User talk:The Four Deuces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sander Säde (talk | contribs) at 09:04, 6 January 2010 (→‎WP:AE foolishness: please fix the errors in your comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jewish Bolshevism

You just attempted to delete the Russia section. I notify you that the discussion is in progress in the article talk page, and the consensus has not been achieved yet about the relevance of this section. Deletion of the content without a consensus is a violation of WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Four Deuces. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Left-wing nationalism

On what page of The Decolonization of Quebec do the Milners claim to have actually coined the expression? -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archiving

Hi, I noticed that MiszaBot was not correctly archiving old discussions from your talk page due to a spacing/line issue. I think that i have corrected the issue, but I'm afraid your old talk page contents for the past few months have not been archived. If you want to, you can still manually set up an archive from the page history. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Communist regimes

I find it ironic that after the article has had an Expert request banner, that when expert involvement was made available, that the articles' coat-tail of non-humanities area anti-communists BIT the hell out of me. The difference between editors who just happen to have political opinions of a certain sought, and people who have political opinions of a certain sought and edit on that basis is remarkable, and clear. I am also increasingly frustrated with the lack of ANI responses. (Dealing with fresh editors with stale opinions is a chore, but, at least they aren't tendentious and dishonest). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, that's a gutful. The differential in administrator willingness to let wild, grossly incivil, anti-encyclopedic editing run wild even when they have discretionary editing to hand; the habit of non-humanities twonks with a personal vendetta about their precious special "I experienced this" BITING humanities specialists; and, the inane repetition of cookie-cutter anti-communists with no more than a high school grade humanities education; all this has irritated me sufficiently to the point where I am not going to attend unless WP:ANI actually grows cahones, or a particular editor continues baldly in the past conduct and makes me to to Arbitration's sanction request page. I'm going back to editing minutae of comma in Featured Article citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Daily Mail

I've put a "Request for Comment" on the discussion page of the above. In regards to page ownership, and a couple of Editors making far too many reverts.

I've noticed that you have had numerous (pretty decent looking) updates deleted, so thought you may be able to provide some feedback on them.

thanks Cjmooney9 (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social liberalism

As you know, I'm usually willing to defer to your greater expertise, but I don't like jargon in the lede if ordinary words will convey the same ideas to a larger audience, and "positive rights/negative rights" is jargon. When I edit mathematics articles, I try to avoid words like "derivative/integration" in the lede, because these words, though commonplace in mathematics, are apt to be misunderstood by the lay reader.

More important to me is where you disagree about the content of the lede. Have I misunderstood what "social liberalism" means? If so, I'm always open to anything that will improve the article.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to attempt a rewrite based on what you've quoted, but even gladder to have you do a rewrite on that basis. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you propose for Social Liberalism sounds good to me. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not signing in

Are you the same editor as User:71.249.247.144[1]? If so could you please remember to sign in especially before making edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE foolishness

What is your honest opinion of this AE thread? I've never seen anyone being slapped with a 1RR after making only 2 reverts in 24h. I did those reverts because my interpretation of the WP:CFD policy was that User:Sander Säde was not allowed to remove the cat from all articles while it was discussed at the CFD. I guess my interpretation was wrong, but still, the sanction seems very harsh, almost ridiculous in fact. I have reverted very little since July 2009, so I have no idea what my 1RR is supposed to prevent. To be frank, I regard the whole thread as another attempt by WP:EEML to get rid of a "content opponent." User:Sander Säde made exactly as many reverts as I, yet he wasn't sanctioned or even warned. What would you do in my situation? Offliner (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that Offliner has asked you to comment before you did - good, it saves me from starting a new section.
In your comment, you miss the fact that I posted to CfD discussion prior removing the categories - and that happened three days after I had asked to provide sources for Offliner's claims (he has now admitted that no such sources exist). I also pointed out BLP concerns in the CfD; as Offliner replied to the post he obviously saw it. And it would be rather silly to claim that Offliner did not realize the three articles were BLP's and hence covered by WP:BLP, a policy that is well known to him.
You also claim the articles say "two of the subjects were unsuccessfully prosecuted for actions at a demonstration while the third was denied entry to Estonia.". That is not true, they were not prosecuted for actions at a demonstration - as stated in the articles, they were arrested on charges of organizing mass riots, something that is illegal everywhere in the world. In case of Bäckman, it seems that both you and Offliner assume that it is acceptable to incite violence against a democratically elected government. Try to imagine if you would openly and repeatedly call to kill Obama - would you be surprised if you are not allowed to enter USA? And if you would try to do so without travel documents (like Bäckman did), would you be only detained for a couple of hours, then released and not allowed to enter the country for two weeks like Bäckman was?
In short, I ask you to fix the errors in your comment.
--Sander Säde 09:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communist genocide

Hi, and thanks for your advice regarding my 1RR sanction. I will think this over and then decide whether to appeal and what to write.

By the way, I made an interesting observation regarding the AfD of Mass killings under communist regimes.

  • the EEMLers had canvassed the vote twice, see 20090804-0758 by Digwuren and two days later by Martintg 20090806-0526
  • the EEMLers voted for only the same position
  • unusually many of the the EEMLers voted
  • the EEMLers sabotaged a 2/3 majority
  • support: triplestop, shawn, drmies, mintrick, offliner, russavia, abductive, lokiit, rankiri, ezhiki, ironholds, muzemike, passwordusername, the four deuces, good ol'factory, jeff g., irbisgreif, igny, nick-de, calton, rd232, multixfer, soap, dimawik, the red hat of pat ferrick, voluntary slave, soman, lk, csloat
  • oppose: piotrus, dgg, martintg, jacurek, hillock65, mandsford, poeticbent, vecrumba, termer, olenglish, sander säde, vision thing, shadowjams, radek, amateureditor, olaf stephanos, fOo, shyamsunder, pectore, smallbones, biophys, merovingian
  • support: 29 (of which: 0 EEMLer)
  • oppose: 22 (of which: 8 EEMLer)
  • percentage of support: 56.86 %
  • support (excluding EEMLer): 29
  • oppose (excluding EEMLer): 14
  • percentage of support: 67.44 %
  • 2/3 majority required for pass = 66.6 %

I think this should be pointed out to the arbs and the admins considering the AE threads. Offliner (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]