User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2010/August
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:The Four Deuces. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Talk:Aspartame controversy
Could you expand upon and clarify your comment here. I'm having a hard time determining what your position actually is on the matter. The two sentences you wrote appear to contradict each other. I'm guessing it's the lack of context... --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Citation Debate
Hey, I know a bunch of people on the Hugo Chavez page have been wondering about reference format and what style of citation should be used. You are invited to join in the discussion and give your input at WT:VEN. Let the debate begin ... --Schwindtd (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Social liberalism
You have reverted my clarifying sentence on the Social Liberalism page. My correction is neither vandalism nor unconstructive. It was a correction of fact. Liberalism (social liberalism, in particular) is by definition the Left of the political spectrum. To state that it is the center of the political spectrum is entirely false. I wish to protest your removal of my correction. How do I do that? Detah (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The Radical Right
I'll be glad to take a look. The challenge will be to reference everything and strive for an absolutely neutral tone. Is there an article titled The Radical Left? I'll check. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Democracy Now
You have twice reverted my corrections to that page, please do not when I am correcting a pageUnicorn76 (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
libertarian principles
RE: "poltical debate in the U.S. usually refers to libertarian principles"
Seems to me that this sentence somewhat undermines your earlier point about "forms" and "versions"...? BigK HeX (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Noloop
I hope this does not sound like a lecture, given that most people think I am the last person who has a right to lecture anyone on this kind of thing BUT: accusing someone of being a sockpuppet actually IS as you perhaps know a very very very serious accusation here. If you realy think Noloop is a sock, you should request a checkuser, it is not hard to do. Otherwise it is the kind of accusation you shouldn't make casually. (you know of course I otherwise appreciate the comment you left) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- i have endured a tdf sockpuppet accusation and investigation, which i was cleared. tfd appears to have many useful contributions to wp. i hope in the future more time will be spent on sources and content, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- When editors are banned and new accounts editing the same articles are blocked as sockpuppets of banned editors, then it is rational to question new editors who edit in the same style. The correct procedure is to report one's suspicions to SPI. SPI has two ways of addressing these suspicions - checkuser and behavior. Some of the suspected sockpuppets I have reported were blocked on the basis of checkuser, but that is not always possible. You were mentioned as a fellow victim by User:Jessica'sGems who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Karmaisking. I requested an SPI on your account because you have a similar editing style to User:RJII. You were not in fact "cleared". Instead, the checkuser was unable to connect your ip address with two recently blocked suspected sockpuppets of RJII. One of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is that editors who are banned can come back under new accounts and repeat their disruptive editing, wasting hours of time of serious editors. You can read RJII's reasoning here: "What we did has nothing to do with being Jewish. We just happen to be Jews, so it was a convenient username for our effort. We're Jews (our benefactors, and editors (with the exception of one assistant editor)) who injected our intelligence into the Wikipedia system into the specific areas we were concerned with, building a latticework that will further our own interests in the real world."[1] If a new account resembles RJII it is appropriate that we determine whether or not they are the same editor. TFD (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- by your own logic, you are trying to hold back the sea. perhaps your time would be better spent improving the wp articles you follow, instead of the editors? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I do work to improve articles, and I also work to protect articles from edits that make them unencyclopedic. TFD (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- no, what i meant to say is, if someone can make a new account(bizarre in my case since i have been in wp far longer than you and rj11 combined)then your efforts may be diluted, whereas a valid relevant source you add cannot be undone. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If an account is blocked, particularly one belonging to an editor with a history of creating sockpuppets, and a new account (or one that has been dormant) follows the same pattern, then it raises suspicion and the correct way to treat that suspicion is to compare their editing patterns and request a checkuser. BTW the RJII account was set up before Darkstar1st. SPI was set up for a purpose, what else do you think it is for? TFD (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- it is very hard to imagine the articles i have edited and created follow a pattern. i continue to hope you will realign your focus toward content. you and i a very far apart on ideology, but isn't that the fun of wp. we can have a supervised debate, decided only by facts. when you are met with defeat, as only happens to the best editors, acknowledge a good battle, and move on. have you lost a battle in wp yet? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is important that all articles represent neutrality and you should not assume that people who oppose the direction you want to take the libertarian or any other article disagree with you over ideology. However, articles must be driven by sources, not editors' personal belief systems. And this is no place for ideological debate, discussions should be about how to present topics. TFD (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- perhaps i have misunderstood you ideology. your edits all appear to be grouped around a specific ideology, perhaps some examples to the contrary would convince me otherwise. i doubt you would supply such, even if it did exist. so in closing, much of your time has been spent on other editors, i suggest you weigh those results against the sources and content you have submitted to wp, then decide how your time is best spent. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- you have yet to create an article in wp, i look forward to your progress, as you have substantial knowledge and would improve wp by sharing. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I have created several articles and substantially changed many others. But of course most articles about important topics have already been created. TFD (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- apologies, the last time i mentioned it you had not. which articles did you create? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I have created several articles and substantially changed many others. But of course most articles about important topics have already been created. TFD (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- you have yet to create an article in wp, i look forward to your progress, as you have substantial knowledge and would improve wp by sharing. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- perhaps i have misunderstood you ideology. your edits all appear to be grouped around a specific ideology, perhaps some examples to the contrary would convince me otherwise. i doubt you would supply such, even if it did exist. so in closing, much of your time has been spent on other editors, i suggest you weigh those results against the sources and content you have submitted to wp, then decide how your time is best spent. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is important that all articles represent neutrality and you should not assume that people who oppose the direction you want to take the libertarian or any other article disagree with you over ideology. However, articles must be driven by sources, not editors' personal belief systems. And this is no place for ideological debate, discussions should be about how to present topics. TFD (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- it is very hard to imagine the articles i have edited and created follow a pattern. i continue to hope you will realign your focus toward content. you and i a very far apart on ideology, but isn't that the fun of wp. we can have a supervised debate, decided only by facts. when you are met with defeat, as only happens to the best editors, acknowledge a good battle, and move on. have you lost a battle in wp yet? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If an account is blocked, particularly one belonging to an editor with a history of creating sockpuppets, and a new account (or one that has been dormant) follows the same pattern, then it raises suspicion and the correct way to treat that suspicion is to compare their editing patterns and request a checkuser. BTW the RJII account was set up before Darkstar1st. SPI was set up for a purpose, what else do you think it is for? TFD (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- no, what i meant to say is, if someone can make a new account(bizarre in my case since i have been in wp far longer than you and rj11 combined)then your efforts may be diluted, whereas a valid relevant source you add cannot be undone. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I do work to improve articles, and I also work to protect articles from edits that make them unencyclopedic. TFD (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- by your own logic, you are trying to hold back the sea. perhaps your time would be better spent improving the wp articles you follow, instead of the editors? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- When editors are banned and new accounts editing the same articles are blocked as sockpuppets of banned editors, then it is rational to question new editors who edit in the same style. The correct procedure is to report one's suspicions to SPI. SPI has two ways of addressing these suspicions - checkuser and behavior. Some of the suspected sockpuppets I have reported were blocked on the basis of checkuser, but that is not always possible. You were mentioned as a fellow victim by User:Jessica'sGems who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Karmaisking. I requested an SPI on your account because you have a similar editing style to User:RJII. You were not in fact "cleared". Instead, the checkuser was unable to connect your ip address with two recently blocked suspected sockpuppets of RJII. One of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is that editors who are banned can come back under new accounts and repeat their disruptive editing, wasting hours of time of serious editors. You can read RJII's reasoning here: "What we did has nothing to do with being Jewish. We just happen to be Jews, so it was a convenient username for our effort. We're Jews (our benefactors, and editors (with the exception of one assistant editor)) who injected our intelligence into the Wikipedia system into the specific areas we were concerned with, building a latticework that will further our own interests in the real world."[1] If a new account resembles RJII it is appropriate that we determine whether or not they are the same editor. TFD (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact remains, if TFD has grounds to suspect someone is a sockpuppet, he ought to have it investigated via checkuser or other means - the accusation of sockpuppet is serious, and if someone really is a sockpuppet we need to know, and if someone is not a sockpuppet (or cannot be proven a probable sockpuppet) then that editor has a right for others to know. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- well said. after a certain amount of incorrect attempts to prove puppetry, i would hope an editor would return to content. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
(out) In fact Darkstar1st most of my reports to SPI have resulted in editors being blocked because I assemble evidence to support suspicion. The fact is though that SPI is there to investigate cases where there is a good possibility that an editor is a sockpuppet. Sometimes an editor who appears similar to a blocked editor may be unconnected and sometimes a sock cannot be detected by checkuser. However if someone is wrongly suspected of being a sock it is fairly simple for them to disprove it. If you disagree that SPI should exist then you are welcome to recommend ending it. TFD (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- then why don't you believe i am not a sockpuppet, what evidence do you require? btw, which articles have you authored? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- As you are well aware, a checkuser was performed to compare your account with a recently blocked sockpuppet and found no connection.[2] TFD (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Darkstar, I left a message for TFD; this section of the talk page is for he and I to discuss a specific topic. You are abusing this talk page by hijacking it for your own use. If you want to raise an issue with TFD create a new section on his talk page but please but out of my conversation with him. You have nothing to do with what I want to alkt to him about. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sl, you may not have this section for your own personal convo. I am on topic by suggesting the time spent on noloop, is undue. tfd is a very smart person which much to offer wp, sockpuppet police is such a lowly duty for such a sharp mind. if there truely be any SP left, perhaps others will out them. tfd, we are awaiting the names of the articles you have created. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
And you made your point quite clearly and eloquently. It is everything else you have writtn that is off-topic and disruptive. You stated your view, and clearly: fine. Everything else frankly reads as if you are just trying to pick a fight with TFD or have a chip on your shoulder. If I am wrong, and I well may be, I would usggest that what you just wrote, so clear anc concise, is all you need to say on the topic to communicate your point. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- @SL, i have already been fought by tfd, and do not seek another. although i emerged the victor, the engagement left a scar or 2. tfd made the claim that i have assumed his ideology. I said his and my ideology are very far apart, but isn't that the fun of wikipedia, engaging those with a dif pov? . i now have evidence in his own words describing "libertarians" as "you" people. i am in fact a libertarian, which begs the obvious question, why are so many non-libertarians set on applying other terms to the article. the other obvious unanswered question is which pages has tfd created? should you wish a "fight" with me (i call it a "debate"), please star my talk page, the never-ending source of false accusations like the one we are currently discussing. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You are just soapboxing. Do it somewhere else. I am trying to have an adult discussion with TFD. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved experienced editor I happened to notice this discussion and wondered why Darkstar1st is badgering TFD to name the articles he has authored- there are many roles and tasks for editors at wikipedia, I myself have never authored an article but could spend a thousand lifetimes cleaning up the existing ones. Creating articles does not qualify one editor's contributions over another, and I think most editors do not wish to spend a lot of time considering if someone is a sock or not- so if an editor assumed the task of chasing them down it would be fine by me, and he'd probably be better at it than those who don't often do it. I can't help but notice you almost appear to be giving TFD advice so strong it borders on a threat. If Darkstar1st wishes to discuss this he can at my talk page or a new section here.Batvette (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- i threatened tfd, with what? he mentioned he created several articles, i ask which. tfd has accused me of pov pushing, so i thought if he had spent equal time on a broad range of topics, maybe he was right, and i would withdraw. please excuse the incontinence. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Way too much silliness here. See [3] for TFD's three articles created. Really no need for all this stuff. Collect (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- thx for the link. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Way too much silliness here. See [3] for TFD's three articles created. Really no need for all this stuff. Collect (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- i threatened tfd, with what? he mentioned he created several articles, i ask which. tfd has accused me of pov pushing, so i thought if he had spent equal time on a broad range of topics, maybe he was right, and i would withdraw. please excuse the incontinence. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved experienced editor I happened to notice this discussion and wondered why Darkstar1st is badgering TFD to name the articles he has authored- there are many roles and tasks for editors at wikipedia, I myself have never authored an article but could spend a thousand lifetimes cleaning up the existing ones. Creating articles does not qualify one editor's contributions over another, and I think most editors do not wish to spend a lot of time considering if someone is a sock or not- so if an editor assumed the task of chasing them down it would be fine by me, and he'd probably be better at it than those who don't often do it. I can't help but notice you almost appear to be giving TFD advice so strong it borders on a threat. If Darkstar1st wishes to discuss this he can at my talk page or a new section here.Batvette (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Saramago
TFD, you seem to be interested in libertarianism so I thought your opinion on the Talk page of the left libertarian author Sarammago would be useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jos%C3%A9_Saramago#Statements_regarding_Jews.2C_the_Holocaust_and_Palestinians Have a look if you have time. ValenShephard (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
A little advance notice
There's a strong possibility that I'll be starting an WP:RFC/USER for Darkstar1st pretty soon. Just wanted to give you a heads up, in case you'd be interested in certifying it. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if you are interested, and you wanted to start gathering a few preliminary diffs about any evidence of tendentious POV editing and/or disruptive talk page abuse on Libertarian-related pages, it'd be extremely helpful. Thanks, man! BigK HeX (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- BigK HeX -- Please take a look at WP:CANVASS. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Jrtayloriv, is not a big deal. these two have both tired to have me banned before, and likely will again. i welcome their critique, and admire both of these guys tenacity. If the rest of the people cared as much about this planet as these two, we would all be better off, socialist, anarchist, communist or whatever wins the day. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, canvassing is a big deal, as is your history of disruptive and tenditious editing. You should take their advice to heart and learn to collaborate with other editors, and take some time to read Wikipedia's core policies. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have come across the issue of canvassing in RfC/Us before. I believe the reasoning is that since it requires that two or more editors must have a problem with another editor that this requires communication between them. This communication should of course be open. The purpose of an RfC/U is of course to resolve problems and is not a punative measure. I do not know how effective this approach would be, but it might invite the comments of outside editors. It might be helpful though as a place to explain to Darkstar1st the procedures that we must all follow in writing articles. TFD (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- There was no problem with him notifying you of the upcoming RfC/U -- the problem was that he specifically asked you to come there with a certain point of view (namely that Darkstar1st is disruptive and tenditious), and to gather a particular type of evidence supporting it. What he should have said is something along the lines of: Hey, I'm about to file an RfC/U on DarkStar1st and since you're involved in the conflict, I'd like to notify you so you can weigh in., and then left it at that. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- The RFC/U has to be about the same issue. If TFD does not have experience with problems in that area, then TFD's contributions to an RFC/U based on my differing issues with Darkstar1st in that area will not be valid; in that case, TFD should disregard my notification here, since it would be fruitless if we have problems with Darkstar1st on completely different matters. My intention is most certainly not to have TFD go through the effort and collect a bunch of diffs, only to turn out that we're on two wholly separate matters. There is a (pretty constraining) time limit on RFCs, so, I am giving TFD time to perform some legwork if he has any (relevant!) legwork to perform. If he does not, then that's fine too and he won't have to waste any of his time. I do not believe WP:CANVASSING applies at all for the matter of certifying RFC/USERs, since the aim is not to influence discussion, but only to determine if a discussion can begin. Now (selectively) soliciting people to give "outside" opinions within the RFC/USER would very likely qualify as canvassing, but that's a different matter. BigK HeX (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. It struck me as canvassing at first, and perhaps could have been worded better, but in light of what you just said, I don't think you did anything really wrong. Sorry to interfere -- and best of luck with the RfC/U. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, not a prob at all. It's always good to get input. Your point on CANVASSING is certainly very reasonable. I could well be wrong on my opinion of it. Thanks, all the same! Cheers. BigK HeX (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. It struck me as canvassing at first, and perhaps could have been worded better, but in light of what you just said, I don't think you did anything really wrong. Sorry to interfere -- and best of luck with the RfC/U. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Jrtay, do you have any proof i am disruptive? i have proof that both of these editors have brought false charges against me, and both have been dismissed. collaboration is what i seek. several of my talk page sections are efforts to determine common ground, please review should you find you new found interest in my edits not abate. you have been an editor for over a year now, i have been an editor much much longer, and have been told to read every wp:thereis. perhaps you could review their examples yourself, and comment specifically, should you find any transgression, i promise you in advance an apology to those offended, and a course correction on my part. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- The RFC/U has to be about the same issue. If TFD does not have experience with problems in that area, then TFD's contributions to an RFC/U based on my differing issues with Darkstar1st in that area will not be valid; in that case, TFD should disregard my notification here, since it would be fruitless if we have problems with Darkstar1st on completely different matters. My intention is most certainly not to have TFD go through the effort and collect a bunch of diffs, only to turn out that we're on two wholly separate matters. There is a (pretty constraining) time limit on RFCs, so, I am giving TFD time to perform some legwork if he has any (relevant!) legwork to perform. If he does not, then that's fine too and he won't have to waste any of his time. I do not believe WP:CANVASSING applies at all for the matter of certifying RFC/USERs, since the aim is not to influence discussion, but only to determine if a discussion can begin. Now (selectively) soliciting people to give "outside" opinions within the RFC/USER would very likely qualify as canvassing, but that's a different matter. BigK HeX (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- There was no problem with him notifying you of the upcoming RfC/U -- the problem was that he specifically asked you to come there with a certain point of view (namely that Darkstar1st is disruptive and tenditious), and to gather a particular type of evidence supporting it. What he should have said is something along the lines of: Hey, I'm about to file an RfC/U on DarkStar1st and since you're involved in the conflict, I'd like to notify you so you can weigh in., and then left it at that. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Jrtayloriv, is not a big deal. these two have both tired to have me banned before, and likely will again. i welcome their critique, and admire both of these guys tenacity. If the rest of the people cared as much about this planet as these two, we would all be better off, socialist, anarchist, communist or whatever wins the day. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
War Crimes and POV
I apologize for implying your contribution toward the discussion on Talk:War crimes and the United States may have been POV influenced, clearly your balanced criticism displayed it was not. Just wanted to let you know I noticed that. Batvette (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. TFD (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring the shitload of meatpuppets that showed up from Daily Kos, the page above has several reliable sources about the reaction to the announcement of the donation. I think that is what we should cover. Soxwon (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in participating in improvements to Progress Party (Norway), based on the latest GA review that I have commenced here: Talk:Progress Party (Norway)/GA2. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Weird eh
Funny how we both edit/watch aspartame and fascism. Not sure why, but I thought I would mention that. You are doing fine work. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Re-factoring on the Libertarian RfC
Due to Darkstar's objections, I've moved the comments that directly comment on the question back to the top. This means that I have moved your comments away from the 'vote' section, and you no longer have a vote in that section. You may wish to add another 'vote' comment to the RfC. Regards, LK (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)