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

You are involved in a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard

Here is the link: [1]--R-41 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you on the topic we are currently on, I apologize for saying something rather crude about you out of frustration

I said to user Collect that I thought you had "gone mad" because you couldn't understand my argument. That was a crude way for me to put that I thought that you were arriving at an irrational conclusion in your rebuke of my claims about the issue over fascism and claims of democracy by it. For that I apologize.--R-41 (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. People do not always agree, and you need to trusty content dispute resolution to resolve differences. TFD (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I have mentioned you here. Best wishes, Writegeist (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Try to put aside your differences with me when dealing with the clear gross violation of Wikipedia guidelines by User:Bryonmorrigan, User:W.J.M., and the anonymous user User:66.234.60.131

User:Bryonmorrigan, User:W.J.M., and the anonymous user User:66.234.60.131 made the discussion at Talk:Nazi Party become a vicious battleground complete with swearing by W.J.M., Bryonmorrigan claiming he is more educated than "uneducated" W.J.M., and the anon user accusing Bryonmorrigan of being a "liberal/communist". I understand that you are extremely frustrated and angry at me over our disagreements, but try to at least look at the situation as if someone else brought forward the report, if someone else brought forward the report, there still are three users who have recently engaged in swearing , claiming superiority over each other in terms of education and accusing each other being stupid, and slanderous political accusations.--R-41 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if you do not like the tone of the discussion, your complaint had no reasonable expectation of success and therefore should not have been filed. TFD (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen what Bryonmorrigan has said? Have you looked at the diffs I provided? Have you looked at the acronym that Bryonmorrigan posted to a user (he posted the acronym DILLIGAF)? I strongly believe that your actions there are influenced by your strong frustration and anger with me over disagreements. I wish you would finally apologize for having accused me without evidence of advocating a POV on Talk:Nazism for the three sources on Nazi policy and religion that I presented that held different perspectives - as I will admit that has been a source of immense tension between us.--R-41 (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

See my initial posting, "Since R-41 has provided no edit differences to support his case, I recommend that this discussion thread be closed."[2] I have made the same remarks numerous times. Your example, for which you provided no edit difference, did not raise to the level of warranting sanctions which you should know if you looked at similar cases. BTW Bryonmorrigan's talk page is on my watchlist and I routinely comment when I am familiar with the editors involved. TFD (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You have been mentioned at my talk [3] Best wishes, Writegeist (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Both of us need a resolution to our mutual tension and frustration with each other

There has been a mutual tension and frustration building between us for some time and I think it needs a resolution. In the past I used to cooperate with you often. This tension between you and me started by you accusing me of advocating a POV with three sources on Talk:Nazism that had completely different claims, two users on the talk page said that you should have apologized to me if you had no evidence to make that claim, I would still accept an apology, it would help to restore my previous holding of you in a good regard that was damaged by that evidence-less accusation. As Collect as mentioned, your use of WP:KNOW and WP:TRUTH is not helpful, for instance you claimed that a source was making an "ironic" statement based on your perception of it, without evidence that the author of the source was intending to be ironic; that was not a fact but your POV. I am also frustrated by your use of arbitrary comparisons, especially comparing my arguments to those of conspiracy theorists such as Holocaust deniers. I accept warranted criticisms based on rational comparisons, your recent "paper tiger" comparison at Talk:Right-wing populism was completely arbitrary and logically inconsistent. Now whatever aggravations with things that I have done, be it my ANI reports that you think were badly done, or other things, you should just let out all the frustration here publicly right now, and we can work on adjusting both of our editing behaviour and patterns to reduce the friction, tension, and frustration between us.--R-41 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

TFD, please respond to this.--R-41 (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

TFD, as I have said I wish you would respond here, rather than ignoring what I've said and making angry remarks about me elsewhere. As for what I have said on a user's talk page that you also posted on, I will say that it seems to me that in the past year, you have come to the conclusion that I am a very lowly and stupid person, and treat me as being inferior to you. I am personally tired of that patronizing attitude, you are an intelligent person, you do not need to act like you are superior to me.--R-41 (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not know where you expect this conversation to go. If you edit controversial articles, you will find other editors with whom you are in disagreement. Also, if you file repeated reports against other editors with whom you disagree, you will provoke hostility from them. If you write in a personal manner, for example beginning a discussion thread on another editor's talk page with "I told you to stay away from me. We despise each other", you are likely to provoke further disharmony. Asking for sympathy because of your personal situation, or the experiences of friends and neighbors, does not contribute to the conversation, because it is not a proper basis for edit decisions. I think Dale Carnegie made important points that are useful for all editors: one cannot "win" an argument, because argument entrenches both adversaries' positions; if one challenge someone's beliefs, it will provoke hated; if one tells others that one is important or has superior knowledge/education, it will provoke ridicule. BTW one should be able to determine from reading a passage whether or not it was meant ironically. However, some readers fail to notice irony, which is why it should not be used by Wikipedia editors. It is also a reason why we should use secondary sources, rather than make judgments based on our reading of primary sources. TFD (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Cultural conflicts noticeboard discussion

Hello, The Four Deuces. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryonmorrigan (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 July 2012

Bryon is at WQA

I found his last post at Talk:Christian terrorism sufficiently egregious to warrant a WQA section. He seems not to understand that disagreements should not devolve into the depths he plunged into. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)