User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2012/December

Completely compelling and the opposite
You made the point that my sourced criticisms of forensic psychiatry experts also applied to experts in other fields, like environmental science re safety. You pointed out that the criticisms of those experts did not belong in the parent environmental science article, so the criticism of forensic psychiatry experts did not belong in the psychiatry article. As you saw, when I found your argument compelling, I said so, and I immeditely stopped arguing my position.

But I find this edit completely uncompelling in its reasoning that I undid it. I started a talk page section to discuss it. You did not respond at that talk page section but instead posted a 3RR on my talk page. Since in the previous example, you clearly demonstrated an ability to reason in a way that is commensurate with my way of reasoning, I am mystified that you would call this 3RR. Is it possible that you are in error this time, not me? You can comment at that talk page section. ParkSehJik (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Third time's the charm?
You nominated this entry twice for deletion and have been fighting tooth and nail over it. Why? Now you go into coordinated removal of sources while ignoring the talk, which you have never done before... Why you do that? Would you suggest I go through some kind of formal inquiry along the old EEML demarcation line to get answers? I believe this is completely unasked for. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 07:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I only nominated the article once for deletion. The other nomination was for an article about a different person but with the same name.  The further reading section appears to fail WP:EL and I have referred it to the EL noticeboard.  Is there any reason why you would create an article about this mayor of Faversham, rather than the hundreds of others who have no articles?  TFD (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please be assured, this is not a threat nor a sign of bad will on my part. You have no reasonable policy basis for revert warring without consensus. Would you rather have me reopen this case at ANI as continuation of the previous incident? Please tell, if you do. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 02:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a content dispute, rather than policy. The ANI issue was whether an editor should have closed the RfC.  You of course are free to do as you wish.  Also, could you please not say that I have a conflict of interest.  "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups."  IE, there would be a COI if you created an article about yourself.  Also, I have only nominated the article about Mayor Richard Tylman for deletion once, of which you must be aware.  TFD (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not forget that your AfD nomination was rejected by our community, therefore, promoting your own position any further, this time around by edit warring in an attempt to enforce your controversial point of view from before is in fact a conflict of interest. Please examin again the follow up discussion at ANI. If you think that the results at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242 were not satisfactory, let's reopen the case. Poeticbent talk 03:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The failure of an AfD does not mean that an article is a good article status and needs no improvement. A specific problem is that reliable sources do not exist.  Also, you claim that Tillman (who may or may not be the subject of the article) was the only merchant shipping corn to London, when the source actually says he was the only merchant shipping on a specific ship.  I believe the reason you chose to write this article is that the subject's name is the same as the anglicised version of your name.  Otherwise you would be working on bios of the other 900 mayors of Faversham.  Also, your ignorance of English history shows - you introduced text explaining the value of shillings in Anglo-Saxon times, which was before the Norman conquest of 1066.  Yet the article is about someone who lived in the 1500s.  You might as well have used a closer date - 2012 - and said that a shilling is worth almost 10 cents US.  TFD (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Organic food". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 19:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process needs to be observed with Darkstar1st
I opened the request for comment as per the guidance given at Dispute resolution on the topic of content disputes.--R-41 (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Both you and Darkstar1st have posted on my talk page involving a sock puppet investigation. Your evidence is not strong enough. You should focus on going through the dispute resolution process. Sock puppet investigations always fail until the IP address is blocked or banned, precisely because the user has been tenacious enough to create a sock puppet in the first place. If any disciplinary action is taken over Darkstar1st's tenacious editing and pushing original research involving topics on socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism; such action should begin with the more effective route of topic ban for the user and if necessary a topic ban for the IP address.--R-41 (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While your claim appears to have some evidence, that both users are from Nashville, Tennessee; you need to have more evidence. Nashville is a big city with a lot of people, it could be claimed that it is coincidence, so you need to have clear evidence of the same patterns in their use of language, same interests such as editing exactly the same topics, etc. Darkstar1st says that his account existed before Caremerger's, which is a sockpuppet of User:RJII. A sockpuppet investigation was already done on whether Darkstar1st was a sockpuppet of RJII, with a response that the two are not related. If you wish to challenge that judgement you will need very strong evidence involving what I noted above: patterns in use of language and having the same interests like editing the same topics.--R-41 (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Behavioral evidence is the same, but checkuser ruled it out because they had different locations. I have prepared similarities and wondered if you noticed any similarities yourself.  TFD (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That should be up to administrators to determine. Present such evidence to a sockpuppet investigation and ask for a re-evaluation of the circumstances of the IP address considering that Darkstar1st has indicated that he has moved from Nashville to Hungary. You will need to present diffs to demonstrate close similarities of language use, behaviour, and topics of interest to both users.--R-41 (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When I brought up Caremerger as a suspected sock of RJII, you provided evidence which led to that account's block. I am now asking you if you think that another editor is also a sock.  I brought up this case to SPI,, and the SPI clerk determined there was sufficient reason to conduct an investigation, but a checkuser found that the suspected sock edited from a different location from Caremerger and the case was closed.  However the suspected sock has edited from different locations.  I obtained information that is confidential and e-mailed a checkuser because we should not repeat this information publicly, per WP:OUTING.  When the clerk responds I will set up an SPI.  At that point behavioral evidence will be considered and I ask you again if you find any similarities between this editor and Caremerger.  If you believe that Caremerger and this editor have nothing in common and operated in different ways, then that would be helpful too.  TFD (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * i give you/wikipedia permission to reveal any information about me you have, including my name. i am now in louisville, so my ip has changed again today. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is up to you TFD to open up a new sockpuppet investigation if you have strong evidence to prove it. I will support an investigation, but I leave it up to you to present the necessary evidence. You will need to present diffs to demonstrate close similarities of language use, behaviour, and topics of interest to both users. But I will not get drawn into any half-ass witch hunt based on little or poor evidence and conjecture.--R-41 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

re United States
Please don't think it's just you arguing against VirginiaHistorian; I went through that for weeks and it was exhausting that no one else entered the conversation, but because of that exhaustion I'm watching but not engaging at the moment. So far you're doing somewhat better than I did. --Golbez (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see that you made many of the same arguments I did.  This editor seems to a fixed idea and no discussion will change it.  All based on a single sentence taken out of context and a number of original arguments.  TFD (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you and yours
I've run out of cards and envelopes. Please refer to last years card. The message is the same. :~) ```Buster Seven   Talk  15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Happy holidays to you.  TFD (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are no administrators addressing the Darkstar1st noticeboard incident? It is about a serious case of disruption
As you have commented on the noticeboard incident, I am both inquiring and asking for your advice of what to do on the ANI on Darkstar1st. I regard the situation at Talk:Socialism as involving serious disruption caused by Darkstar1st's tendentious edits that requires immediate attention. But no administrators are arriving to overview the situation. What are the appropriate means to request for an administrator to observe this noticeboard incident if no attention is being given to it on the noticeboard?--R-41 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Administrators are supposed to enforce community consensus rather than act as judges. At present there appears to be an emerging consensus for a topic ban.  It probably would not be correct for an administrator to take action until time has been allowed for outside editors to comment.  So far two uninvolved editors have agreed with you.  Best to wait 24 hours and if there is no opposition to your suggestion and no administrator has acted then you can request an administrator to close by posting to WP:AN.  Write something like, ""Request administator to close ANI thread".  Could an administrator please close WP:ANI, which is a request for a topic ban."  Also, you should stop posting comments to the discussion thread.  It creates a wall of text, especially when Darkstar1st replies to you, which makes it less likely that outside readers will contribute.  TFD (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)