User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2010/September

RFC/U for User:BlueRobe

I have filed an RFC/U for User:BlueRobe, regarding a discussion that you were involved in. It is filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BlueRobe, if you are interested. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Still learning so bear with me...

I was reading through the Liberalism article and noticed that it was cited as the dominant political strain. I am just beginning in the area, but have read many places that political realism is in fact the dominant strain w/regards to international politics. Before I go to the talk page and make a fool of myself, do you have any words of wisdom or can you point out if I am mistaken? Soxwon (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Classical liberalism: core principles

Let's talk about this, rather than play rv war. I'll set out why I think the changes I'm making are necessary.

1. The entire section is exclusively dependent on Hunt. It is doubtful scholarship to rely so heavily on a single source in an encyclopaedia article; notwithstanding that, the dependence should be acknowledged explicitly. At the very least, it is scholarly courtesy.

2. Hunt's terminology is contentious. The terms he uses, which are his own and not direct quotations, clearly connote moral disapproval ('egoistic', 'coldly calculating' and 'essentially inert' leading to 'just plain lazy' in particular). For example, Chambers define calculating thus:

calculating adj, derog deliberately shrewd and selfish, especially in terms of how one can use other people and situations to benefit oneself.

Use of a derogatory adjective is not adhering to WP:NPOV. We should either quote Hunt directly with ascription, or alter his terms to ones which are less moralised. Indeed, he uses some less moralised terms at points himself: for instance, what is wrong with using 'rational' in place of 'calculating'?

3. In the 'Malthus' section of the book (pp. 49--51), Hunt quotes no-one other than Malthus. No other source at all, primary or secondary. His assertion that classical liberals depended on Malthus is completely unevidenced. Given that, Wikipedia cannot quote Hunt's view as a fact but should quote it as his view, or some similar term.

Wooster (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

you're on a logical steamroll

"Not only that but these pseudo-oranges only represent a tiny minority of oranges..."

couple that quote with the your Jews and Greed analogy, and your recent efforts have been quite spectacular. Thanks for the wise words in the various discussions. BigK HeX (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Pi and the pyramids

Thanks, but you forgot to sign. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Controversial issues often lead to heated discussion. You do an amazing job keep your cool when the heat is on.

I know we often differ in many respects, but I just wanted to say that I admire your ability to keep cool, your ability to focus on adherence to policy rather than petty personal issues, and your efforts to build a high-quality encyclopedia.

You do a great job at keeping a cool head in conflicts, and I generally feel that even when I'm disagreeing with you, that we are having a productive discussion and that each side is at least understanding and responding to the other's position.

I also appreciate your willingness to remain open-minded and to hear out people with views which contradict your own. You regularly advocate for the use of the highest-quality sources, whatever viewpoint they express. I rarely see you applying double standards to sources, even if they disagree with your personal beliefs.

You seem to understand well that we are building an encyclopedia (a compendium of objectively presented and factual information about the world), rather than compiling a repository of pop-culture trivia and misinformation.

Overall, I just wanted to thank you acting as a good example -- observing your behavior has helped me improve the approach I take to editing in many respects.

Cheers! -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also pretty amazed at how calm you manage to be. Well done! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Good Faith

Welcome to Wikipaedia! At 05:34, 17 September 2010, you said in the Libertarianism talk page, "...all you are doing is persuading us that your groupuscule is misleading and sacrifices honesty." Please refrain from making unjustified allegations of dishonesty against other editors. Feel free to learn more about the need for such Wikipaedian etiquette at WP:GOODFAITH. BlueRobe (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Sigh, TFD i have never said GW is a hoax ok. Now i have offered to help mediate the articles current conflict, i also asked editors to comment on content, yet all you have done thus far is comment on me, please refrain from doing so and perhaps the article can move forward? mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Man, an RFC... on a tag? That strike me as just taking focus from the content. I asked people on the page to comment on content not editors and you just persisted in discussing mark - which is irrelevant and something of a bad faith judgement. I'm trying to help keep things calm and constructive and the best way to do that is work on the content --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We have already had two recent RfCs on this subject and since you do not accept the consensus that the article is neutral and insist on having a POV tag, it is necessary to revisit RfC. I mentioned mark nutley because he pushes fringe views and has sanctions against him for doing that and his offer of independence is unbelievable. mark nutley is either unable or unwilling to follow policy in editing articles. TFD (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Marks sanctions on other topics is irrelevant - unless he brings in fringe views, which we then deal with at the time. This is the basis of WP:AGF. At the end of the day this is a single tag; I have no real interest whether it is there or not - what I do want is to see content discussion. Please, if you want the RFC fine, but at least take a look at my "moving forward" bullets and perhaps stick some contribution in on the three hit list items under discussion. The aim here is to bring the talk page to discussing the topic, and RFC for including a tag is overkill --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 00:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We have now had two recent RfCs on the neutrality of the article and since some editors, none of whom are willing to provide any sources to support their viewpoints. claim that the results are insufficient to remove the tags, an RfC on this issue is appropriate. Of course if these editors were reasonable, then that would be unneccessary, but is needed because of their failure to accept the results of the RfCs. If these editors want the tags to remain then at least they should provide some reasons for them. mark nutley's offer to "mediate" is disingenuous because his conduct shows that he is unwilling to follow neutrality or use reliable sources. The fact this happened on another group of articles is irrelevant. If you polled the editors who want the POV tag, they probably all agree with mark nutley's fringe views on global warming. TFD (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As I noted in Talk:Libertarianism, the previous RfC on this issue, which was also initiated by TFD, is here. Despite the vote coming out as 8 votes for "POV tag in inappropriate" against 6 votes for "POV tag is appropriate", TFD is describing that as an "overwhelming" consensus for removing the POV tag. BlueRobe (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you've done the same at Hugo Chavez,[1] showing that 1) you don't understand WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:CONSENSUS, or 2) that POV tags exist to document that a dispute exists, and that many editors in favor of it certainly documents that a dispute exists.. Continuing to remove POV tags is disruptive. Have you not read the FoF in the CC Arbcom that "a collective block of editors cannot use mere numbers to overrule Wiki policies"? It would help if you would develop a better understanding of Wiki policies, WP:V and WP:NPOV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Retaining a POV tag with no reasons provided on the talk page, or after reasons have been presented and rejected, is disruptive editing. Just because one editor does not like the presentation is no reason to tag the article POV. TFD (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And, as you know (so I shouldn't be repeating it), the POV tag on Chavez was very well documented on talk, backed up by a litany of reliable sources and multiple editors, but you removed it nonetheless. It would help if you read WP:DUE and understand that we present all mainstream views, not only the view that you are more comfortable with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What are these views I am "more comfortable with"? TFD (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, maybe it would be wise for you to consider ceasing your "casting of aspersions" against other editors on talk pages. Have you learned anything from the CC ArbCom? You've been making baseless charges about me for quite a while now, across numerous talk pages, and you do it in every dispute resolution discussion as well, derailing DR. From your talk page, it looks like I'm not the only one. I suggest that when you malign other editors, you include a diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, TFD's sudden and unprovoked attack against Marknutley (here, and here) has come completely out of the blue and reeks of violations of WP:CIVIL. As far as I can tell, all that Marknutley has done to inspire TFD's apparent hostility is make a friendly gesture and suggest that we all WP:PlayNice for the benefit of the editorial community. I'm all for pouncing on blatantly biased or provocative editors when they ask for it, but Marknutley has done nothing to deserve this unwarranted attack by TFD. BlueRobe (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not involved with CC Arbcom and in this case I have asked other editors to observe the results of dispute resolution and since they have not have requested additional dispute resolution, which btw is not the same thing as "derailing" dispute resolution. mark nutley's insistence on fringe views and fringe sources shows that he lacks the objectivity to help mediate in Libertarianism and I would like to know if you support the approach he has taken to this topic. BTW you have consistently promoted views on Venezuela which you are unable to support with reliable sources. The fact that some editors would prefer that Wikipedia show bias rather than neutrality is not something that I take personally. People are more offended by attacks on their belief systems than by anything else. but you and I can improve that by ensuring that WP represents mainstream views of subjects and take our differences of opinions to other forums. I have no opinion on either Venezuela or libertarianism and came to those articles in order to understand them. But I recognize garbage sources and fringe theories when I see them. The irony is that presenting these types of sources (e.g., people who claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda) you are creating sympathy for your enemies, because you are offering readers no choice between a neoconservative and a bolivarian view. TFD (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueBoarBlueRobe, I have had a lot of contact with mark nutley in the past and he has often shown up at articles that I am editing. The fact is that he does not follow neutrality or NPOV, and presents sources that are less than reliable. TFD (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

you have consistently promoted views on Venezuela which you are unable to support with reliable sources. There you go again ... it's called "casting aspersions", and you do it all the time. When you do it over and over, even when you know it's not true,[2] it violates AGF. You also have a unique view of WP:FRINGE, since I always use only mainstream reliable sources. Please do read the Fringe page, as your understanding of it is either off, or you have a peculiar POV on Chavez. At any rate, I'm here to ask you to stop making baseless and unfounded accusations against other editors, as you have repeatedly done to me, derailing dispute resolution with incorrect statements. If you want to characterize another editor's editing, back it up with a diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, we have a philosophic difference of opinion on neutrality. You wrote, "There will be plenty of academic sources in five or ten years offsetting the current crop of biased academic sources, but we have to address neutrality now, not in five years". My view is that neutrality means we use the current sources whether or not we agree with them. Otherwise we could never form agreement on what articles should state. There are a lot of articles that represent views with which I disagree, but I will wait until consensus changes. TFD (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you will understand the need to stop removing current mainstream and highly reliable sources and to stop characterizing them as "fringe" just because you don't agree with mainstream thinking on Chavez, when they are utterly and totally supported by WP:V. Your own "philosophy" cannot overrule WP:V, no matter how large the "bloc of collective editors" is that backs the POV at Chavez. It would be helpful if you would expand your reading on Chavez to some of what Wiki considers mainstream, highly reliable sources, as that may encourage you to stop lobbing unfounded charges at other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You should not assume that everyone who is sceptical of simplistic ideas in op-eds is automatically a supporter of Chavez. I would like to see intelligent analysis of Venezuela which is available but you have not supplied. If your sources have a point then they should publish it in peer-reviewed journals, and then we may see the degree of acceptance those views have attracted. You should insist that we use quality sources. I do not know your academic background, but I am sure you would not write a chapter for a textbook based on op-eds. TFD (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And you should stop referring to articles that are not as "op-eds"; that you continue to do this (to me, in particular) is "casting of apsersions". Curiously, if any view of Chavez can be characterized as "fringe", yours is closer than mine, as mine is supported by the entire body of mainstream reliable sources, while yours seems to be gleaned mostly from highly partisan sources, supportive of and supported by the Chavez administration and friendly to it; we present all mainstream views, not just the view you prefer. At any rate, your casting of aspersions on other editors must stop; I do not source text to "op-eds", nor do I violate WP:DUE. If I didn't understand WP:V, WP:RS and WP:DUE, I would be thrown out of my "job" or sanctioned by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never presented any "pro-Chavez" sources and despite your link, have never used Venezuelanalysis as a source. In fact, unlike you, I do not present opinions from newspapers and op-eds and prefer to wait until informed opinion is available. However since Chavez has been president of Venezuela for over a decade there is sufficient published informed opinion covering most of his rule. TFD (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You remove POV tags from an article sourced disproportionately to the sources I describe, and you remove text sourced to the entire body of mainstream reliable sources (while calling them "opeds"), so the effect is the same, regardless of whether you use those sources yourself. "Rule" is a curious word choice, though :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I had not thought about it but the term "rule" is fairly common in constitutional monarchies, e.g., "Thatcher's rule led to 25 years without major strikes".[3] You should point out text that you think should be removed or better sourced. But I always got the impression that you were more concerned with what was omitted from the article rather than what was there. As I mentioned there is criticism of Chavez in reliable sources - it says that his reforms have been ineffective and that they are unsustainable. But some of the opinions of journalists seem extreme. The article on Villa del Cine for example said that Chavez was creating a Goebbels-type propaganda studio and that he would abandon it. Both cannot be true. You should be aware that this type of alarmism and exaggeration may appeal to the converted but can also create sympathy for the subject. TFD (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, please refrain from referring to me using derogatory labels, such as "BlueBoar", in accordance with WP:CIVIL guidelines. BlueRobe (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused your name with User:Blueboar who is an extemely competent editor who provides helpful advice at the reliable sources noticeboard. TFD (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I can certainly see how you could confuse the two of us ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oi

[4] Do not edit my comments again, we do not need anyone to take offence on our behalf and should i wish to describe myself and my people as micks then i will. Any further editing of my comments in violation of TPG will result in a report to ANI mark nutley (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now posted a discussion thread to ANI here. TFD (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Hi. I just moved the page Socialism and Communism in the United States to The American Left, repairing a cut-and-paste move, for which I had to delete and restore various revisions of the article. It looks like you had moved the article by cutting and pasting its contents from one title to another. You probably didn't know, but we can't move pages that way. It's a problem, because our GFDL licensing requires that the article history be kept with the article. Your cut-and-paste move left the history at one title, which moving the article to a different one.

For more information on retitling articles, please see WP:MOVE. In particular, it's best if you avoid doing cut-and-paste moves, because those make it necessary for someone else to clean up, which can be non-trivial, depending on the particular article in question.

Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I took care of the talk page, too. I think I got everything merged, but if you notice anything I missed, please let me know. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

War crimes

I've responded on the talk page there. I appreciate you keeping a (comparatively) cool head there, by the way. I understand that you have concerns with the article -- it's total crap right now, and has been kept that way since it's inception by the type of arguing and infighting that's occuring there now. Please help me find reliable sources to improve the artic--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)le -- you are generally very good about doing this. If you see something that you think is unbalanced, please try to find appropriate sources for it. I'd ultimately like to have all criminal allegations in the article sourced exclusively to scholarly, judicial, government, or respected NGO sources (HRW, Amnesty, UN, etc). Please help me with this. And could you explain to me what problems you have with my sourcing standards? I'd like to discuss it with you here, where it's nice and quiet :) -- Jrtayloriv (talk)

Response to allegations

See my response at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII. I can ensure you that, while I am a new user, I am in no way associated with whoever that vandal is. The only thing that seems to connect me to him is the fact that I included the word "liberal" in my username, which is entirely unintentional.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What makes this especially frustrating, is that because, like you, I considered the claim that the PRC is fascist to be dubious. But, that claim was included in the original article, and my attempts to remove it were reversed by another user, so I opted instead to rewrite it, clean it up, and add more reliable sources to it. And now I'm being hit with a sockpuppet allegation because of it.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Added another reponse to the SI, just a reminder.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)