Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:52, 15 January 2014

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Notice on Classic Liberalism

Four Deuces, you are involved in some vandalism of the Classical liberalism page by repeatedly removing sourced factual statements about the list of the founding fathers who were classic liberals. Is there some reason for this apparently malicious behavior? Should you continue to arbitrarily remove factually correct & sourced statements from their appropriate place your actions will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kckranger (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, The Four Deuces. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 12:21, 14 April 2012

Notice of Cultural conflicts noticeboard discussion

Hello, The Four Deuces. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryonmorrigan (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 July 2012

AN/I WIKIHOUNDING by Collect?

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 11:26, 29 May 2013‎

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Email

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Austrian economics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 December 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit war at Classical liberalism

I see that you have, quite rightly, pointed out the edit warring policy at User talk:Kckranger. However, please bear in mind that you too have been in the same edit war. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have explained my edits in edit summarizes, set up a discussion thread and another editor has agreed with me. So far KckRanger has provided vague edit summaries such as "Wrong answer", has failed to reply to the discussion page, and has made 3 reverts within 24 hours. TFD (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

CT

I dissected a slew of "sources" used in the CT article at BLP/N -- BM has accused me of being horridly biased, as always <g> and the other editor I do not know quite to make of. At least BM did not try adding Rajeev back in as a "reliable source" <g>. We now have Palestine inserted via Lebanon ... ought this be now placed under IP ArbCom rules for their benefit? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Anything that goes to ARBCOM is time-consuming and none of their decisions seem to be helpful. Probably best to resolve the content dispute by determining what should be in the article, which is now being done, and resolving any disputes through bringing in more editors, possibly with an RfC. The personal attacks are unhelpful, and could be taken to ANI.

It might also be helpful to find literature on Christian terrorism. I could only find it briefly mentioned in books about terrorism, but none of them identify many groups, or say much about them.

TFD (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The problem with CT is that in modern times, a relatively small percentage of terroists who are christians are doing terrorism which is explicitly or obviously related to the religion (the most notable exception probably being anti-abortion motivated terrorists) (One could argue that groups like the KKK claim religious motivation as well, but are their type of actions considered religious by the RSs? (honest question) . Conversely, the majority of say islamic terrorists explicitly claim religious reasons for their actions (although other politico-economic issues may be as important if not more important than their ostensible reasoning). (Or one could say that there is a bias in the reporting/research causing this imbalance, but the result is the same as far as[REDACTED] is concerned) This certainly does not mean one group is better or worse than the other - but just that reliable sourcing on the specific topic of CT is not nearly as available as other religious terror movements. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I posted a comment on the talk page about this. There are Christians who are terrorists, but their motivation is generally political - nationalism, or far left or right, or single issue, such as abortion or animal rights. Since terrorism as a tactic in support of an objective, then the objective is what determines the type of terrorism. TFD (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

The India section still appears to have material added which I did not think met the requirements of policy. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS. MilesMoney (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack

This is a personal attack and I have redacted it. Do not do this again. MilesMoney (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It is an accurate assessment of your contribution. I would hope instead of taking offense, you would explain to me why you proceed in this manner and perhaps we could work in a positive way. TFD (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I did; I redacted your personal attack instead of responding in kind. I didn't even ridicule you for confusing kkk.net with kkk.com. MilesMoney (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said you choose minor edits that nonetheless are certain to inflame conservative editors. You do this without sources, even in BLPs. Then someone asks for a source and you provide a weak one. When challenged, you cite policy. When your interpretation of policy is challenged, you provide another source, then repeat the process, drawing in lots of editors and using up countless talk pages.

In what way do you think that is helpful?

TFD (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You and Rocco are tag-teaming to remove references to Christianity from Far-right politics. Please tell me how this sort of POV-pushing is beneficial. MilesMoney (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of vandalism and tag-teaming are personal attacks, and you do not need to read the policy to know that.

If you want to contribute constructively, and believe that Christianity is relevant to the article, then your first step is to find good, reliable sources about the far right, see what they say about Christianity, and add that information to the article in proportion to its significance in writings about the far right. Instead you get it into your head that the second most important thing about the KKK is that they are Christians and when questioned you say that they claim to be so.

I still would like you to explain why you act this way. I assume you are not interested in having any effect on what readers find in articles, but enjoy upsetting people. But I may be wrong, and would like you to respond.

TFD (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack when I have diffs, and I most certainly do. I have citations for both of the items that were removed, yet I don't see you running to restore them. MilesMoney (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You are misreading the policies. I assume the editor removed "Christian fundamentalism" because he did not think it belonged. Whether it was properly sourced or he was misguided is irrelevant. And I have no contact with that editor except on the talk page, and probably share few of his views. You still have not answered my question. Don't you like talking about yourself? TFD (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm reading things correctly when I see that you disregarded the SPLC's summary of the KKK, just as you went to kkk.net when I referenced kkk.com. WP:AGF prevents me from speculating whether this comes from malice, incompetence or some other source of error. It doesn't matter; whichever the cause, it makes discussion with you counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I will reply to your issue on content on the article talk page. Now that I have answered your questions, could you please answer mine. TFD (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you wish to reply, or is this boring you? TFD (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you seriously think you deserve an answer, given your behavior? MilesMoney (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of socking

Seriously? Looking at SS' contributions, he is obsessed with right-wing politics and politicians. I have devoted little to no energy to that stuff. And for the one Republican politician whose page I remember editing, Rand Paul, my contributions mostly put him in a good light (E.g. noting his opposition to mandatory minimums and trying to get rid of an undue section on the plagiarism stuff). My obsession is confined to LvMI pages, which I see no evidence StillStanding ever edit with any frequency. You embarrass yourself by making such poorly thought out accusations; if you don't care about that, please also note that frivolous accusations constitute sanctionable PAs. Steeletrap (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I told Collect I did not think another account was your sock and refrained from commenting. However, considering your edits on the day you first used your account included nominating an article for deletion and a familiarity with policy, linking, and Misplaced Pages jargon, it is obvious this is not your first account. It could be that you edited as an IP, or had a legitimate reason for retiring a previous account. TFD (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I was irritated, from the sidelines, that so many non-notable LvMI people had WP entries. I completely botched the AfD, and sought and received massive help from User:Stalwart111. As an intelligent and educated person, I tried to read the rules of AfD before creating one. It is absurd that you think this is proof that I have previously had an account. Steeletrap (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent Query at RSN re Muller shale-gas report

Would this "report" be considered a reliable source?

When this query was posted, the editor involved didn't give much context. Specifically, he didn't mention that the report was being used as a source for the opinion of the writer, Professor Richard A. Muller. Could you please take a look at the context? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC), OP at the article in question

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Austrian economics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

spectrum

I took one long "political spectrum" test -- I can out within a millimeter of dead centre <g>, with a rating of 67% Libertarian, 65% Republican and 64% Democrat. Be sure to use a test which has a broad spectrum of options for each question -- some of them seem possible slanted a tad. Collect (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I took the Nolan chart test and scored 0,0, i.e., dead center. The problem with these tests is that they determine issues that divide left and right and assume that is what defines them. They probably provide a good guess. No child left behind was mostly supported by liberals so if you support it you are more likely to be a liberal. But similar policies in England and the Canadian province of Ontario were considered right-wing. So the further one gets from people living in the U.S. today, the less accurate the test will be. Still, the chart shows that U.S. Republicans and UK Conservatives are further to the right than their competitors, which shows they have some predictive ability. Incidentally being dead center places one to the left of all four of these parties on the Nolan chart. TFD (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Dunno the one you took -- but the one I took gave about 8 choices for each question for about a hundred questions -- pretty much the most detailed one I have seen. I also found a couple of tests with only ten question, three choices per question -- quizzes which seem pretty useless. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I took one from the Nolan Chart website, it was not as detailed. I would be interested to see what relation there is between scores and how people actually vote. Have you taken Altermeyer's test for right-wing authoritarianism? It's on p. 11 of his book. The relative results for legislators on pp. 201, 208 seem very accurate. TFD (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The one thing I absolutely an mot is "right wing authoritarian" <g> Collect (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The test has a mean of 100 and very low scores are significant as well. It is similar to one of the two axes on the 2-dimensional spectrum. Altemeyer said that libertarians generally scored low but in the U.S. at least, there was also a correlation between RWA and economic attitudes. So someone could score low and vote right, and vice versa. TFD (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If a score has no predictive value about positions at all, is it really a particularly good value to look at? Collect (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It has predictive value. In the Canadian example, all the left-wing caucuses scored below 100, while all the right-wing caucuses scored above. with a gap of more than 30. For the U.S. with a 2-party system the correlation was still striking. Of course the correlation is only 80%. TFD (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref for the "80% correlation" and its context -- like with what is the correlation? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Altemeyer wrote, "If you look at just the New Democrats’ and the conservatives’ scores on the RWA scale, party affiliation correlated .82 on the average with authoritarianism...." (p. 207) For U.S. legislators, where there are only two parties, the correlation was 44%. Obviously this is not the only correlation, but it is one of them. TFD (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A "correlation of .44" is basically just above pure chance -- and .82 is not all that much better. When 20% or more of a sample falls outside what is predicted, the utility of that measurement is not all that great. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Over 70% is a strong correlation, 30-40% is weak to moderate, and 0% is no correlation. Of course it is only one correlation. There are other factors that make one decide to run as a socialist rather than a Tory. TFD (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If the study were solid numerical measurements -- the .44 is still not very good. See OpenU on "correlations"

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Austrian economics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)