User talk:Smitherfield

April 2013

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Howard Phillips (politician), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading "single threading"

Hi, I have found you request for explanation in Thread (computing) here: Special:Diff/766719806.

Please see if this Special:Diff/861280965 is acceptable. Any suggestions and copy-editing are welcome.--CiaPan (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LGTM! Smitherfield (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman factions

Look, i know you are trying to help, but we currently have no sources that either the Optimas or the Populares functioned as established factions, organizations or parties. The fact that we associate various roman figures with two factions are usually based on similarities in their political activities, certain similar opinions and cooperation between roman individuals. Giving either faction more ideologies than the ones that have been in place for a long time may thus be somewhat inaccurate and non-factual, especially when such additions are not given sources. Giving either a political position is however even more problematic as it is hard to determine accurate positions for such loose groupings that are supposed to describe politics of a civilization about 2000 years ago, especially when the political spectrum is based on modern politics. Please, if you really want such changes so bad, gain proper concensus on the talk-page and add proper sources to these changes. As for those linguistic changes you did, im sorry i accidentally reverted those, that was not on purpose. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Optimates#Infobox. Smitherfield (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss this, but dont create a new section on the talk-page of another article regarding another editor. The point is that the sources should be added to the infobox to support the ideologies, i will also remove some of your additions that are not ideologies and thus are not supposed to be in the infobox. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting rather through the looking glass. You are the one who initially asked to discuss this topic on the talk page. Wholesale deleting a section written by someone else is not proper talk page etiquette, nor is referencing another user disallowed by the same. But if it makes you happy I've restored the section under the title "Infobox."

Incidentally benevolent dictatorship is an ideology, just as democracy, monarchism or theocracy are alternative ideologies. For example, (supposedly) benevolent dictatorship is a large part of the state ideologies of modern-day Russia and China, heavily emphasized in their domestic and foreign propaganda. Conversely the American and Norwegian governments promote democratic ideology in their education systems and state-owned media, the Qatari and Iranian governments promote Islamic theocratic ideology and so on. Just because dictatorship vs. democracy vs. other forms of government is not an ideological debate among mainstream political parties in America and Norway does not mean it isn't a debate in every time and place—very much the opposite. Smitherfield (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]