User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2015/February

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Far-right politics. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Regarding "Far-right" dispute

Hey, I just wanted to say that I've come to agreement with what you were originally saying ,and have requested on the dispute for it to be archived or just deleted. Redflorist (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A request for Arbitration has been made for America: Imagine a World Without her

The request can be found here: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Casprings (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi The Four Deuces, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that this case has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

BM called us "Holocaust deniers"

Thus I started a thread on such over-the-top name calling from him at WP:AN/I. I do not think it is remotely a close call on him, but he may yet find a person defending that use, and I thought you might find it of interest. As you were the other editor covered by his statements and edit summaries, this is not CANVASSing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ratel

as an affected user should you note: Indef block appeal for Ratel --ClaudioSantos¿? 06:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My memory of the case is vague and there is a lot posted in the discussion to read through. It looks later the editor will probably be unblocked but it would be better to have a longer discussion. I do not have a lot of time at the moment, but will look at it if it is still there. TFD (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

His weakness was always BLPs - you can look at David Copperfield's BLP history and see his belief that BLPs should never be "whitewashed" <g>. [1] was a typical edit from him. [2] explains what he believes. Collect (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Scope of American Left

Thanks for writing me! I replied on my talk page. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Another reply for you is on my talk page. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And another. Let me know if you prefer pings. This talk page notification is how I've done things in the past. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the chance to talk. Every editor has strengths and weaknesses. Your insistence on good individual sources is a strength. But when an editor appears on an article talk page to discuss broad context or scope issues, like many have done at Talk:American Left, I hope you consider remaining silent for a while to allow other editors to respond because addressing those broader issues may be a weakness for you, and I think many editors are not being heard as a result. On the other hand, engaging in certain types of discussions which I find amusing but which many others might not find amusing is a weakness of mine. I have refactored the American Left talk page to alter our discussion in a way that will hopefully benefit the other editors there. I've removed some of my sarcasm and mockery. I appreciate your ability to maintain a cool tone in reply. Feel free to alter the refactoring if you think I've done a bad job at it, and I think it's also within your right to discard the refactoring altogether if you choose to, but I hope you don't. I think that some of what we discussed was relevant and will help the article. I'll be proceeding with a non-sarcastic discussion on that talk page in a day or two. Flying Jazz (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason I did not reply to your last posting is that you have not explained what changes you wanted. You began by saying the definition was too narrow, then presented a source (Baretsky) that is consistent with how the article is written. All my attempts to seek clarification from you have been met with abuse, condescension, sarcasm, pedantry and bizarre comments about neo-conservatism.

Usually when I encounter hostility from another editor it derives from differences of opinion. But in this case it seems to be the reverse, more like disagreement for the sake of disagreement.

TFD (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what we attempted to discuss on my Talk Page and on the article's Talk Page, and I agree that we failed to have a meeting of the minds there. Who are Baretsky, Busetsky, and Beretsky? Flying Jazz (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Zaretsky, the author of Why America Needs a Left, the only source you have presented. Of course you know that and your comments are just another example of pointless sarcasm. TFD (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No matter -- FJ has just decided to weigh in on Ubikwit's ArbCom proposed case. What a wonderful world. Collect (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)