User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2013/July

Alger Hiss
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

CJK (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House
I think thanks to the reliable sources board we have made progress, but was hoping to get your input here as well if you have a minute. CorporateM (Talk) 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth II
The question posed at the Elizabeth II RfC, at which you commented, has been amended to clarify a potential misunderstanding. Please re-visit the question and your comment and amend if necessary. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My RSN thread
Sorry, I can't reply you and User:Itsmejudith there on RSN as the thread has exceeded my edit box limit. It is my mistake that I didn't post links for my sources in RSN itself for easy access. For the sake of chronology I searched sources from 2002 to 2013. UN, HRW, US etc sources published in 2011, 2012, 2013 still talk about muslim involvement. The gang is not telling me which sources are primary or unusable because they know I have recent sources and I can bring more. Their tactics is to run around trees to frustrate me. (2) Academic books are good but not every user has access to library in real life and also google books doesn't work on some browser. The gang is using academic sources for their side. I don't have access to any academic book. As I (and some users on wikiproject India) can tell other side only through web sources, they try to discredit ALL web sources. And other users also say that academic sources are better, and as users like me don't have access to academic books hence article end up showing only only one side of story. This is the trick of the gang. And combined with 'academic sources' insistence, when gang is pushing POV, it becomes almost impossible for other users to balance the side. Thank you. neo (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A problem that has no real solution is that academic books and articles are often the best sources, yet they are often difficult to obtain. Basically, you need to trust the people who do have access to those academic sources. You can always come to RSN to ask "is this source represented correctly". There is also the resource exchange. Official sources post 2011 are likely to be reliable for that article. Bring individual cases to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Itsmejudith. If you do not have access to the best current sources, then it is usually not possible to know if they are being presented consistently with policy.  While you may question them on talk pages or noticeboards, the people most likely to reply are those who were responsible for developing the articles.
 * Even if you find sources that help show an article is biased, you need to persuade editors not already involved in editing the article to participate. In the case of 2002 Gujarat violence that may be difficult because few people who are neutral on the topic would have any knowledge or interest in the story.
 * On the other hand, it may be that the article accurately reflects sources, but the scholarship is biased. In that case there is little you can do, since articles are supposed to give greatest weight to majority views.
 * TFD (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Formally added as party to an ArbCom case
Just so you know, you have been formally added to the Tea Party Movement ArbCom case as an involved party.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello The Four Deuces. We've never been introduced before, so I am Hahc21, a clerk for the Arbitration Committee. I added you as a party following a request by one of the arbitrators, thus my actions were not personal. I don't know why an arbitrator requested that you be added as a party, and if you want more information about it, you may ask so in the talk page of the Tea party movement case. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ  21  01:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request at MkuCr
I just posted a notice about not finding the institution for Dinyu Sharlanov online. It would be nice to know, but I don't think it would change the situation for citing him either way. I will be posting the edit request tomorrow. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (cross-posted from my talk page) You're welcome. I have no problem with using a better source when we find one, but Tourbillon presented this source and we have no good reason to exclude it. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The book Dissent And Opposition In Communist Eastern Europe (Ashgate Publishing, 2008) has a chapter on Bulgaria with sections about repression during various periods of Communist rule. I am sure other sources would not be difficult to find.  TFD (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an either/or proposition. If you propose a sentence for inclusion from that source, I will also support it. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

gun control DR
Gun control DR. I created a gun control DR, but missed your name to add you to it. Please feel free to add yourself if so inclined. Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control Gaijin42 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Responding here as to not clutter the DR.

You said that you thought fringe groups outside the US did not have any interest in this topic. I do not think any of the following are fit for inclusion based on the reliability of sourcing (except possibly the first, which would be borderline), but it is evidence that the trope crosses international boundaries (but I do freely admit it is concentrated in the states) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin047.pdf
 * http://www.foaa.com.au/page/2/
 * http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/RCMP+seized+High+River+firearms+from+homes+control/8588851/story.html


 * I said, "I do not think that notable fringe groups outside the U.S. take any interest in this...." The Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom and the Firearms Owners Association of Australia are not "notable fringe groups."  People in High River, Alberta being irritated that the police force their provincial government chose removed guns from their abandoned homes is not a "notable fringe group."  TFD (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

2A RFC/DR
I have speedily closed the Second Amendment RFC, so that the DR can proceed. GP opened the DR, which I take to be an implicit !vote that he finds DR acceptable, and if you and I are agreeing on a course of action here it seems fairly obvious that it is the correct decision and should move in that direction. So far everyone to comment on the RFC seems to think the RFC would not work. But I thought I would make you aware to be transparent. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, I just noticed that you are listed in the DR as TFD, you might want to fix it so that any automatic stuff correctly routes to you. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Genetically modified food controversies
I think that you might have put your RfC comment in the wrong place (in a subsection about the sources, rather than in the RfC itself). I don't feel right moving it myself, but I want to let you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have moved them. I do not mind if other people move my comments in cases like this.  TFD (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)