User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2013/April

1707 or 1801

Hi and thanks for your contributions on the United Kingdom talk page. You obviously know a great deal more on these topics than I though I have always believed that the true origin of the United Kingdom is 1707 and not 1801. However, when I have tried to make edits to reflect this I have faced opposition. For example, I tried to change the United Kingdom 'years' template by adding the years from 1707 but that was opposed because there was a separate template for the 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. At the very least we should add the years in the Kingdom of Great Britain template to the bottom of the UK page to reflect the fact that 1707 is the key year and not 1801. Also you will be aware that wikipedia articles describe the current UK parliament (elected 2010) as the 55th parliament of the United Kingdom - of course, counting from 1801. Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Which articles are they? Can you provide links. TFD (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

RS/N Discussion

Hello TFD. I started a discussion on Ultimas Noticias and I noticed that you are one of the most active users on RS/N discussion board. Would you be able to help contribute to the conversation so we can have a more thorough discussion? Thanks for any help! Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with a newer editor?

I really, really need some help explaining things to a newer editor. The problem is thus: I nominated the page Arch Enemy Entertainment for deletion because ultimately there weren't any reliable sources that would show a depth of coverage. The other editor (who also works for the company as an intern) re-added a lot of primary and somewhat dubious sources about the company that doesn't show notability. One of the big problems I've had is explaining why the sources are unsuable, particularly the ones by USA Today. While USA Today might be usable as a reliable source otherwise, in this instance they're actually the ones releasing the comic through their website. The other editor doesn't really understand that it's a primary source. She's also sort of upset that I commented that her COI might be interfering with her somewhat, as she'd be more likely to be familiar with writing about the company in a promotional aspect or in a way that could be seen as puffery. I'm really frustrated about this and I'd like to get someone to step in and try to explain things. I suggested the alternative of trying to see if one of the founders is notable and having a paragraph about the company in his article, since there seems to be a chance of notability there, but she didn't really respond to that and seems to be particularly keen on keeping the article for the company instead of any other alternatives. Right now we're really just talking in circles and could use another person coming in. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have commented on her talk page. TFD (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article talkpage, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Your assertions that I don't believe in Verifiability in economics and only believe in things that support my "ideology" is the rankest form of personal attack. I don't get it. Where is this coming from? Capitalismojo (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That is the basis of the Heritage Foundation's approach. Certain values are set to be absolute and empiricism in economics is rejected. TFD (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You can argue the RS issue, but it is highly inappropriate to make personal insults and bald, unwarranted assertions about me because I don't share your opinion about a ref. I am terribly disappointed in this extremely uncivil approach. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)