User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2012/October

Just putting it out there

Do you think User:Rothbardanswer might be User:Mmahoney393 (Karmaisking)? --MeUser42 (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. When an editor begins his career by edits to articles and quickly graduates to edit-warring, there is a likelihood of sockpuppetry. But Rothbardanswer appears to be more educated (claims to be a PhD student at Warwick) and less abrasive. Also claims to be in the UK while KiK was in Australia. And there are many editors who share their views, even if they have little support in the mainstream. TFD (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, that maybe. The fact these views are not held by the mainstream is to their credit though. --MeUser42 (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If you believe something is "trolling"

Why not counter the view? Ok, perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I don't know enough, but it was a *talk* page, not the article itself. I'm not trying to mess up things, I'm trying to contribute with sources that might be relevant or related. And by damned, you can't dispute the notion that social liberalism and anarchism isn't at least somewhat related even if economical liberalism is a different story, it is something you can make a case for, both views cares a lot about freedom and are assosiated with eachother at least in left wing speech even if it might not be in academic language. Now if you did have a look at the link I provided you'd notice that the webpage in question referred to a bunch of books about the subjects so even if the website itself can be considered bias and even if the sources it might even be bias they *are* sources of a view point that is liberal in the sense that it values freedom even if it might not fit the official classical liberalism or social liberalism topic. So, if you still think it was trolling, that is as far as I'm aware the word used to describe intended try to cause harm in a written form in a forum or other website with user generated content then I'd like you to at the very least provide a reply explaining *why* you hold that view, and preferably citing sources about what rules or policies you believe have been violated or sources supporting your view of why you think it is trolling in the first places instead of what at least from my point of view is an direct attempt at curbing my free speech and in fact a editing that by far is more "troll-like" then the content I added in the first place, even if you seem to be a valued wiki member according to the badges on your user page. I haven't claimed that I support the website in question so it's not self promoting, and I swear that it's not intended as an attempt at disrupting Wikipedia activities, and you did not even reply to my user page siting *why* you thought it was trolling meaning that if we are to assume that you're correct about my content addition being harmful then I don't even have the faintest idea about *why* and therefore can't correct my future additions to reflect that. In other words, I can't know how to avoid "trolling" in the future. So, can you please explain this edition? What was wrong with it? Why wasn't it enough to simply add a counter comment? Does it really have no value at all to the topic? (something I assume is your view since you deleted it instead of replying to it) And why don't it have value? I'm probably going to add more questions in reply to whatever you reply with if you choose to reply. If you don't I'll be forced to look into who I can appeal your decision and possible abuse of power. Because the last think I want in my editing history is a editing removed due to a claim of trolling with no supporting evidence or reply to me about why. Now, sorry if I'm a bit... let's say frustrated here and perhaps replying in a stronger wording then what might be advisable. But I do feel strongly about the topic. At any rate have a nice day. I'm looking forward to what's hopfully your reply Luredreier (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Using discussion pages to generate a conversation not aimed at improving the article is trolling. If that was not your intention then I apologize. However the article is about "social liberalism" which is the view that the government has a role in ensuring the welfare of individuals, and you presented a link to the FAQ, which is not a reliable source that could be used in this article, on an anarchist website without explaining what types of changes you think should be made, or which question we should be reading. TFD (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answering.
What I intended with sharing that link was not that the link itself would provide all that much information, but that it is referring to a large number of works from a large number of different sources, both liberal and anarchistic, some that I think might be of use to people writing about the topic because of the overlap between some forms of liberalism and some forms of anarchism. Perhaps too much information. Anyway I think it's particularly useful because that faq is made by the left wing of anarchists, a side of it that might have more in common with social liberalists then you might think. Some self-proclaimed anarchists even believe in something a bit like the welfare state, now if they really do belong under that umbrella term is another question...
As for your definition of the term "trolling", it's a lot wider then the one I associate with the word and that I think most people use. The word "troll" as used in most online communities I've been a part of implies an harmful intent, not just potentially harmful result or for that matter irrelevant content. Also, even if something don't improves that particular article it still if it have potential to improve the knowledge of someone I do think it's helpful due to the potential of allowing them to contribute positively in other situations.
Anyway, if you don't think it belongs there then that's fine. Just please refrain from adding the term "troll" in the future unless you're sure that there's harmful intent involved because those that read your comments will assume that this is the case from your words.
And it would also be nice if you could leave a little note on that persons user page about why you remove something when you do as that will allow them to learn instead of just wonder where the message went (most users probably don't even think about the possible to see the page history when experiencing something like that)
Anyway, I guess that it might not be all that helpful to share that link there considering that you didn't see the use for it right away...
It is a lot of information to wade through to get a relative small amount of information relevant to the article in question...
At any rate, thanks for your time and patience. Luredreier (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Far-right politics

From GeorgePierBain (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this message is from the person who has been inserting the new section "The Far Right in America" into the article. Needless to say, the IP is not fake. I understand that this back and forth with the editing must be frustrating, and I sincerely apologize. Yes, I am new to Wikipedia, but I wish to do this properly from now on. As for the content of what I have attempted to add, it is accurate - and I will explain why. In the past, groups in the USA that can arguably be described as far-right have met the description given in the current version of the article. Today, any such groups have been marginalized to the point of insignificance. Where any individual lies on the political spectrum in the USA depends primarily on where he or she stands on the relationship between the individual and the state. On this American spectrum, therefore, Fascism is far to the left of mainstream liberals and conservatives. Without the distinction made clear by my section, the article unfairly and innacurately portrays the political views of many people in the United States. If you compare the current versions of the Wikipedia articles "Far-right politics" and "Far-left politics" with a truly objective mind, you will have to see some clear bias. The latter is brief and lacks any mention of the negative aspects of far-left politics, the negative parts of the ideology and of the history. In stark contrast, "Far-right politics" includes genocide, oppression, racism, and xenophobia as essential elements. In fact, these are common elements of far-left politics as well. The article "Far-left politics" does not even include a "History" section! Why is this? As for citations, the general description in "Far-right politics" (contained in the first two paragraphs) includes but one source. And this source is the work of one person who presents his own analysis, something that should not be considered indisputable fact. I can add citations to my own contribution, but they will be just the same; I will have cited the opinion of another who agrees with me. What is very clear is that these two articles must be altered in the interest of fairness and accuracy. I would like to achieve this with anyone whose primary concern is presenting the truth.

GeorgePierBain (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Are people really still using the linear one dimensional model? It's so unpractical... A graph with both a x axis and a y axis is more practical as you can both include authoritarianism/liberitarianism on one axis as well as economical policy on the other and then you can add a z axis for an optional third topic like say environmentalism or any other topic that don't fit the first two axis. With such a system you'll find that Hitler is only moderate right and Stalin isn't the on the most extreme left at all but they're both on the same side in the authoritarian/liberitarian scale but on the opposite side of say Gandhi. The one dimentional way of thinking is unfair to people on all sides of the political spectrums as it makes people associate politiclal groups, parties and ideologies with others that they don't belong together with at all and can lead to people choosing not to vote for those that in reality reflect their values the most. :-/
Ps. Sorry about commenting on the conversation between you two, just couldn't stop myself from throwing in my two cent there...
Luredreier (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that articles about segments of the political spectrum should not exist, because different people will have different views. However, while most ideological groups are identified by names such as conservative, liberal, christian democrat, etc., some groups are referred to by reference to perceived position on the politial spectrum. There is no other term available that includes both the KKK and neo-nazis other than far right. If you have a different term, then please provide one. The Left (which includes communists, socialists and anarchists) is also meaningful, even though some socialists may actually be on the right of their country's political spectrum. For example the main opposition to Hugo Chavez comes from "socialists". The term "far left" unlike the term "far right" is therefore subjective, as is the term "right-wing", but not the term "left-wing". TFD (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Dimitry Pospielovsky

• Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
• Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War (1917–1921)

Hello again there is an on going discussion about Pospielovsky by an anonymous editor on two different articles here that is what prompted my posting to the reliable sources board. [1] How is it that I might ask your help on the allegations the anon editor is making on the articles talk pages? Example: [2] As the editor is calling everyone under the sun liars. As for your comment about Ayn Rand I tried to contribute to her article here but got banned after a small group of her enemies got into an edit war with me. You can read the ban off of my talk page.[3] Did you know that Spiderman was and or is a partial Ayn Rand influenced character or at least the Steve Ditko part was, but Wiki stated no that can't be in her article. If religions is the worst most destructive thing ever then that standard if applied to atheism has killed allot. If atheists promote that standard then they have to adhere to it. Also crimes and right violations were done to religious people and their property by atheism in the name of atheists causes. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Social Democracy

New message at the article's talk page.[4] Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods

Hey TFD,

Just wanted to see if you were planning to make the changes you discussed on the Smithfield Foods talk page about the HSUS Investigation. I'm happy to help write a draft or provide resources as necessary.

Thanks so much for all your help on the article, Kkirkham (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar of Humor

	Barnstar of Humor
	You made me laugh with this comment. Keep it up! Jethro B 00:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! TFD (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

American Exceptionalism

Thanks for the reminder, I will respond shortly. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.