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

Where is your evidence that fascism completely rejected democracy?
TFD you have restored into the intro that fascism completely rejects "democracy" and with no references. Fascists have never claimed to oppose all democracy completely. They clearly opposed conventional democracy, and the intro can and should say that "fascists oppose conventional democracy". But not all democracy - because that is not verifiable and is a misrepresentation of the ideology, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Unless you can find evidence where fascists abandoned their claim to support authoritarian democracy, the current intro is unacceptable and is based upon stereotypical assumptions of fascism's views. The difference between a POV intro and a NPOV intro is the inclusion of the term "conventional democracy" rather than "democracy" and mentioning that fascists themselves "claimed" to support a form of democracy - leave it to the readers to review and come to their conclusion though the evidence.--R-41 (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The obvious solution to all of this is to include both views - Arblaster mentions both, thus I propose the following sentence in the intro: "fascism rejects conventional democracy based on rule of a numerical majority, though it claims to represent an authoritarian democracy based on rule of the qualified, but this claim to represent democracy by fascists is viewed with strong skepticism by many scholars".--R-41 (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMING keeps reverting edits, is being uncivil, and edited my comment - impersonating me, I'm asking for your opinion of what to do
ERIDU DREAMING keeps reverting the edits I made, in which I recognized that the long statement he posted was a soapbox for his opinion that was deliberately exclusionary to discussion by others - he singled out specific users, including me, as being left-wing users who allegedly are using the "majority" he claims these users have to misrepresent right-wing politics. He also has very grossly violated Wikipedia policy on WP:UNCIVIL towards the user Rick Norwood calling him a "Republican hating Democrat". Here is ERIDU DREAMING covering it up by editing my comment that mentioned the uncivil remark by removing it and placing a more civil remark in its place - but that was my comment about his remark on Rick Norwood, see here:. - I believe that is a violation of Wikipedia policy when you are impersonating another user by making edits under their name. ERIDU DREAMING appears to have violated multiple Wikipedia guidelines, what should be done?--R-41 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion thread at ANI and if that does not lead to improved behavior, I will set up an RfC/U. TFD (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I said to ERIDU-DREAMING that I would ask this - do you feel able to address these concerns without hostile feelings towards ERIDU DREAMING? After all he did call you "far-left" - which from experience of editing with you I do not see to be the case.--R-41 (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no hostility at all toward ERIDU-DREAMING. However, his long postings without any sources are wasting everyone's time.  TFD (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please apologize for this uncivil remark
This following remark is a gross overreaction to a post I made where I mentioned that conservatives have described themselves as on the right, such as the Canadian conservatives Hugh Segal and Tom Flanagan, and the American conservative Sean Hannity support using the term "right" to describe themselves; you said this:

"That is original research, the sort of argument one expects in articles from 9/11 truthers and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists. Search "right-wing" in the book and we find, "the fragmentation that the U.S. right wing has generated since the Goldwater days". Think that Segal considers himself a Tea Bagger? Then he says, "Canadian conservatives have united from across the spectrum" - think he means that the spectrum begins and ends with the Right? (p. 195) Write to Segal (Hon. Hugh Segal, House of Senate, Ottawa ON Canada) and ask him if he considers himself to be a right-winger. BTW, the Reformers, who were after all right-wing populists, dropped the description right-wing when they began to reach out to moderate voters."

This remark is uncivil and offensive to an extreme, as noted by another user on the talk page (User:Rick Norwood). How can you possibly grossly exaggerate and compare me to a conspiracy theorist of the events of 9-11 and the Kennedy assassination? You say that I called Segal a "Tea Bagger", I never associated Segal with the derogatory term related to its derogatory use of sexual connotations that you used to describe the Tea Party movement, nor did I say that he was affiliated in any way with the Tea Party movement. Lastly your statement about Flanagan is wrong, this statement was in 2001 after the Reform Party became the Canadian Alliance. Since I consider you overall to be a very astute and Wikipedia-policy committed user I am delaying reporting you for personal attacks for and your first comments of comparing me to a 9/11 or Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist. If you rescind these remarks or apologize out of your own will, I will consider the issue resolved and will not need to report this personal attack.--R-41 (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that bad was it? TFD comment is trying to make a point and did not intentionally set out to "attack" you.  R-41, would you be willing to skip the apology?  if so, i suspect we will be able to move this article, which is in poor shape, into something we can all be proud to have built.  Darkstar1st (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Best to discuss the article on its talk page. TFD (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing politics
I'm not sure why you reported only one of the editors edit-warring here. I've protected the page for a week,but I think some sort of dispute resolution will be needed. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)