User talk:The Four Deuces

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

Regressive left[edit]

Hi there. I reverted your comment on the article's page, seemed like it would be better placed on the Talk page. Or did I miss something? Regards, (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes[edit]

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Personalizing and attributing motive[edit]

TFD, you have written several things, and are behaving in a way, that violates AGF. Things like this and this are completely out of line and are getting in the way of dealing with content in the Sanders article. Please stop doing that and deal with the actual content proposals. I don't even know what you mean about "discrediting Sanders". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I brought the issue to ARBCOM. That is the best place to discuss the it. TFD (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

weird. but OK off we go. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Tag Removal[edit]

I've clearly stated in Talk that my efforts to remove weasel words and add sourced content to Fiorina's bio have been reverted. If you do not restore the POV tag, I'm going to seek admin intervention.CFredkin (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What part of the policy do you think the current wording violates? TFD (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Weasel words were restored and well-sourced content was removed.CFredkin (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
My question was, "What part of the policy do you think the current wording violates?" I suggest you read the policy before replying again. TFD (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus building[edit]

Hey, TFD. How do we go about obtaining a consensus on a locked article? Do I depend on the moderators to come to a consensus? If that is the case, is there a way to see a list of who moderates a certain article? I also saw nothing on the consensus description page as to where I could find the current consensus. Do I just need to read through the talk page or edit history to see what the past consensus was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bweazel (talkcontribs) 17:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bweazel:, the article is not locked, it is semi-protected. Also note there is a one revert restriction. You should read the discussion pages because the fascism=socialism theory has been discussed at length over the years. It is a popular view on right-wing internet sites but has no support in reliable sources, so is covered by WP:FRINGE. For how consensus is achieved, see WP:CONSENSUS.
While that may seem like a lot of rules, articles are supposed to reflect what one would find in a standard textbook, they are not supposed to correct expert opinion, even if it is wrong and no matter how reasoned your arguments. If you disagree with that policy (WP:NPOV) then you should argue to change the policy rather than make an exception in any article.
Also, please post new comments at the bottom of talk pages, and remember to sign your posts.
TFD (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Thanks for all your help. Bweazel (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)