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

WP:AE

I am not sure the issue you brought up at WP:AE is grounds for blocking. There are however other more clear violations in the edit history. I suggest you modify your requests or withdraw it all together. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Um

Bringing up arguments you had with me on another topic altogether and starting ridiculous move proposals sure reeked of trolling/instigation in my opinion.--Львівське (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI

There is something really fishy going on here. I suspect some inappropriate off-wiki communication. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

(Sorry for late answer to you quextion in my talk page: I am not a "full-time wikipedian", juat an occasional "active reader".) I have no expert knowledge on who and how defined "Communist terrorism" , but leftist terrorism is not equal to "communsit terrorism", therefore I opposed the move. The most evident example of left-wing non-communist terrorism is terrorism by anarchist organizations (although I am not sure that a separate article on anarchist terrorism is due (it is a redirect now)).

IMHO if the term is ill-defined (this is a major issue, as I guess), then the article must be thoroughly cleaned up, rather than the issue swept under the carpet by moving to a less suspicious title. (Upon a brief look at the current state of the two articles, I see that the issue moves in right direction.) I may also point out that while the term "communist terrorism" might be poorly defined, by the same logic, I would question putting an equality sign between the two without solid reference. At the same time, whatever the definitions would be, I may see that "communist" or "Marxist" terrorism constitutes vast majority of left-wing terrorism. Lovok Sovok (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

While I am mildly annoying with your reversal of my version, together with something else, it is not a big deal, provided that we can cooperate in Talk:Left-wing terrorism and in shaping a new subject, Special interest terrorism. Lovok Sovok (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Four Deuces. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikistalking.
Message added 04:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Posted more evidence. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Also, can I get you to weigh in here? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• RFC filed on Hullaballoo. Your opinion is welcomed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Holodomor lede

Collect has made a request, that coverage of the issues introduced in the first sentence be expanded in the article. If you have time, I would appreciate if you could look into this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

James Perloff – John Birch Society - Creationism – Holodomor

I made a search for James Perloff on Google and this YouTube video came up as the first result. Tornado in a Junkyard: Interview with James Perloff (The topic of the interview is his support for Creationism.)

I was amazed. It seems to tie together a whole lot of strings – both off and on Wikipedia. Unfortunately we can only discuss the off-Wikipedia connections.

Earlier, when searching for sources for the Holodomor–Holocaust connection the first usable source that came up was this article by Perloff: Holodomor: The Secret Holocaust in Ukraine I have used it as a reference in the Holodomor article. The article appeared in The New American magazine – in fact this JBL link says Perloff has contributed to he magazine since 1986. On Wikipedia the magazine redirects to John Birch Society.

The Holodomor article also includes this link:

• Holodomor: The Secret Holocaust in Ukraine - official site of the Security Service of Ukraine

The Security Service article is in fact also written by Perloff!

The only thing missing from this off-Wikipedia soup is the invisible hand of Kochtipus money. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – Not quite what I expected, but this is what the search on Wikipedia on relevant key words brought up: Nova Roma and Roger McMorrow :-) Petri Krohn (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. – What the hell is the Security Service of Ukraine and why is it's site, including the Holodomor page full of propaganda for Nato membership? Well, you don't need to tell me, I already know. In fact I was going to write an original essay on the Holodomor – Nato membership issue on the Holodomor talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Perloff

I was already about to respond to you. Thanks for the link to the "Shadows" books review. It is all slowly coming back to me.

This summer a Finnish bloger – at that time still an activist in the Social Democratic Party of Finland – started raving about the book in his blog. When I pointed out that the book was published by the John Birch Society he responded by saying that the JBS only owned the publisher. Unfortunately he deleted all his old blog posts soon after :-(

Anyway, I would call using Perloff on an official government web site the PR blunder of the decade! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Marx

You are right - I did not realize martin changed what I wrote. My apologies. But instead of deleting the whole thing, why did you not revert to the earlier version (which I, Timid Guy and Snowed edit)? Why not revert rather than do a whole-sale deletion? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

British Labour

Hi, can you revisit your comments on the talk page, your point isn't entirely clear Fasach Nua (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The tory thing is a little off topic and not relevant, The UUP took the Tory whip until ~1973, and as such were an autonomous part of the Tory collective like the unionist party in Scotland. The Tories began to field candidates in NI again in 1992 and met with minor sucess in North Down, and in 2010 joined with the UUP to form ucunf a temporary alliance, while maintaining their own identity. I don't know much about the Liberals, although many members of APNI including their leader are members. Fasach Nua (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've undone your edit here as the problem has been corrected, and it adds nothing to the discussion (following correction). Feel free to undo my edit if you feel it inappropriate Fasach Nua (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A reminder

Regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Comments_by_others_about_the_request_concerning_Collect

"The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise." AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists?

I came across something interesting: Neo-Confederate#Neo-Confederate views of the Republican Party. Do you think there is any truth to these claims?

I wrote something about related issues some two years ago. Understanding American politics is quite difficult for an European. It seem that the 2008 presidential elections were the first ever held on purely a left–right axis. It has taken 150 years for the parties to realign themselves. Wikipedia does not really explain this. In fact I have not found anything on-line that would cover the whole process. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing warnings

You have the right to do that - but let me be clear about this - if I see edit warring from you in the future, whether 3RR or not, I will personally block you. Am I clear? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, if you'll accept some unsolicited advice meant in good faith, consider taking a page from WP:BRD. Essentially, it limits you to 1RR and puts an emphasis on hashing out a consensus on the talk page instead of warring over it in the article. I don't follow it religiously, but even then, I never go above 2RR. I've found that, when editing controversial articles, even coming close to the third rail leads to (perhaps unintentionally) false accusations of 3RR violation.

I hope this helps. Dylan Flaherty 05:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I never go over 2RR either. Some administrators actually warn people for 1RR. TFD (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand you reasoning. Are you saying that if someone makes an edit against consensus that no one should revert them? You will notice that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is the only editor that insisted on using the template, K and I reversed his edits, neither of us reversed his fourth edit, going to ANI instead, and Will Beback supported us. Are you going to block anyone who removes the tag after the article is unlocked because one editor wants it to remain? TFD (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a red herring. There is no reason you should have been removing a tag placed on the article in good faith. Edit warring to do so is even worse. If you can't see the problem with that, then the problem is with you. There is plenty of agreement in the discussion over this that you were wrong to edit war over this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intent to support the edit war over the tag. I did support the 3RR block of the editor who violated the bright line. However edit warring can also occur without explicitly crossing that line. I agree with Magog the Ogre that there should not be a repeat of that.   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

I was surprised to see this comment from you. [1]. Are you sure about this? What about conflict of interest? Darioush Bayandor was a part of Shah's brutal regime and responsible for the crimes committed by that regime, using someone like that as source on an article about that regime, which he served, is something I have never seen done anywhere else in Wikipedia. His academic qualifications are besides the point, there are many academics who promote fringe theories and extremist views. What makes this even more disturbing , is the fact that he is taking a revisionist-apologist view of the events, that goes against the mainstream academic consensus on how the coup went down. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read [[2]], Washington Times calls his book revisionist and fringe theory that contradicts the documents and reliable accounts about the coup. The guy is essentially an apologist of Shah's regime trying to white-wash Shah's legacy and downplay the foreign element of the coup in order to make the coup look legitimate. Using him goes against every policy there is on Wikipedia, including Fringe Theory and Undue Weight. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Standard notice

I changed my user name for a good reason. In case you haven't seen this notification on other people's talk pages, I am putting it here: please don't use my actual name in referring to me or my edits. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

What do you think about this issue [3] ? As far as I recall, most of these promotional materials by publishers are not considered to be all that reliable. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE

Your behaviour has been reported here. --Martin (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm! Would calling ones opponents "a gang of neo-Soviet sovoks" be a violation of the DIGWUREN remedies? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Jus sanguinis / Jus soli

Is that a typo in your addition to Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories? Aren't you refering to jus soli as what was included from English law? JethroElfman (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)