User talk:The Four Deuces

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, The Four Deuces. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 12:21, 14 April 2012

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

AN/I WIKIHOUNDING by Collect?

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 11:26, 29 May 2013‎

Alger Hiss

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alger Hiss and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

CJK (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House

I think thanks to the reliable sources board we have made progress, but was hoping to get your input here as well if you have a minute. CorporateM (Talk) 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

The question posed at the Elizabeth II RfC, at which you commented, has been amended [1] to clarify a potential misunderstanding. Please re-visit the question and your comment and amend if necessary. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My RSN thread

Sorry, I can't reply you and User:Itsmejudith there on RSN as the thread has exceeded my edit box limit. It is my mistake that I didn't post links for my sources in RSN itself for easy access. For the sake of chronology I searched sources from 2002 to 2013. UN, HRW, US etc sources published in 2011, 2012, 2013 still talk about muslim involvement. The gang is not telling me which sources are primary or unusable because they know I have recent sources and I can bring more. Their tactics is to run around trees to frustrate me. (2) Academic books are good but not every user has access to library in real life and also google books doesn't work on some browser. The gang is using academic sources for their side. I don't have access to any academic book. As I (and some users on wikiproject India) can tell other side only through web sources, they try to discredit ALL web sources. And other users also say that academic sources are better, and as users like me don't have access to academic books hence article end up showing only only one side of story. This is the trick of the gang. And combined with 'academic sources' insistence, when gang is pushing POV, it becomes almost impossible for other users to balance the side. Thank you. neo (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A problem that has no real solution is that academic books and articles are often the best sources, yet they are often difficult to obtain. Basically, you need to trust the people who do have access to those academic sources. You can always come to RSN to ask "is this source represented correctly". There is also the resource exchange. Official sources post 2011 are likely to be reliable for that article. Bring individual cases to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith. If you do not have access to the best current sources, then it is usually not possible to know if they are being presented consistently with policy. While you may question them on talk pages or noticeboards, the people most likely to reply are those who were responsible for developing the articles.

Even if you find sources that help show an article is biased, you need to persuade editors not already involved in editing the article to participate. In the case of 2002 Gujarat violence that may be difficult because few people who are neutral on the topic would have any knowledge or interest in the story.

On the other hand, it may be that the article accurately reflects sources, but the scholarship is biased. In that case there is little you can do, since articles are supposed to give greatest weight to majority views.

TFD (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Formally added as party to an ArbCom case

Just so you know, you have been formally added to the Tea Party Movement ArbCom case as an involved party.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)