User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2011/August

Thanks-

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		In honor of your disagreeing without being disagreeable and your turd-polishing expertise. V7-sport (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

All best- V7-sport (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

left of Bernie?

do you think anyone in the congress is left of him, if so who? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

left and right

Well, I might be wasting my time, but that would be a pity, since all I'm doing is turning a half-baked article full of unsourced ignorant POV into one that's a little more balanced, and indeed sourced.

I arrived and made a careful edit with a long note , and ti was deleted with 'appears to be OR'. Charming.

So I go in again and make a series of careful edits, each annotated. Which of those do you disagree with?You've done a petulant mass-reversion without even looking.

So, for example, I replaced the (unsourced) statement that the first political parties were formed in the 19th century with the sourced, linked statement that the whigs were formed in the 18th. DO you go and have a look at the Whig entry? No, you revert it unread.

I replace an unsourced, PoV assertion that 'all' green parties have rejected socialism with a more qualified phrasing - and this is reverted.

Conservative parties were generally unsuccessful? Really? How's that for some unsourced POV - which you stuck back in.

And then, rather than actually discuss anything, you throw a big scary red sticker at me - go away or leave my little fiefdom or i'll ban you.

I suggest you set your ego aside and have a look at the article. It's junk, full of unsourced factually untrue POV assertions. Is that how you like it?

Bge20 (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this is the article talk page. TFD (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You posted a big red sticker on my talk page instead - just returning the favour. However, I didn't notice that the editor who reverted my edits and said I was wasting my time wasn't you - apologies Bge20 (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism template

There is a dispute over whether Reaganomics, Thatcherism and the Tea Party Movement belong in the "see also" section on Template:Conservatism. Please give your 2 cents. LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

BigK talk

I have copied&pasted the BigK discussion to WT:ECON. If you wish, let's continue the conversation there. --S. Rich (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about "New Right"

You seem the best person to ask about this. What does the term "New Right" refer to? I had always taken it to mean radical free-marketeering, sometimes allied with social conservatism. How international is this understanding? It seems to me that New Right is in poor shape - it's poorly referenced and poorly organised, a rather meandering country-by-country review. I ask because I've been tidying up a google translate dump of a Japanese nationalist figure and discovered that ja: "New Right" (shin uyoku/新右翼) - which is the revival of ultra nationalism (Yukio Mishima etc.) - was inter-wiki'd to New Right here on en.wikipedia. I removed the ja: interwiki, but then realised that the New Right page itself suggests the term has diverse meanings.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you or someone tell Darkstar1st to reduce her or his discussion posts on the Nazism article to a minimum? They are filling it up like spam.

I am not comfortable with being the only user calling a demand for this, you have been editing the Nazism article for some time along with me. I'd like support for someone to tell Darkstar1st to reduce the number of his posts and new topic posts to the Nazism discussion page to a concentrated section. Right now it is filling up the discussion page and it is so ill-arranged that I am having difficulty following it. Furthermore could the discussion page topics made by Darkstar1st be re-arranged with Darkstar1st's permission to a single topic like "National socialism origins - proposed edits and changes by Darkstar1st"?--R-41 (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have clear evidence that Darkstar1st is being deliberately disruptive then I would support your actions, but if you do not, or Darkstar1st is simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines I will not. I will not however be party to taking action against a user simply because their views are not mainstream on issues and thus irritate people with mainstream views. In the meantime, I simply want Darkstar1st to edit the discussion page in a cohesive manner and not filled up like a spam page.--R-41 (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You can read through the WQA, ANI, AE, SPI and 3RR noticeboards as well as the archives of Darkstar1st's talk page and his edit history and come to your own conclusion whether his disruption is deliberate or he is ignorant of WP policies. Since other editors appear to have a high tolerance for his behavior, it is probably likely to continue. TFD (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well now that I see his statement above this section where he calls you "troutslap", I think that could be considered demeaning and a personal attack, it is up to you to report that one.--R-41 (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reported him for worse with no effect. Collect btw invariably defends any editor I report, regardless of the merits. Also, an editor can report a personal attack against any other editor. TFD (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)