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

Sorry about the tension that has been building on the East Germany article,
TFD, I want you to know that even though I disagree with you and you disagree with me on the issue at East Germany and am frustrated with some of your arguments as you appear to be of mine, my frustration is with AndyTheGrump and not particularly with you - I have worked with you cooperatively before on many topics regardless of us being in agreement or disagreement and I admire your contributions to Wikipedia with the highest regard.--R-41 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome.
I would like to personally thank you for your warm welcome, I will be focussing on getting the Nationalistic articles up-to-dates, I am in contact with many prominent figures in British Nationalism, I aim to create a article about Britain First, then expand from there. Zultra2 (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)]

Review
Could you potentially review this article please,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Britain_First

Regards.Zultra2 (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)]

The reason why I am making that article is because I want to add to Wikipedia, and my 'field of expertise' is in Nationalist Politics/Socio-sphere Zultra2 (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)]

TFD, you are taking a very aggressive tone with me
Yes, I made a mistake about East Germany's economy, it was a reasonable mistake considering that East Germany was split from the industrial Rhineland to be assumed to be poorer and dependent on the USSR. But why have you gone to the extreme of saying that it questions my entire credibility on everything related to the article and that I should reconsider even editing the article at all? That is a very extreme statement and a very unwelcoming statement.--R-41 (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * R-41, don't take it personal, he is that way with everyone. TDF and i almost never agree, yet i value his participation in WP far more than most as his passion is evident.  The best way to handle TDF is keep your comments focused on the issue, ignore anything you find offensive as TDF is but another editor with the same rights as you in WP.  It is impossible to have a monopoly on truth, source your claims and wiki-on dude!  Darkstar1st (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It shows a major misunderstanding of the GDR, particularly because it is crucial to the economic relationship with the USSR, and you should read about the subject before continuing editing. TFD (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

fyi
this is cause for concern. I'm pretty sure you would want to know when a user incites a minion to do his bidding in a disagreement with you; and also when the minion in turn incites the other to drag you to e.g. WQA (not to mention the additional provocation to do the same thing with another user). Writegeist (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Et seq. Writegeist (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The user Caden made me aware of this fyi. First of all, I asked Collect, of his own will to post something I did that would be affiliated to me on my behalf because I want a break from the arguments on Talk:East Germany Second of all, it is huge misinterpretation to call Collect a "minion", and that we are scheming against TFD - I explicitly rejected Collect's call for TFD to be brought to WQA - I regarded it as inappropriate and also I know that TFD is a conscientious editor who made what Collect regarded as a personal attack against me where TFD called me incompetent, as being out of frustration, and not out of any malice - I have cooperated with TFD on other topics. Thirdly, I am neither conspiring against TFD nor rallying "minions" against her/him, because I have been cooperating with TFD on Talk:Socialism, we have agreed upon sources that we intend to use on that article, and on a noticeboard discussion on the article Socialism I agreed with TFD's position and I disagree with Collect's position on that noticeboard. If I made a mistake in how I communicated with editors who did contribute to the Socialism article and were not outside of it, then I would be more than willing to be informed of precisely what that mistake was and I will not make it again.--R-41 (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, The Four Deuces. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding reason for discussion. Thank you. --K♪monkey @( '_' )@  Talk⇉✌  23:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Byelf2007 cleared up a misunderstanding. Please take my regards. K♪monkey @( '_' )@  Talk⇉✌  00:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting conspiracy by me, Heonsi, Caden, and Collect?
You asked me oddly if me, the banned user Heonsi, Caden, and Collect are "in the same league"? Are you suggesting conspiracy by me, Heonsi, Caden, and Collect? If you look, I only communicated once with Heonsi, on three occasions with Caden - two of which were brought up by her/him, Collect I have known for years - though at times I have had serious disagreements with Collect - such as a year or so back on the Fascism article. If you are suggesting conspiracy you are wrong - these users addressed your behaviour to me, Collect asked if I should pursue action - I declined, I think you are frustrated and worn out from the discussion at Talk:East Germany as I am, but I know that you are an overall diligent editor who seeks out facts and intends to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. That being said however, if you have arrived to post the question of are we "in the same league"? as some sort of harassing comment I ask you to cease such behaviour at once and perhaps take a break from the discussions - I am done with my contributions to Talk:East Germany - I made the many contributions I thought necessary and I can provide no more, I am done there and I will not be brought back into that argument.--R-41 (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * r-41, "it's a trap!" don't go down this road with TDF.  He is well skilled at the working of WP and has a larger fanbase, you will lose.  the best way to improve WP is to collect sources and publish truth.  You and I rarely agree ourselves, but we can all exist in WP and increase the knowledge here.  Consider TDF as an excellent resource to proof ones arguments, for if you should survive his scrutiny, your edit will likely remain.  Darkstar1st (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not what the idiom means. I have always opposed using labels wherever possible.  As you can see I argued against calling Pinochet a fascist, the John Birch Society and Sweden Democrats far right, and the U.S. as a supporter of state terrorism.  TFD (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting claim considering, ,   (where you clearly label the JBS as "right wing extremist"),    and of course  where you state The term "radical right" however has a clear definition, it was developed in order to describes groups like the JBS, and is the most commonly used term to describe them  and you "argued against calling the JBS ... far right"?  Sorry TFD - lots more diffs available on many articles to show that you routinely favoured calling people "radical right", "extreme right" and more.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I set up an RfC where I argued that the JBS should not be called "far right". My position in all cases was that we need a source that explained how they are normally described by academics, rather than conducting our own research.  And no I did not "clearly label" the JBS as right-wing extremist.  As the link shows, I referred to the "right-wing extremist views of Cleon Skousen".  While they are normally described as "right-wing" and "extreme", we would need a source explaining how scholars normally combined these terms.  In any case there is a difference between using an expression on a talk page and arguing for its inclusion in an article.  TFD (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All I did was post diffs which might be interpreted by other editors as suggesting something a tad different. And I suggest further that anyone reading this colloquy would do well to read the diffs provided in toto. "It ('radical right') was developed to describe groups like the JBS" seems a bit clear to me.   Collect (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "May be in interpreted by other editors". You should take statements at face value and stop trying to read between the lines.  As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  TFD (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Diff The John Birch Society is an American radical right-wing edit made by you. In fact you iterated that same edit a number of times.  my proper edit ascribing the label as an opinion, as opposed to your use of a label as fact.  shows that you were not content with "right wing" as the label, but specifically added "radical." In fact, that edit appears a number of times by you.  has you also insisting that the New Testament has a "collectivist philosophy" Without even a soupcon of a source for such a claim. In fact you insisted on "radical right wing" more than two dozen times. Yet you aver you opposed labeling the JBS? ROFL!  And I would wager it would be difficult to find any editor able to "misinterpret" these diffs!  Collect (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the compliment, but I was not one of the contributors to The Radical Right who coined the term "radical right". Incidentally I reversed an IP's edit because it removed "radical right".  I missed that the IP had also correctly removed an edit referring to the NT's supposed collectivism.  Mind you your position that we cannot refer to an organization as "radical right" despite sources that say that is how it is normally classified, yet can label East Germany as a satellite state despite lack of similar evidence is inconsistent.  It would appear that unlike myself you apply different standards to the coverage of topics depending on their political position.  TFD (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The reversal of an edit is quite the same as endorsing that wording. And doing it two dozen times indicates a strong likelihood that you happen to endorse the label.  My position is that we can say the "opinions' call something "radical middle" or whatever, but assertion of fact as to position on a political spectrum is "iffy."  WRT the DDR, the evidence includes the positions of its former leaders  and "satellite state" ("Satellitenstaat" auf Deutsch) is not a political spectrum label at all.   Now though that yout desire to label groups is amply shown (more than two dozen times on one group alone) in your own words, don't you think you might well admit errancy therein? Collect (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not knowingly reverse the edit removing collectivist and certainly not two dozen times. Your failure to accept that is an assumption of bad faith.  My position is consistent - do not use descriptions of ideology unless that is how they are described in academic writing, and use relevant sources that explain that that is how they are used.  Not only that but I look for sources that explain how a group is defined, rather than look for sources that support my viewpoint and follow the sources rather than my personal views.  And I read all sources before I present them.  TFD (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You added "radical" over two dozen times. You only seemed to insist that the New Testament is "collectivist" once.  As I said clearly.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The actual term is "radical right", which was coined by Lipset and is the term usually used to describe the ideology of the John Birch Society. It does not necessarily mean they are radical or right-wing anymore than the term "bald-headed eagle" means that they are bald or "koala bears" are bears.  If you can show that there is a more widely accepted term to describe their ideology, then please present one.  TFD (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WOW!  Then how do you explain your multitude of reverts with the effect of stating "radical right-wing" as a statement of fact there?   Did you miss your "wing" a few times?   Your edit "The John Birch Society is an American  radical right-wing "  (Your contribution in bold - and I think it says "radical right-wing" to be sure.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's call grammar. One uses adjectives to modify nouns, not other nouns.  TFD (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Four Deuces. Could you provide me with evidence that supports your alleged theory about this so-called conspiracy by me, Heonsi, R-41, and Collect? Can you also clarify what you mean by saying we are "in the same league"?  Caden  cool  00:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not alleged any conspiracy. If you do not know what "in the same league" means then may I direct you to a dictionary here.  TFD (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what it means, however, your post that you left suggested something more. That's how I read it. Caden  cool  00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

CDR - Rwandan Hutu Power fascist movement
thumb|left|250px|Example of the fascist Hutu Power movement - glorification of national/ethnic conflict and war. The cover of the December 1993 issue of the [[Kangura, a Hutu Power newspaper supported by the CDR. The title sarcastically states, "Tutsi: Race of God", while the text to the right of the machete states, "Which weapons are we going to use to beat the cockroaches for good?". The man pictured is the second president of the First Republic, Grégoire Kayibanda, who made Hutu the governing ethnicity after the 1959 massacres.]]
 * Are you going out to get me in trouble TFD for a minor mistake for the 1-revert issue, usually articles have 3-revert rule - I forgot about that one - and I explained in my revert that the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic is widely recognized as fascist. The CDR sought national purification of Rwanda - a pure Hutu Rwanda that excluded the Tutsis whom it regarded as subhuman "cockroaches" from all public life, it didn't accept the rule of law or diplomatic parliamentary politics - it used paramilitary militias to attack political movements, and it took part in the well-organized Rwandan Genocide. Anyways I removed the material that you requested. The CDR and its supporters glorified violence and national purification. I don't know why you don't want me to post reliable sourced information about a political movement widely regarded as fascist that took part in one of the most horrific calamaties of the 20th century - the Rwandan Genocide - it seems an injustice to Rwandans and African Wikipedians to not note this major example of a fascist movement.--R-41 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's easy to forget 1RR, but you reversed your change and are willing to discuss the edit, so you are not edit-warring. It is however better to discuss it on the article talk page rather than here.  I do not see that the  CDR is normally described as fascist, and please do not claim that I am minimizing their crimes by saying so.  TFD (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the wide variety of methodological approaches to fascism, when characterising a movement as "fascist" where it does not adhere to the principles of Horthy, Mussolini, Hitler or Franco; it may pay to specifically indicate which theorists classify that organisation or movement as fascist; and most importantly, to characterise (based on field reviews) the methodology used to characterise a movement as such. When members of the academic community disagree, but are in good standing, attribution and characterisation are important. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there The Four Deuces, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:The Four Deuces.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)