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

Nomination of Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mike (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned on Rothbard

Hi TFD. Could you please add a signature to your recent post on MR? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. TFD (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada article

Thanks for clarifying my point in Wikipedeese (which I'm pretty sure is not the official lanugage of the English Wikipedia). I left for a few years due to silliness like that, and mine's rusty. Knoper (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

RSN Hoppe

Hi TFD. Regarding [1] -- I'm wondering whether you intended to address this to me and if so what I might have said that prompted this reply? At any rate, some further differentiation of the principle you're advancing here would be helpful. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hi, if you haven't already, please take note of the details of Template:Austrian economics enforcement. This is a general reminder, and not given in response to misconduct. I've decided to err on the side of caution to try to make sure that people involved in this topic area are aware of the discretionary sanctions. Consider this a "no-fault" notification. If you're already aware (which you probably are), feel free to remove this message. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Right-wing terrorism

I would define right-wing terrorism as terrorism committed for advances in right-wing beliefs. Any righ-wing beliefs. Right wing is conservative. Conservative is preserving the existing social order. Ulster loyalism and British unionism are for preserving the existing social order in Northern Ireland. Ulster loyalist paramilitaries support these right-wing ideologies. Also, many support white supremacy and fascism. Parties backing Ulster loyalism and British unionism are right-wing and conservative. Also, the Provisional IRA and INLA are mentioned on Left-wing terrorism. These loyalist paramilitaries are the most active right-wing terrorists and one of the best examples. Reverend Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The provos and INLA are mentioned in "Left-wing terrorism" in a section that compares left-wing terrorism with other forms. It does not say they were left-wing terrorists. The conflict in Ireland pre-dates the left-right spectrum, and it would be ahistorical to cast Jacobites as "left-wing" and English Republicans as "right-wing". One could equally argue that the Irish republicans were right-wing, because they advocated a return to the status quo ante, viz., the re-unification of Ireland. Similarly the U.S. and other civil wars would have to be re-cast as left-right disputes.

Most importantly, sources on terrorism cast the conflict as an ethnic/nationalist dispute. To them, the conflict was about whether NI should remain in the UK or be returned to Ireland. If they are correct, then one would expect most terrorists to agree to negotiate and to cease terrorist activities once the national issue was settled, which is what happened.

Sources do not say that "right-wing terrorism" means "right-wing"+"terrorism". It means terrorism with a right-wing objective. Keeping NI in the UK is not an inherently right-wing objective, even if its adherents were mainly right-wing.

TFD (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

But unionism and loyalism are right-wing objectives. Unionism and loyalism are right-wing ideologies such as neo-Nazism and white supremacy. Reverend Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have sources that say the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the UK is fascism, that the UK is a fascist state, and the US, Irish Republic and the IRA appeased fascism in the Good Friday agreement? TFD (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Answer

I, unfortunately, found no connection between actual events and the answer one ArbCom candidate made to your question <g>.

they still need to be asked for their response to the sanction. I always give people the opportunity to respond to proposals I make, and I always follow up on their response; the Tea Party movement case was no exception.

does not comport with the actual discussions. And the belief that people need to be removed "one way or the other" which I rather think means "if I think someone should be kicked in the butt, then come hell or high water I will try to kick them in the butt." Hubris is the apt term for any arbitrator who says

The case was going in a completely different, and incorrect, direction beforehand (before he was made the "drafter")

Which, to me, suggests that only he knows the "correct direction" a case should take. Does this comport with your observations? Collect (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL at if those sanctions had been proposed by a community member – say at the administrators' noticeboard – they would have been decided in a matter of days The sanctions were brought up at AN/I with not a single word of support from anyone there. I think at least one candidate has a moderately selective memory. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I was not pleased with his answer and will prepare a follow-up question. I do not think any of the editors sanctioned had anything to do with the problems in the article. I think though my own case is the most egregious of all. I was added because they thought I showed a pro-Tea Party POV and would have been banned despite no evidence. TFD (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)