unproductive conversation.  TFD (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC);

Heads-up
Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley; Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is also of relevance. Prioryman (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Tylman. Again.
Hi there, I notice that you nominated his article for deletion, so I thought you may be interested to know that his poetry translations (or references to his own poems) are turning up in various articles (the first five in the search list) with dodgy refs (they seem to reference the book the poem was printed in decades ago, though I assume the translation is modern and not from the book, since the book is the original language version). Different editors are adding these references to Tylman (for instance, User talk:Darwinek added this attribution, User:A. Kupicki added this one], and User talk:Tymek mentioned him on Nowa Huta. Okruchy życia i meandry historii, but I deleted that mention (Tymek once gave User:Poeticbent/Tylman a barnstar, so, hardly independent) by attributing the poems to Tylman. Either Tylman is the poor victim and being ripped off, or somehow... well, let's not speculate too much. The problem is, the translations are probably OR but are being dressed him in respectability via the inclusion of this 'attribution'. What do you think should be done? I actually don't mind OR translations of out of copyright poems if the original is next to it, but the dodgy attribution to an editor who once wrote his own page sets off an alarm bell. Thanks and sorry if I'm wasting your time. Malick78 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And Tylman himself (as Poeticbent) kindly cited himself) on this page, hyperlinking his name to boot. This is starting to annoy me... [[User:Malick78|Malick78] (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the edits which fail rs. But they are old and can remove similar edits yourself.  TFD (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks, I've removed some more too. For the record, Darwinek left a message on my talk page saying: "I personally asked my friend Richard Tylman (User:Poeticbent) to make translations of some fragments of poetry. He agreed, translated them and requested his name be mentioned along with the translations." Sounds like more self-promotion. Is any further action justified in your view? I get the feeling Tylman is unlikely to voluntarily stop bombarding WP with his work. Malick78 (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that these edits were made some time ago and you have explained to Darwinek the issues involved. Poeticbent (who said he was Richard Tylman) btw has been indefinitely blocked.  I would not do anything unless the problem comes up again.  TFD (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for that. Do you have a link to the blocking of Poeticbent? I'd like to read it, if it's no hassle.Malick78 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here TFD (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Malick78 (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hillquit-Haywood debate
I didn't even know about that debate. If you can find an exact date and better yet a newspaper name and a date, I'll type it up. It was definitely not published as a pamphlet and there is no such thing as Hillquit selected works. I doubt also that there is a collection of Big Bill's writings. It seems like something that would have run in ISR, for example. Carrite (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I queried Jeff Perry about this. He cited it in his book on Herbert Harrison and I know that he has a pretty massive library. You could probably obtain this from Tamiment directly, although it would probably run you about $20 in copying and postage charges. I have managed to get stuff of this general nature from them before though. A quick glance at the web doesn't show this as having been published. The Hillquit papers listing you cite looks like a stenogram. I'd very much love to type it up, although technically it's a tricky copyright situation. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My Call microfilm starts in 1916, I think; I won't have 1912 for six months or more. BUT this means it's public domain and there is no worry about typing up and publishing the Tamiment stuff if that can be obtained. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted comments on Conservatism talk page
Hi. I've found that two of your comments on the Conservatism talk page were deleted by bobbryaner, see. I've restored them - I hope in the right places! -- Klein zach  04:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have asked Bobrayner to explain the deletions.  TFD (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification
Your name has been mentioned in conjunction with Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel. —Novangelis (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)