User talk:Fourdee

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Hello

(just to clarify). I haven't read the article, nor the reverts, nor is it my desire to.

With respect to 3RR, if an editor makes consecutive edits, they are typically counted as a single edit. So, if you revert sentences A, B, C and D, in consecutive edits 1,2,3 and 4 respectively, it is generally treated as a single edit.

A similar case could be made for non-consecutive edits, if they fall within a short time span and if the intermingling editor is not one with whom you are conflicting and is not who reported you. Though, admittedly that would be a more difficult defense to make, as it requires a detailed analysis and is often opinion-based (not clear cut).

Also, though I understand the desire to establish a pattern or history, 3RR violations are often complicated (confusing) enough, due to content change, that including reverts beyond a 24 hour window, tends to weigh against the complaint rather than the offender. (Unless the reverts are very clearly warring and preferably with multiple editors).

Take it from someone who edits articles with a very contentious revert-warrior, no matter how clear the 3RR violation is to you, a) it isn't always clear to an outsider and b) it isn't always an actual violation.

Hopefully this helps. Though it may not be what you hoped to hear.

peace in God. Lsi john 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

The rollback guideline for admins requires that we inform people if we intend to use rollback for anything other than vandalism. This is to inform you that I regard your edits to The Holocaust as disruptive and verging on vandalism (e.g. referring to the Holocaust as an "eradication project," and arguing that "mass murder" is POV) so I intend to rollback any non-constructive ones without further discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can help to produce a high quality piece of writing, as others are trying to, you're of course welcome to edit it. Otherwise, please allow others to get on with it. It's too important a topic to be messed around with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New signature

Testing sig. -- fourdee_ᛇᚹᛟ 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about -- fourdeeᛇᚹᛟ 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode is sweet. My font seems to be missing a couple cool ones I'd like to use though. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain - it's something I "heard whispered in my ear" (product of my imagination) while I was playing by a stream when I was about 12. The names of the letters separately, not as a word - like an initialism. However it's not meant an initialism for anything. Just a bit of silliness from simpler days that's dear to me. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the signature supposed to look like? (For me, in firefox it's three question marks, and in internet explorer it's three squares) Bladestorm 15:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess most people don't have full unicode fonts yet. I think I used [1] which eliminated most of those empty boxes for me - was noticing them in peoples signatures which is what prompted me to get it, and was generally tired of the "empty box syndrome". There are other unicode fonts, not sure if any are an all-in-one solution like that. That one's nice because it seems to serve as a backup for whatever your other fonts are missing, and has about 60,000 characters so far. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 21:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coinop trains.jpg

Hi. Just a minor note. Could you include data as to when and where this photo was taken in the image description. Maybe I'm being overly anal, but its always good to have that added info. Who, in 50 years, will know otherwise? Also consider using the file description layout (copy-pastable, see middle of the page) on this Commons webpage. It is usable for Wikipedia-uploads as well. Cheers. MadMaxDog 09:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Didn't use the template but I'll go through all the pictures I uploaded and add that template when I have the chance. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a shopping centrein South Africa looking for a coin operated model layout likek the one shown. Can you point me to the suppliers site? thanks, michael mike132@telkomsa.net

Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome

We talked about that a few weeks ago, and guess what! Jessie Davis the Ohio mother who went missing for about a week turns up missing and dead. The man is a Canton, Ohio Police officer who is African American. The man, Bobby Cutts, Jr. is similar to Scott Peterson. He is a married man who has children from his wife and Davis. He killed this woman over child support or other ignorant reasons. Now they're is relevant in this because you implied that black on white crime is rampant. But this example would fit the missing woman sensation on cable and regular news. As always, shame on CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS for not covering the missing woman in Miami named, Stepha Henry. LILVOKA 12:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. That's not really similar to the "squelched" stories I cited, which were group crimes against strangers - much more potentially sensational (and brutal). I stopped worrying much about what did or didn't get reported on TV when I took my last one out to a quarry and shot it 30 times. At any rate, you may be able to influence the editorial decisions, but the ratings aspect of this isnt going to change any time soon as far as I can tell. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huguenot

Well, even though I am the author of the most recent biography of the artist [2], [3] I have to confess that I have not actually seen this painting for several years, so I can't comment on the accuracy of the colour. I will be seeing it in a couple of months, however. M was slightly worried about the loss of yellow in his green pigments, and did retouch it in the 1880s. I suspect the one you point to is more accurate. Paul B 10:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Fourdee, I warned Undog about the recent accusations of racism and I extend the same warning to you. It is uncivil to return one accusation of racism with another and makes the dialog more poisoned than it is already. Please consider striking your own comment.--Chaser - T 18:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that this notion of what would introduce less racial bias actually had much more racial bias in its assumptions. I did not call him a racist. And I think you are ignoring the plethora of cases where he is willfully incivil - like practically every other sentence. What I said was in no way meant as a personal attack or incivility, it was in reference to ideas, not people. There is no comparison between his behavior and anyone else on the article. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 19:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy journalists and BLP

The issues you raised on this topic appear to be the next big controversy at the LaRouche article talk page. --NathanDW 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fourdee -- you may wish to comment on this Request for Arbcom enforcement filed by Cberlet. --MaplePorter 13:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Slaughter … again

It looks like your contribution to the 'slaughter' discussion is needed again at Talk:The_Holocaust#NPOV_revisited —Parhamr 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. we are both Oregonians of English descent and your opening two paragraphs on your user page are brilliant—I'm citing you with an odd, humored smirk —Parhamr 09:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, thanks. I am a little busy right now and don't have the time to fight with the admins over this problem on the holocaust article. I'd say the chances of getting anywhere on it are very low but it is worth watching for any extreme POV statements that might make their way in. The fundamental problem is what is considered a "reliable source" for what sort of statements, and disputing that would be time-consuming. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not yet fixed but gahh some people stand in the way. Cheers for standing up for what we believe in, though. —Parhamr 05:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NathanDW and Dont lose that number now banned

I was shocked to learn that both these editors have been indef blocked for the offense of restoring a link at the article Chip Berlet that was deemed to violate BLP. In my opinion, if someone can be banned for restoring a link, then Cberlet and Dking have been getting away with murder in terms of BLP violations. I would encourage you to make requests on their talk pages that they clean up their act and stop violating policy. If they fail to do so, two or more of us should file WP:RFC on them. --Marvin Diode 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is extremely unfortunate. I think it pays to avoid direct confrontations, especially with the admins, and definitely to avoid linking to the "libelous" material about slimvirgin and cberlet that is on the web. The more we antagonize them, the quicker the admins involved are going to be to issue permanent blocks and far-flung enforcements of the arbcom decisions. SlimVirgin is not one to mess with. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to dedicate to dealing with this problem carefully and in detail, but I would sign on an RfC about it. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 19:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet. You should sign as "Other users who endorse this summary." Thanks, Marvin Diode 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking. --Marvin Diode 14:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Your Mommy Kills Animals movie poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Your Mommy Kills Animals movie poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muntuwandi

I think he's using Wikipedia as a political soapbox. You may wanna comment on this: [4] KarenAER 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for looking out for me on my user page! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for Muntuwandi

I believe he comprimises the integrity of Wikipedia. Look at his history. If he is like he is in White people article in all other articles, that's really sad for Wikipedia. I believe we have more than enough material about him but I feel lazy about pulling all the evidence together and starting a RFC. Will you be willing to do that? Here is some headstart: [5] I asked the same to देसीफ्राल . Dbachmann already said, he would sign it but cant be bothered about starting one... KarenAER 11:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? OMG! it is you Karen, and fourdee who compromise Wikipedia. Come get me. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit harrasing me

Whatever you put on my page, it was evil. It's people like you who ruin Wikipedia for the good of all. Do NOT speak to me ever again! Do not post on my page. Though, you can report me, I don't care, but DO NOT put your mark on my page again. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures at WP

I don't frequently agree with MW, but I don't mind the Kerry collage; however, I do see your point about it being the first picture and it is confusing until the caption is read. Is there a remedy? I also propose that the Carey collage be edited to remove Jolie.

None of the pictures you linked here belong on the article. I was curious to see the picture of the mixed race couple who unfortunately won that supreme court case but I don't see what that has to do with the article at all. I'll deal with any proposals on the talk page when I take a look at it. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White people

Hi, I appreciate your most recent comments on the talk page because now i understand your position much better - and I am now convinced that you misunderstand my position. I don't know if you read all my comments in this thread, or read them carefully (I say this in good faith - not everyone has the time). I would ask that you do read what I wrote at the very beginning. I am not saying the article should just say "Scientists deny the existence of a concept, 'white people'". I started out arguing two things, and then, in response to others, felt I had to argue a third thing. In brief, here they are:

the article refers to scientific research in ways that misrepresents the views of scientists. (note: I have never contributed to this article - someone else added the scientists' views i.e. research a long time ago - my point is the article misuses and misrepresents the scientific research it already refers to)
the article seems to pay no attention at all to the vast literature on white people as a social construct. There is a considerable amount of research on this, by scholars in different disciplines, and their views on whiteness (which is not necessarily a criticism of the term but rather an analysis of what it really means) should be included
people who want to write encyclopedia articles should be willing to do research, besides, our NPOV and NOR policies effectively require us to.

If you think I have not been expressing myself clearly, you are welcome to say that on the talk page - but I would ask you to reread what I wrote in light of these points. If i understand you last comment correctly, then i think we actually agree with each other. If you still disagree with me I obviously have misunderstood you and hope you will write more to clarify how you disagree with me. By the way, I am writing this on your talk page because I think you just misunderstood me and I don't want to just repeat myself on the talk page - if you think that anything I wrote here is so valuable it ought to be on the talk page of the article please feel free to cut and paste it there. But my main intention is to clear up what i think is a good-faith misunderstanding between us. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 06:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For what it is worth i do appreciate your note on my talk page. I do suspect you are a racist and your comment on my talk page is consistent with what I suspect - but i assure you it has nothing to do with Jews or anti-semitism. I have asked others I consider knowledgable on the biological and sociological research on race,k ethnicity, and genetic variation to look at the article and its talk page, and in some cases I have asked them to look at your comments. However, I whenever I have done this I have made it clear that you have always been courteous and I appreciate the consistently civil tone of your comments. I do not want to judge you, all I have to go by is what you have written - and while I believe you are sincere, I genuinely believe that you misunderstand population genetics, social science research on whiteness, our NPOV policy, and our Verifiability policy. However, whether you like them or not, if you are willing to comply with those policies in your editing, and if you are willing to accept other people's edits as long as they comply with those policies, I see not cause for real conflict. As far as the books i recommend, I have no illusions about changing your mind and from what you have written I suspect you will disagree with much of it and perhaps even consider some of them lies. I hope you understand why I simply do not care about that. It does not matter what you or I consider the truth. What matters is that there is a body of literature out that that is relevant to the article and should be represented in the article. Also, just in case I have failed to be clear: it is primarily the work of population geneticists that I believe discredits the view that racial or ethnic identity is based on genetics. If the argument that races are based on genetics is presented in the article as a popular (layperson's) view, then I have no objection to citing research by population and molecular geneticists in a "criticisms" section. However, if the view that races are based on genes is presented as the view of population or molecular geneticists, then I insist that we check the sources very cafrefully to ensure they are being accurately represented. As far as the books I suggested, and the journals I suggested looking at for articles, I think only a small number of them are explicit critiques (and thus appropriate for a "criticisms" section); I believe the majority of them develop the view that races and ethnic groups are socially constructed. This is not a criticism of the view that races are based on genes, it is an alternate view, and as such would not belong in a "criticisms" section. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]