User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2009/September

Excuse me?

You said this in an edit summary: "Reverse Introman's edit - please discuss on talk page" [1] reverting something by a user "12.160.113.34." Don't attribute edits to me that aren't done by me. Introman (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

You have reverted claims back into the article that were obviously not represented by the source. [2] Could you refrain from disruptive editing? Introman (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You're back at it again. The administrator in our previous dispute informed you that you need to have a more substantial reason to do a revert than simply mentioning something about some users agreeing to something or consensus. If you don't have a concrete reason to do the revert, then don't do it. If the only reason for the revert is that you don't agree to it, that's not good enough. There has to be some REASON for you not to agree to it. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss. Comprehend? Introman (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Intro-fringe

Hi, I fixed your nomination of this template. You placed the debate at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 29 but for new debates always use the newest page. It is now on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 6. I also placed the TFD tag on the actual template so people can see it is proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Listing a template for future reference. Garion96 (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

your AfD comment

Regarding this comment by you. please note WP:GOOGLEHITS. Congo Fiji gets over 65 million hits but it's passing mentions in a multilateral sense. there's no chance of any actual article between these 2 countries. LibStar (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman

tinks that by limiting himself to introductions, he does not have to do any serious research. I doubt we can change his mind: the body of the article must reflect serious research, and the introducion shoul dintroduce the body. More and more i am convinced he is just a DE. It is frustrating. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

At least we have a relatively strong DE policy. It used not to exist at all! Look over it, maybe you can suggest some improvements.... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have written to Introman at his Talk page and made some suggestions. I hope these will prove to be effective for him, and will prevent him from offending other Users. I have also summed up my conclusions at WP:WQA. Thanks for raising your concerns on a matter of etiquette. Dolphin51 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel you have nough evidence to ask for a checkuser? Make a petition through regular channels. If they turn you down, let me know and I will see what I can do.

RJII was a disruptive editor befoe we had a DE policy thatworked. We now have a DE policy that works. So whether introman is a sock of RJII or not is not the issue. the issue is that both were/are appaling disruptive editors. Part of DE is to make a case for a pattern across articles and frankly, you have been paying more atention than I have. I am too involved to block introman. But my advice is: patience, and right no start building that case i.e. open up a sub page on your user page and everytime you feel this editor makes an edit that is evidence of a violation of WP:DE record the edit difference. When you have ten edit diffs for three or four articles, which will not be hard or take more than a coupl of weeks, you are thin in a very strong position to go to AN/I to request a ban for DE. Stop feeling frustration for what s/he has done up to now (I apologize if I am patronizing you) and just patiently but systematically build the evidence. Take your time, let it accumulate. Then we can go to AN/I and make a DE argument for a ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know

I am impressed by your stamina on the C.G. article, and I will tell you why I have not bothered. The longer MartinTermer (sort of like Brangelina, only obviously, not) continue stalling a name change with their argumentative and unproductive name calling , the longer it remains, to be quite thoroughly disproved by the complete lack of significant convictions. As soon as it becomes 'Mass killings' or w/e, it will be a real chore to keep the lack of convictions info in there. Anarchangel (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention

You just reverted my move of Communist genocide to Mass killings under communist regimes, claiming that it was done "without consultation" and asking me to provide notice 3 hours in advance. For your information, there has been a discussion about this on the talk page for four days, everyone had agreed to the move except you and people where repeatedly asking you to state your opinion, without getting any response. I warned about the move one day in advance. In the edit summary I pointed to consensus on the talk page, but you didn't even bother to look at the talk page before reverting me. In the future please pay more attention to what's going on before reverting other people's edits. --Anderssl (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(Answer to your response on my talk page.) The template was setup at the same time as I was doing the move, so I didn't see it until after I had done the move. You had several days to give your point of view at Talk:Communist genocide#Followup to merge discussion/ possible rename. Why did you not answer there? And why do you write, untruthfully, that I did the move "without consultation", when I had warned about it on the talk page more than a day in advance? I would like an explanation please. Did you lie intentionally or did you just not read what was going on on the talk page? --Anderssl (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are still not answering the question. Why did you drop out of the debate, and then suddenly come back and declare "no consensus" and revert my move? Termer had accepted the name change, and his template could well have remained in place with an ensuing discussion about the new title proposal, with no need to revert the move for which there had been established consensus. There was no need to revert the move for the sake of that discussion. And please do not invoke Wikipedia policies to avoid having to answer direct questions - I have not accused you of being a liar, I am asking you to explain your actions and your statements. --Anderssl (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So you admit [3] that you did revert without reading the talk page properly first. Please DO NOT do that again. --Anderssl (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

TFD, please have a look at Wikipedia:Consensus and ask yourself this: "Can I decide on my own whether there is consensus in any given question, or do I need to discuss it with other people first?" --Anderssl (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

TFD, I DID ask other people - and you, directly - whether we could declare consensus, several times: [4] [5] [6] Everyone had agreed except you, who declined to answer. All you had to do was to answer the direct questions from me and others, but you chose not to, even as you continued discussing in other sections of the page. --Anderssl (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to warn you against the bad faith move protection. It may hurt your cause more than help it. (Igny (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

You should know very well that making edits to redirect pages protects them from moving over the redirect. Edits like that are considered in bad faith. See here a relevant warning. (Igny (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

3 reverts

It seems to me that Introman has often reverted 3 times, but I may be mistaken. There is also the question of who is reverting who. In any case, if you and I take turns reverting obnoxious edits, then the 3 revert rule doesn't apply. But thanks for the heads up. I'll rewrite rather than revert more often. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your rmessage

Hi,

I am not an admin as has been suggested, merely a volunteers at WP:EAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Class and party

Hi,

Are you interested in writing an article on the relationship between class and party in the US? If so, maybe we could work together. I dimly recall seeing a demographic breakdown of votes for Bush and Gore in the previous election, where most of the upper-middle-class and wealthy wanted Bush while most of the lower-middle-class and poor wanted Gore. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

I was in the process of doing so but it got blocked by an edit conflict. It's fixed now. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

interesting

[7] You're taking the new title seriously.... proves its "fuzziness" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Isaiah Berlin

Are you familiar with Isaiah Berlin? I am not sure whether or not the section titled Posivive Freedom and Negative Freedom correctly reflects his views. It seems confused. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the section Positive Freedom and Negative Freedom is in his article, and doesn't seem to jibe with what I've read about him, but since I've never read anything by him either, I guess we'll have to wait for somebody else to vet that article. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

introman bocked

is he definitely a sock? In any case, well done! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Social Liberalism

Please note that the reasons for my edits will be on the Talk page shortly. Were you the initial Wikipedian to cite Richardson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.254.2 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already seen it

And while he may have multi-ed, he did have a point, you and Rick were rather inflexible and uncompromising. Would you be interested in reopening the discussion with a mentality of finding middle ground, rather than simply butting heads and spouting polar viewpoints? Soxwon (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)