User talk:The Four Deuces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Case filed[edit]

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. This case is being re-filed. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here:

Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

About GMOs[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Hi TFD. This is purely a formality. I am definitely not accusing you of anything, or even implying it, and this is definitely not a threat. I am simply doing this because you have commented at Talk:Jill Stein about your views of the DS, and therefore, you are entitled to have an "official" notification of what ArbCom decided. But again, no implication of wrongdoing. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Jill Stein is not a page relating to GMOs etc. As I mentioned to you when you brought up the GMO discretionary sanctions, it was asked at ARBCOM whether "including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics" should include Bernie Sanders. You commented on the case. (See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms.) If Sanders is not a page relating to GMOs, neither is Stein. And note that the same editor, Jytdog, is now editing Hillary Clinton pages. TFD (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I take it that my editing at Drew Pinsky and Murder of Seth Rich is what is being addressed. I encourage you to raise your concerns at AE. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I raised my concerns at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms as I just mentioned. Since Hillary Clinton is "not basically about" GMO, it is not a "page[] relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted." TFD (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
TFD, thank you for reading my message, and I am not going to argue with you. Happy editing! @Jytdog: Whatever TFD might have said, my reasons for posting here had nothing to do with anything you have done. I'm sure you already know that, but I want to be clear about it. And of course, you commented here specifically because you were pinged. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

He's filed a case against me [1] over the single ref-name change. :( I have to look into this, which is going to take a lot of energy I suppose. :( What is up with this Tryptofish fellow? I don't get it. Did you see that article he posted, that echoes your sentiments? I think Tryptofish wants to make a point. Would like to wait until this weekend to respond fully at the notice board, is that legal? Thanks for any input you may have and I appreciate your helpful advice throughout the last weeks. SashiRolls (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Just a small piece: don't want to get all sticky. Do admire your style.

Is there a way of asking your advice without it becoming a big public show? David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Casting aspersions[edit]

TFD, please try to avoid appearing to cast aspersions on a fellow editor. Your comment appears to indicate that perhaps you may not be closely familiar with the many issues at hand. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very complex, multi-layered, deep and broad topic, and it is not a good idea to appear to resort to broadbrush simplistic generalizations or superficial interpretations of the available evidence. Many have compared the actions of the Israeli government, as well as the mind-set of segment(s) of Israeli society, to fascist regimes, including Nazi Germany. In recent years, including in recent months, several prominent Israeli figures, including current and retired high-ranking military and intelligence services officers (including, but not limited to, the currently-serving second-in-command to the chief of staff), and even former prime minister Ehud Barak, compared some aspects of Israeli society and the Israeli gov't, to Nazi Germany or to other fascist regimes. These comparisons are not very rare anymore in Israel. However, sometimes they get more press in the Israeli media than they do in English-language media. Note that Nishidani said that he reads Hebrew-language media regularly.

Also, you may want to familiarize yourself with Criticism of the Israeli government, which, among other criticism, includes comparisons with Nazi Germany. By the way, also note that some scholars have compared some aspects of US society, and the US government - the largest, strongest and most financially generous (by far) benefactor/ ally of the Israeli gov't - to Nazi Germany.

By the way, regarding the issue of the mindset of society, I tend to think of almost any human society throughout history, including the current US, Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, European etc societies, as complex adaptive systems, i.e., it is possible for the current society as a whole to have strong similarities to some aspects of a fascist regime that has existed in the past, without most of the individual members of the society being fascists themselves.

TL;DR --- In the future, please try to avoid superficial or overly-narrow analysis, especially when the issue at hand is extremely complex, and double-especially when your words may appear to cast aspersions on a fellow editor. Thanks. Ijon Tichy (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Read what I said: "While a comparison could be made between racial policies of Israel and Nazi Germany, they are only relevant in a talk page if there is a proposal to add them to an article." I did not say that the criticism could not be made, merely that it was not appropriate in the discussion. In a discussion about whether to name an article Gaza War or Gaza Massacre, an editor wrote, "It would be like calling the Shoah invariably an Endlösung [Final Solution], because that's how Hitler's myrmidons referred to it."
I then said, "I did not I do not know if the edits were so objectionable they should have resulted in action by AE." That is not casting aspersions on the editor, merely defending how another editor who might see them.
The issue is not whether the comparison was apt or even whether the editor was within his or her rights to mention it. The issue is how a reasonable editor would might interpret it. In the specific circumstances, a reasonable editor might see it as an attempt to inflame other editors rather than seek a resolution of the naming issue. It might be have lead away from the conversation about what to name the article.
In a discussion on naming Jerusalem, the editor, mentioning a ban on Christmas trees, wrote, "As the German saying has it: Was nicht erlaubt ist, ist verboten." In fact Christmas trees were banned through a specific order by the Mayor. They were not banned because there was no Mayor's order permitting them. The source provided makes no allusion to the German saying. That is not to say the order was correct.
TFD (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani is not the first scholar to say that Purim is "a double story of attempted and successful genocide." And you came very close to casting aspersions when you wrote that "... Otherwise they [the things Nishidani said] are merely intended to provoke other editors."
You also wrote: "I do not know if the edits were so objectionable they should have resulted in action by AE. But at least they were sufficiently inflammatory that a reasonable editor could complain about them." In the context of the atrocities that the Israeli gov't commits every day for the last 40 years in the West Bank and Gaza, what Nishidani said is not very inflammatory at all. What is inflammatory are the criminal, abhorrent, vicious, brutal policies of the Israeli gov't (and it's ally and drug-pusher, the US gov't), not Nishidani's reaction to them.
Ijon Tichy (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not an issue of whether it is right or wrong but whether the discussion was appropriate to the conversation. If you told every Muslim you met that al Qaeda terrorists were all Muslims you would be right, but they would likely find it offensive. TFD (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy 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/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy 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.}

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "War of 1812". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 September 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning War of 1812, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Comment at WT:NPOV[edit]

Hi The Four Deuces, Apologies for the interruption. I just noticed your comment at WT:NPOV, and think the second sentence, This is not a forum for discussing changes to policy, but whether the existing policy is applied correctly in different articles, may have mistaken the location for WP:NPOVN. I'm drafting up a comment as well, but thought you might want the chance to remove this bit before I respond. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out to me. TFD (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if it came across as patronising; such was not the intent. I just thought better to mention it here than disagree there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


New article.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Another article.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hitler & Islam[edit]

"The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France, in spite of the fact that we are related by blood. It is a tragedy that France has consistently degenerated in the course of centuries and that her upper classes have been perverted by the Jews. France is now condemned to the pursuit of a Jewish policy."

Here is the true QUOTE, wrote by Hitler in his political testament :

Stop denying this.

"We need reliable secondary sources in order to include anything. First, there is doubt whether the quote is accurate and secondly it needs to be interpreted. I think his point was that the French provided equal civil rights to Jews, while the Muslims did not. But whether that is what he believed or said in a conversation with Bormann or never said at all is something we need expert opinion in order to include."

This is not true actually, i gaved you the real quote, entirely.

The entire quote is that, you should add the WHOLE quote here : — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaCensure (talkcontribs) 20:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

He really said that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The quote is sourced to the Political Testament of Adolf Hitler" which was "taken down directly by Martin Bormann himself." You can read the book here. There is some discussion about the authenticity of whether what we are reading is an accurate translation of Bormann wrote in Hitler's Table Talk. Bormann of course had no compunctions against changing what Hitler said.
Another issue is that Hitler, like many politicians, made contradictory statements throughout his life. For all these reasons we need a source written by an expert who has read all of Hitler's writings and speeches, is aware of problems of authenticity and can properly assess it. I imagine you got the quote from an anti-Islamism website. Their authors have no expertise in Hitler, or Islam for that matter, and cherry-pick sources to defend their narrative. The problem is that anyone can cherry-pick quotes to support any position one wants.
Read WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So go and find an expert source that agrees with your interpretation. If your interpretation is right, you should have no problem doing that.
TFD (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello...again you're denying the truth.

I'm sorry to said that, but youre denying a document, because you don't like it.

There had 2 hitler testament One was is private The second was is political testament

Do not try to change the subject please , I know it bothers you that Hitler was able to say he admired Islam but be neutral . he Said That .

I've got the quote from Hitler official political's even rode here :

Actually i have no interpretation, except the fact that he said that and you should put it in Wikipedia. LaCensure (talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

How do you know this document is genuine? TFD (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Alicia Machado[edit]

I have to apologize for this [2]. I made a mistake by not carefully reading the sources you provided, so I essentially jumped the gun. So, I removed it, because it was wrong, and I replied with this instead [3], [4]. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)