User talk:The Four Deuces

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

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

March 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Please stay on point J8079s (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not having a general discussion about the topic but about (a) presenting a 5-4 decision as definitive violates neutrality, whether sourcing the text to a primary document or no source violates reliable sources and whether claiming that the right derives from natural law when the source does not make that claim is original research. I suggest we use a reliable secondary source, which would avoid the necessity of pointing out all the errors in your proposed addition. TFD (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1707 or 1801

Hi and thanks for your contributions on the United Kingdom talk page. You obviously know a great deal more on these topics than I though I have always believed that the true origin of the United Kingdom is 1707 and not 1801. However, when I have tried to make edits to reflect this I have faced opposition. For example, I tried to change the United Kingdom 'years' template by adding the years from 1707 but that was opposed because there was a separate template for the 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. At the very least we should add the years in the Kingdom of Great Britain template to the bottom of the UK page to reflect the fact that 1707 is the key year and not 1801. Also you will be aware that wikipedia articles describe the current UK parliament (elected 2010) as the 55th parliament of the United Kingdom - of course, counting from 1801. Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles are they? Can you provide links. TFD (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RS/N Discussion

Hello TFD. I started a discussion on Ultimas Noticias and I noticed that you are one of the most active users on RS/N discussion board. Would you be able to help contribute to the conversation so we can have a more thorough discussion? Thanks for any help! Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a newer editor?

I really, really need some help explaining things to a newer editor. The problem is thus: I nominated the page Arch Enemy Entertainment for deletion because ultimately there weren't any reliable sources that would show a depth of coverage. The other editor (who also works for the company as an intern) re-added a lot of primary and somewhat dubious sources about the company that doesn't show notability. One of the big problems I've had is explaining why the sources are unsuable, particularly the ones by USA Today. While USA Today might be usable as a reliable source otherwise, in this instance they're actually the ones releasing the comic through their website. The other editor doesn't really understand that it's a primary source. She's also sort of upset that I commented that her COI might be interfering with her somewhat, as she'd be more likely to be familiar with writing about the company in a promotional aspect or in a way that could be seen as puffery. I'm really frustrated about this and I'd like to get someone to step in and try to explain things. I suggested the alternative of trying to see if one of the founders is notable and having a paragraph about the company in his article, since there seems to be a chance of notability there, but she didn't really respond to that and seems to be particularly keen on keeping the article for the company instead of any other alternatives. Right now we're really just talking in circles and could use another person coming in. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on her talk page. TFD (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article talkpage, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Your assertions that I don't believe in Verifiability in economics and only believe in things that support my "ideology" is the rankest form of personal attack. I don't get it. Where is this coming from? Capitalismojo (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the basis of the Heritage Foundation's approach. Certain values are set to be absolute and empiricism in economics is rejected. TFD (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue the RS issue, but it is highly inappropriate to make personal insults and bald, unwarranted assertions about me because I don't share your opinion about a ref. I am terribly disappointed in this extremely uncivil approach. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DR

I mistyped your name in the initial DR so you were not automatically notified, sorry.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 10:35 am, Today (UTC−5)

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, The Four Deuces. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is your access to Questia and HighBeam.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your recent

welcome to User talk:Rgambord. It might (or might not) be useful to know that he (his edits suggested that he was a he) has just left wikipedia in a fit of pique and might never be able to appreciate your warm welcome, though others do. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Certain editors there are preventing the removal of these misleading or inaccurate claims backed up by unreliable sources.

:The total number of Christians killed, as a result of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated at over 20 million.^[1]^[2]^[3]

:During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot.^[4] Many thousands of victims of persecution became recognized in a special canon of saints 75.51.174.240 (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Todd M. Johnson, “Christian Martyrdom: A global demographic assessment“, pp. 4-5
^ Orthodox Leaflet “The Way Home. Issue 13.2e - The Orthodox Church”, article prepared by Anne K. Turley, and originally published with the blessing of the Most Reverend Anthony Archbishop of Western American San Francisco
^ “Focusing on the Persecuted Church: The Century of Martyrs” at http://www.jwipn.com
^ Alexander N. Yakovlev (2002). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. p. 165. See also: Richard Pipes (2001). Communism: A History. Modern Library Chronicles. p. 66.

[1] Todd M. Johnson, “Christian Martyrdom: A global demographic assessment“, pp. 4-5

[2] Orthodox Leaflet “The Way Home. Issue 13.2e - The Orthodox Church”, article prepared by Anne K. Turley, and originally published with the blessing of the Most Reverend Anthony Archbishop of Western American San Francisco

[3] “Focusing on the Persecuted Church: The Century of Martyrs” at http://www.jwipn.com

[4] Alexander N. Yakovlev (2002). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. p. 165. See also: Richard Pipes (2001). Communism: A History. Modern Library Chronicles. p. 66.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]