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

Raising a Noob

Thanks for helping me out :) I appreciate the suggestions and comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So is this how it works on Wikipedia? Day in and day out, people just try to trash your findings???? *wipes sweat off forehead*Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

reliable sourced ought not be simply removed

Where a source has been found to be a reliable source, deleting it outright is ill-advised. Can you state which of the sources you just deleted from Mass killings under communist regimes is not reliable under WP:V please? I trust you will restore any which are, in fact, RS per WP policy. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Two things

Hi. A couple of things you may not be aware of.

1. I think maybe your comment to WavePart at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case might be in the wrong case (I make that mistake too, it's easy). You may want to move it, not sure.
2. You were, I think, mentioned on my talk, towards the bottom.

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Process barnstar

Thank you for your edits at and around 9/11 conspiracy theories. I reported that editor at WP:AN3, but it would be nice if someone had started the conversation a little earlier in the process. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC on Mass killings under Communist regimes

Per WP:TPO i have reverted your editing of my posts, please do not do this again. The issues are separate and your rfc has no place in the one i just started, thank you mark nutley (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Improving scope of lead at FNC article

Since you weighed in at the NPOV/N thread I opened aboout Fox News, I thought I'd ask your advice on what to do next. I see at least 2 other uninvolved editors supporting my argument for more detail in the lead, but I think I need to take the next step at dispute resolution. By the way, the thread at Talk:FNC has grown stale. I believe that pro-FNC editors there have bullied others enough to discourage them from further discussion or action. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Overthrow of democratically elected governments

Thanks for working with me on this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Twofr

Thanks for that. It wasn't until I looked closely that I realised the IP meant little old me. I'm not convinced I've voiced an opinion about the applicability of sources; I guess the IP is more concerned with me reminding editors about improving the article, not griping about other editors.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 10:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect

You asked if anyone had written a paper on this, The Al Gore Effect: Theoretical Basis mark nutley (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Breeze

I was wanting to shoot the breeze with you. Do you have informal, off-the-record communications?   Will Beback  talk  10:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I was just wanting to brainstorm about the JBS "vandal". But it's not that important.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

'Social Democracy'

I took your suggestion about moving the discussion of my proposal for the Social Democracy article to the Wikiproject Socialism discussion board; in retrospect, the sort of thing I was proposing would make more sense over there. Should it be agreed upon that the section in question should be reworked, would you be interested in collaborating on the re-write?--Apjohns54 (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Book by Mercola on historical fact

Thanks for commenting on the RS/N on this topic. I posted a follow-up question for you there. Bye. TickleMeister (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Heller

I disagree about your analysis of the "whole issue" of Heller. The dust is still settling on that ruling, though now two years afterward there has been much written which is suggesting that (after 80+ post-Heller court cases) the operative effect measured in practical terms of Heller hinges on the two words "presumptively lawful" more than the two words "individual right". Two years ago, people were predicting otherwise. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You and Salty on recent court decisions

I wanted to compliment you and SaltyBoatr on both of your recent discussions regarding the recent McDonald court decision. I haven't always agreed with your edits, but I have no doubts about your integrity, and when you make edits, I cannot refuse to listen. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)