User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2009/August

Fascism

Hmmm. Would be good to avoid hassling people, maybe. Who did you send to? I have made up a tentative list of who I would contact. -- 89.240.145.202 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC) --FormerIP (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

NB The link you gave might have been intended to tell me this, I suspect, but it was actually a link to your own edit history. --FormerIP (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From which I can work it out... OIC --FormerIP (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF YOUR SCHOLARLY, PATIENT, COURTEOUS, INCISIVE AND ELOQUENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FASCISM-RELATED TALK PAGES Writegeist (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I closed "Four" on the fascism talk page, but then realised you had commented and I should really have given you more time to comment on what me and VT were discussing. Please let me know if you are not okay with this. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How do I format an article talk page?

{{helpme}} I archived old discussion at Talk:Social liberalism. But when started a new discussion, it appeared on the right side of the discussion page. Could someone please correct this and/or tell me where I can find information on formatting talk pages. Thank you. --The Four Deuces (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. You didn't close your table. For future reference, the best way to create an archive box is to use {{archives}}. Algebraist 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not personal

That last comment asking you to clarify your statement wasn't meant to take you to task. I just find that under certain circumstances, if you leave any sort of semantic vacuum whatsoever, someone will come along and fill it with nonsense that just distracts everyone. Cheers. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for a very interesting reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Collect

I noticed that you suggested the idea of a(nother) RfC/U on Collect.

My take on this is that I would support any action might produce an impovement in Collect's behaviour. However, he has been through RfC/U recently. If you feel it is right to raise concerns, I think this is best done in the first instance by expalining the issues and seeking advice from the admin who chaired (or whatever the right term is) that discussion, User:Gwen Gale. If she suggests a second RfC/U, then fine.

I think there may be a risk associated with this. Collect is currently under sanctions, as you are aware, I think, from his previous RfC/U. If a consensus emerges that these sanctions are still adequate, then Collect may (wrongly) interprate this as an endorsement of his behaviour, and that may just serve to make things worse.

Also, perhaps I am just a big softie, but, in spite of the difficulties we are having with Collect, I would be quite reluctant to see him banned from WP.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hayek

Just thought I'd draw your attention to the diff, correcting a previous mis-speak on my part. Sorry for any confusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFascism&diff=303360625&oldid=303334616.

Cheers, --FormerIP (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

your comment on French Revolution talk page

Thank you for your suggestion: done! Regards, Frania W. (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You've twice reverted at Fascism in one day. This article is under a 1RR

Hello The Four Deuces. Please undo your recent change, which is your second revert in one day. This breaks the 1RR restriction which can still be seen at the top of the Talk page. Both the Hayek removal and the Stackelberg restoration are reverts, by the standard used in our WP:3RR policy, so doing both in one day puts you over the limit. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Stackelberg

I've added a question at Talk:Fascism#Is there consensus to include a quote from Stackelberg in this article? asking people how they think consensus might be determined for using the Stackelberg quote. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa

Some people are just constitutionally incapable of saying "oops, my bad". I predict that the next major comment to be posted at Talk:Fascism will be especially bizarre and irrational. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see for miles --Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The good gentleman's response has floored me. Looks like I was giving him way too much credit. --Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. It's not the first time Collect has made dishonest and misleading statements to an admin/noticeboard/etc.. and I suspect it won't be the last. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Krugman

Can you explain this revert? -- Vision Thing -- 20:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Hello, The Four Deuces. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

PTL

Sorry, but PTL? WP dab has a 5 TV stations, 2 trucking companies, a comp. tech. jargon, and 'part time lover' under PTL. Which if any were you referring to? Anarchangel (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

UN

Although the UN committee has 'decolonization' (sic) in its title, they actually refer to 'non self governing territories' rather than use the C word which is these days neither appropriate, or legally describes the territories. For instance a UK National needs an residence permit to reside in Gibraltar, so they are hardly 'colonists'.

The UB C24 meets twice a year to discuss the territories on its list, however, they have not made any progress for some years, perhaps they enjoy being on the committee and wish to continue doing nothing. So repeatedly there is the farce where our leaders go and explain the situation, Spain disagrees, and the committee call on the UK and Spain to discuss things, which the UK has stated it won't do without the consent of the Gibraltarians who say no because we do not consider our future any of Spain's business.

The joke is that we have more democracy than the countries many of the members of the committee represent. The Gib Government has decided that its such a farce that they are no longer wasting time and money attending.

If you are interested, I can provide links to some of the speeches but they are pretty repetitive and the process itself is worthless. Interestingly Bermuda which has a less developed constitution does not figure on the list as there is no claimant.

--Gibnews (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Gib

Hi, thanks for your interest in the Gibraltar issue. I am not sure that the UN list is a curiosity. Take a look at Ban Ki Moon's statement here (one of those 16 territories that the Secretary-General mentions is Gibraltar). Also, I have to say that the fact that Gibraltar belongs to the list has some very important consequences in the relations of Gibraltar with the EU and with Spain.

Most importantly -this it is VERY complicated and controversial, I'll try to give a general idea in order not to spam your talk page- it can be very seriously argued that the UN jurisprudence supports that when Gibraltar is decolonised its sovereignity should go to Spain, according to: 1) the UN "territorial integrity" policy, 2) the fact that the UN probably considers that the people of the territory are Spanish -the ones that left Gibraltar after the Treaty of Utrecht- and 3) the fact the Treaty signed by the UK and Spain states that if the UK leaves Gibraltar it will return to Spain.

Of course, the contrary can be argued, but there is a not insignificant probability that Gib could return to Spain. That risk is probably one of the reasons why the UK did not include a self-determination clause in the 2006 Constitution (in spite that it was very emphatically demanded by the Gibraltarian negotiators).

This issue is very complicated, but for the current discussion we only need to look at what other sources say to see whether they say that Gibraltar is a "self-governing British overseas territory" (including the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, who I am sure is very cautious about this). And the fact is that, from the UN POV (as you can see), even the Secretary-General considers Gib a "non self-governing territory" (it is not the TRUTH, but is it not significant enough to be mentioned?).

If you want any more information, please do not hesitate to ask me. --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the above is nonsense. There is no such thing as "UN jurisprudence" - the United Nations General Assembly or Special Committee CANNOT create international law. With a few relatively minor exceptions (related to the operation of the General Assembly itself) UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding - they have no legal force whatsoever. In the first place the United Nations General Assembly created the De-colonisation committee precisely to decolonise, not to take sides, not to adjudicate on territorial disputes. The UN does not consider the people of Gibraltar to be Spanish – that would be an error of fact. Gibraltar is not part of Spain, so the ‘territorial integrity principle’ cuts no ice. And finally, the Treaty of Utrecht’s “reversionary clause” is annulled pursuant to the UN Charter (by virtue of Article 73, Article 103).

It seems that you have now made it clear that you are seeking to misrepresent the status of the territory of Gibraltar for POV reasons related to the Spanish sovereignty claim. Please stop POV-pushing, thanks. RedCoat10 • talk 10:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And the preamble to the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 remains unchanged. See for yourself. RedCoat10 • talk 10:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested, in article 47 of the Constitution you will see the areas where the Governor is responsible (and the Government of Gibraltar is not). --194.143.215.69 (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC) (unsigned by Imalbornoz (talk), sorry)

Gib and Canada

I agree that there are some similarities and some differences between Canada and Gibraltar (BTW, it's been interesting looking at Canada, at least to change the subject of my readings these days). I see that, as you say, EVEN Canada's self-government was seriously put in doubt in 1919 (not just by some people as I said -sorry, but that's what I understood from the article, thanks for your clarification...). And I say EVEN because I would say that Canada's self-government in 1919 was much higher than Gibraltar's in 2009 (at least it was responsible for its own internal security, appointed its own judiciary and -the article says- it kept separate units in the armies -under the same Generalissimo-). One example of this difference is that Canada was accepted in the League of Nations, while Gibraltar is still listed in the "non self-..." by the UN.

How would you say the Canadian case can help to answer the dispute at hand?

About the UN list, I would say that whether it's fair or not is not very relevant for the article in Wikipedia (although I agree that it's very important for Gibraltarians, Spaniards and the UK in real life). Therefore, we have a few points of view (a bit complicated, you see):

• Gibraltarians say that it is a self-governing territory, that it has a right to self-determination, that they exerted that right by associating themselves with the UK, and that the Treaty of Utrecht does not affect that right (as it is a human right in the UN Charter).
• the UK says Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised by developing a sufficient degree of self-government (not that its population has self-determination) and that it should be delisted from the UN's list.
• Spain says that the right to self-determination belongs to the Spanish people (to which the original inhabitants belonged when they were driven out in 1713, many descendants of whom still live in a town nearby Gibraltar called San Roque) and that the Treaty of Utrecht says that if the UK Crown gives Gibraltar away (e.g. to the people of Gibraltar) it should return to Spain.
• The UN says that Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory because it was (properly) listed by the UK and in the annual reviews the status of non self-government has not changed.
• BTW, in 2002, UK and Spain almost reached an agreement for shared sovereignty [1] but the UK opposition used that in order to criticise Jack Straw and the UK government did not want to push an unpopular issue.

You will agree that Wikipedia should not care about which POV is right or not, but offering a NPOV.

Right now, the lead of the article in WP can say that "Gibraltar is a self-governing British Overseas Territory" (which would apparently support one POV) and it could also say that "Gibraltar is a member of the UN's non self-governing territories list" (which would support another POV). Maybe a more neutral and factual sentence can be found? ("is self-governing except in this and that" "has almost complete internal self-government" ...)?

What do you suggest about the lead of the article?

Thanks and sorry for taking so much space in your talk page. --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit war templates

Your posting of templates on my talk page notifying me that I'm in an "edit war" with you, which apparently, for some strange reason, you don't see yourself as being in an edit war with me, doesn't solve anything. How about discussing the issues on the talk pages of the articles? Introman (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your following me

You seem to like to follow me around searching for what articles I'm editing and then disputing them no matter what they are and for whatever reason you think of. I'm considering setting up a another username to prevent this from happening. Then you can judge edits on their own merits instead of upon who is making them. I think this may be best for you because it appears to me that you've lost any trace of objectivity that you may have once had. I'm confident there are edits I've made that you wouldn't have bothered with if you didn't know it was me making them. I'd be glad to set up another username if you think it would be helpful to clear your head a bit. What do you think? Introman (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see you don't want to weigh in on this. I'll go ahead and keep this username for the articles I'm working on now. But for new ones, at least those that deal with political topics, I'll probably move on to another username. This way you won't feel you have to track me down and challenge my edits just for the sake that I made them. Hope that helps makes your life easier! Introman (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)