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

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:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America". {| 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 13:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nicolás Maduro
TFD, would you mind taking a look at the Nicolás Maduro article. An IP there has gone against myself and another user by re-instating a picture of the president with his mouth open, which I find to be inappropriate. A better picture is available which is currently in the article. Thanks. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Fascism
I get the sense that you don't consider process as important as I do. If the process is flawed I see no benefit in participation until the problems are addressed. I would be surprised if you found anyone to support your claim that the words you removed ("before editorializing added") could be considered a personal attack of such a severity that it required your intervention, especially given all the other antics going on there that you are not removing. It appears to me that your participation is generally constructive, so I hope you will take my advice and forswear editing anyone's talk page edits unless and until you become an administrator. Reverting any such edits should improve the outcome for you in any subsequent administrative procedures. Joja lozzo  22:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Please stay on point J8079s (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not having a general discussion about the topic but about (a) presenting a 5-4 decision as definitive violates neutrality, whether sourcing the text to a primary document or no source violates reliable sources and whether claiming that the right derives from natural law when the source does not make that claim is original research. I suggest we use a reliable secondary source, which would avoid the necessity of pointing out all the errors in your proposed addition.  TFD (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)