UberCryxic

1. I will reply on your talk page unless you request otherwise. 2. Please be calm and courteous when writing. Do not troll here. 3. Sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) at the end. 4. You can always send me an email if you do not wish to write on this talk page. The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009) The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC) My first A-class CFM International CFM56. You might enjoy the read, its got a French Connection and plenty of international intrigue. -SidewinderX (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I've replied -SidewinderX (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC) I've replied-SidewinderX (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Lib Dems Thank you for changing the Lib Dems to centre-left, I've been arguing that for a while. As a warning it will probably be reverted by some obstinate people with an axe to grind.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I agree that the party is centrist and center-left but the other people make very good points that need more discussion and fleshing out. Until we reach consensus there is no need to start an edit war.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I think the edit war is becoming ridiculous. I don't agree that they're entirely center-left and have proposed a compromise solution where "liberal" is simply used and centre and centre-left are in the position section in the info-box with centre being first and in bold.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Would it be too much trouble to include quotes from sources that are not available, or only in limited form, on Google Books? Ward, Whiteley and Rallings for instance? I did this with the both the Colomar and Fieldhouse/Russell books even though they were both available in full preview. Unless people have the books, it's impossible otherwise to assess if they say what the text is asserting. Haldraper (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I don't have hard copies of Ward, Whiteley or Rallings . Why do you think I would be looking for them on Google Books or asking you to take the time to quote from them if i did? Haldraper (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC) The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010) The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC) commended Sorry about my misreading of "commended" for "commented". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Wasn't sure if you preferred a reply here or were watching my talk page, so I'm putting my reply both places. I agree. Marcus Aurelius praised liberty. I don't agree that the ancient world lacked idiologies: consider epicurianism, cynicism, and stoicism, to mention just three. But that's beside the point, of course. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC) "Conservatism is the negation of idiology," is an opinion, not a definition. Unlike mathematics, where I can define words to mean anything I want them to mean, in common discourse we need to use the metalanguage as defined by dictionaries. For English, as you know, the standard is the OED. And the OED defines conservatism -- I don't have it here in front of me but something like preference for the status quo or the status quo ante. To try to discuss politics without an agreement on the meaning of words is like trying to do physics without an agreement on the units of measurement. "The correct value of g is 32!" "No, the correct value of g is 9.8!" A lot of political discussions are like that. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I understand your point, but it is a deduction you have made, not what the sources I've read say. After all, conservatives need some method of choosing whether to support the current status quo, or to long for the "good old days". But, in any case, we need to report what major writers have said, not our own ideas. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, but H. Stuart Hughes isn't Chateaubriand or Kirk. Did C or K say the same thing? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Featured Article I would love to see Liberalism as a featured article, though if it ever appeared on the front page it would attract every nut job in the known universe. My own political beliefs really should not matter, since articles should depend on sources, not beliefs, but, for the record I'm a pragmatist. I believe in whatever works. As a politician, I make a good mathematician. I support Obama. He won me over when, in one of his books, he said he believed in science, in evolution, and in the reality of climate change. I think he's a pragmatist, too, and it makes me mad as hell when the Rupert Murdoch media paint him as an extreme socialist. My motto, if I have one, is "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain." Sure, I'll help you make Liberalism a featured article. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I said I'd help, and I will. Tell me what you would like me to do. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I've been following what you've been doing, but held off on commenting until your part was finished. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I did not ignore your instructions on references. I student came in to ask a question, and I had to stop editing while I was pondering if Marcus Aurelius should be Aurelius, Marcus or maybe Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius. Should Dante be Alegheri, Dante or just Dante? Should Jabba the Hut be Hut, Jabba the? Anyway, I may have more time on the weekend. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC) No need to tell me when you respond on the talk page. I check that page every day. (Except the second week in March, when I'll be in Boca Raton for a math conference.) Rick Norwood (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC) It depends on what you mean by "done". Nothing on Wikipedia is ever done, but I'm going to try to do as much as I can. I will not be offended if you step in to help. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppetry case You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UberCryxic for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Both The Four Deuces and UberCryxic are good editors. I was sorry to see a feud, and glad the case is closed. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC) french german enmity hi, you wrote, "the war of the fourth coalition happened in 1806...so it's completely irrelevant to this part of the lead...". seems you think the french-german enmity started in 1870 because of france was defeated right? you're wrong. it started in 1806 when napoleon kicked the prussians asses at jena auerstatdt and the other battles. check the outcome, france defeated prussia at each battle. the result of this was the Treaties of Tilsit and the occupation of prussia by france. that started all because of germany being defeated. Cliché Online (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Social liberalism I did not reverse your edit because I disagreed with its content, but because it was unsourced. When you add text to articles you should provide sources. It is not necessary to provide multiple sources, instead just provide one good source. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I restored my edit because I do not think that Continental European usage or statements by the Liberal International constitute "global perspective". The meaning I cite is not only American but also Canadian (both English and French), British, and Australasian. In all of these instances I have never seen "social liberalism" in the article's sense used by anyone other than political scientists. Global perspective properly so-called should recognize diversity of meanings of a term, not privilege one meaning over another. GreggW (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2010 How is citing political scientists a disparagement of them? As to your point about the ideology of social liberalism, the article on social conservatism treats it strictly as concerned with questions of civil and political rights like the social liberalism I refer to. It may be news to you, but encyclopedia articles can deal with more than one meaning of a term. GreggW (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2010 Social liberalism is only "completely different" because you refuse to admit the usage of the term applied as I have said to issues of civil and political rights. And while political scientists may "overwhelmingly" understand the term as signifying a socio-economic ideology I have read none who reject its usage in the other sense. In fact one major figure, Michael Freeden whom I should think you'd recognize, would agree with me that political terms can have more than one meaning. Like most if not all English-language political scientists he rarely uses "social liberalism" in the article's sense except when he speaks historically. GreggW (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2010 Strange, earlier versions of this article didn't have a problem with admitting more than one meaning: http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/so/social_liberalism.htm. Too bad about what has happened since: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece Add one more. GreggW (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2010 Catholic Church Just to welcome you properly to the page. Contrary to my light-hearted remarks before, you really should stick around, it can be a lot of fun, if a little heated at times. Be prepared to get into arguments with hardline Catholic editors who think John Paul II wasn't a valid Pope, Benedict XVI is a dangerous liberal etc. and will label any attempt to add balance to their hagiographic prose as "anti-Catholic POV". Haldraper (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Good work digging up those sources on Catholic stats, keep it coming! Haldraper (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC) "Pull a Lib Dem". Like it. Just to get you up to speed with who you're up against, you might want to have a look at the reflist. A large percentage of them, maybe 90% in the History section, are from a small number of Church sources: Bokenkotter, a parish priest in Cincinnati, Eamon Duffy, a member of the Pontifical Historical Comission, McGonigle and Vidmar, both Dominican priests, and CARA (http://cara.georgetown.edu/aboutcara.htm), from where the stats in the demographics section come. Mention this in relation to WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:NPOV and you will get: "they are recognised scholars in their field, their books are published by [their own Catholic] University presses and have been quoted by other scholars and in newspapers, you're just trying to exclude them because you're anti-Catholic." Find what you think is a reputable academic saying something contrary to what they want the article to say and you can bet your last penny they will drag up some "bad review" of something that person's written that "unfortunately" means their entire output is suspect and can't be used. Haldraper (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open! The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Liberalism The sidebar seems fine now. Here is a link to the edit I made to collapse the sidebar. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC) The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010) The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Liberalism It seems clear to me that the article is not going to be approved, and should be withdrawn and rewritten with the comments it's gotten in mind. I also suggest that The Four Deuces should be asked to be a major contributor to the rewrite. What do you think? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not rushing you. That's just what I see in my chrystal ball. I also get the impression that making many changes in a nominated article annoys the judges. Do we really want to do that? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Let me know what I can do to help. Certainly, I plan to read all the comments, and then go over the article with a fine tooth comb. Though why anybody would want to comb their fine teeth I'll never know. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Talkback Hello. You have a new message at Nasty Housecat's talk page. Hello. You have a new message at Nasty Housecat's talk page. History of liberalism Are you sure you are not adding content to the wrong article? Ucucha 14:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Thoughts on Liberalism I will start a new thread here for clarity, although we can move this to the article talk if that makes more sense. Here are some thoughts on the article. I will start organizing my thoughts for you. That might take a couple days, as I would prefer to share all my comments at once. If you don't hear from me, that means I'm working on it. The GA review backlog is between 2 and 3 months. I think it is important to get that done and an opportunity to get some solid feedback. I think it would behoove you to list it at WP:GAN but then invite someone really good to do it. I would start with User:Malleus Fatuorum, as he is a brilliant editor, hangs out at GAN, I suspect is interested in liberal politics, and is known for being blunt to the point of painful. I don't know if he will do it, but if so, he's your guy. I have other thoughts if he declines. I will start reaching out today to folks on the Philosophy and Politics projects. You should reach out to some of those folks, too. I would suggest significant contributors to any of the related articles in the Liberalism navbox, or any of their reviewers, as useful contributors to a peer review. I will also reach out to some philosophical minds who are not on Wikipedia but do know their stuff. That should be very interesting. Peer review 2 is closed but the bot has not cleaned up the page yet. Go ahead and open a new review if it will let you. Finally, if you are going to be making a lot of changes while the reviews are going on, you might want to hive the working version off to user space. Instability would be a quick fail at GA, and will annoy people trying to do a peer review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC) OK. SandyGeorgia knows better than me. Yes, let's keep the talk here. I'm watching. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC) John Maynard Keynes Concerning this conversation on my talk page. I agree with your reasoning. However, per the MOS, the lead should summarize the body of the article; topics should not be introduced into the lead if they are not in the body. Currently, there is nothing in the article about Keynes' impact on modern liberalism. Perhaps you could add write a paragraph or two on this topic? I think adding it to the legacy section would be appropriate. Thanks, LK (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC) That's great. Thanks for the quick response! LK (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Catholic Church Try it if you want; I hope it works. Just to be clear, I'm not giving you or anyone a pass to edit war or edit disruptively. Tom Harrison Talk 02:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC) One day? You're not getting off that easy. Three hours off is the most you can have... Tom Harrison Talk 02:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I meant maximum block time, with the humorous implication it would be a vacation - keep forgetting to use those humor tags. Probably shouldn't joke about blocks, but I'm assuming you'll keep it under control and it won't be necessary. Really, I'd probably just politely ask you to stop if it looked like it was going badly. Tom Harrison Talk 03:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 24 hours is standard for a first 3rr violation, but as far as I know there isn't a minimum block length. Blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and so it seems to me the shortest block should be used that can reasonably be expected to work. Often it gives me the contributor's attention; then if he will agree to stop I unblock. Tom Harrison Talk 03:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC) THANK YOU. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for trying to fix this page, it is long overdue!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Nasty Houscat's talk page. Hi UberCryxic, just left message for you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church#My_plans Best wishes. Haldraper (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I see your edits, but you make some rather puzzling omissions. Why does your version say nothing about the opposition of the Catholic church to abortion, and to homosexuality, while retaining their opposition to artificial birth control? Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Uber, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but the change you have proposed I simply can't vote for it. In all fairness, I have to vote based on what you've proposed, not on what may or may not happen down the road. Had you included these things in the first place, I'd probably vote for it. Right now, I feel that your change makes the article much weaker, and that's simply unacceptable given all the hard work that has gone into Catholic church to get it to the point prior to your proposed edit. I understand that the article does need to be trimmed, just that you've trimmed out essential information that needs to be there. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC) There are too many errors that would immediately have to be corrected. I understand that the page needs to be trimmed down, but the cost, losing GA status and all the work involved to get your edit up to the standards that the article currentlyBenkenobi18 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC) John Birch Society I do not understand why you consider these sources to be reliable for the John Birch Society, when academic sources like the Routledge companion to the far right, the Southern Poverty Law Center and law enforcement distinguish between the far right and less extreme groups in the radical right.[1] In addition to being poor scholarship, my concern is that it trivializes the concept of the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Caution Hi UberCryxic. I think you ought to wait a few days before implementing your version. The straw poll has not been open very long, and it would be best to give it some more time to solidify the support. I think Tom had recommended 5 or 6 days? (It was on the article talk page.) Karanacs (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I just read Tom's posts at ANI and the article talk page, and I think you are misinterpreting. He appears to be declaring the straw poll invalid because Nancy and Xandar are blocked, not declaring that any set of arguments has prevailed. I suspect your changes will be reverted immediately when Xandar's block expires; it would probably be best to wait until after they come back and continue the poll. Karanacs (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I've commented on talk. We may assume Xandar's and Nancy's vote; but even so they are a minority. If they can produce genuine consensus for anything they would change back, fine.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Doubling Good faith seemed obvious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC) That should be interesting. Fortunately (?), I will have limited WP time the next few days. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC) You've been on this article for a week; I've been on it a few months; Karanacs for a long time - ask her. From your mouth to God's ear... but He's often deaf, especially when it comes to the misbehavior of individuals. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Catholic Church First of all, it may be of note to you that Wikipedia is not a democracy (thank goodness, very mediocre system). Straw polls by flyby users are not binding. A consensus is reached through the dicussion of rationale. Several users, including my self and Benkenobi18 have raised issues with some of the bold, POV innovations, that you have placed into the article. As well as the haphazzard cutting of important parts, which suggests an unfamiliarity (outside of masonic caricatures) in regards to the subject of the article. You have yet to fully address these yet grave concerns and so WP:BRD must be followed. You were bold, I reverted, now discuss on the talk with myself and Benekenobi in the relevent sections to try and gain a consensus. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, you are editing warring. What is worse, is that you're putting your hands over your ears and pretending that WP:BRD policy doesn't have to be followed. According to the talkpage of Tom Harrison, you think working on the article of the Catholic Church is a "battle" to be "won" (presumably "winning" means a hatched-job from the polemical talkpage comments). But no sorry, there are many open grave issues raised on the talk, including by myself and Benkenobi18, which you have yet to properly address first. I agree with you on some of the sytlistic points and am not against cutting the article down (we certainly need a smaller article). I disagree strongly with many of the POV and uninformed cuts you are making, as do other users. You're going to have to actually learn about the Church first and dicuss before appointing yourself as "glorious chairman" of what is relevent to the Catholic Church. I suggest entering the open discussions on the talk and try to gain a consensus, particularly answer each of the points raised in regards to Church history by Benkenobi18 and myself. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) CC Hi UC, would you mind posting to the centralized page so that everyone can follow? Otherwise we'll all lose track. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK contribs Social liberalism I restored an earlier version because the changes no longer reflected the sources. If you want to put in the Jonah Goldberg view that Churchill was a leftist, just make sure that the text reflects the sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Well, Churchill was a progressive - in 1904. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) again... I didn't, that was yorkshirian, I support the inclusion of the term Far-Right with the appropriate style and referencing which i agree was correctly followed in the lead (even though I would personally disagree). You can't tell me what I can and cannot edit, especially when you recently made the descision to include the word "extremist" in the lead without consensus or even citation. DharmaDreamer (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I've replied on the talk page, seems like we're close to closing the debate finally.DharmaDreamer (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Politically motivated, far-left, POV Your innovation is in violation of the WP:NPOV policy (recurring theme?) and the WP:EXTREMIST policy. You are once again attempting to mould Wikipedia to try and fit in with your personal ideology, when you have no consensus. I can easily find sources which describe the United States Government as "extremist", Obama a "communist" and George W Bush a "fascist", yet this would be a violation of our NPOV policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Diff, Yorkshirian? I'm not sure exactly which edits you dispute and just want some clarity. Thanks. Perhaps we could take this to the article talk? Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Different article, not about the Church. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC) A quick Google search reveals 195,000 results for "Obama is an extremist", 1,270,000 for "Obama is a communist" and 3,830,000 for "Obama is a racist". If you think that these phrases can't be found in the mainstream media or any published source (ie - newspaper, television media or books) then you're in for a shock. The point I'm trying to get across is, such rhetroic is not NPOV and does not belong in the mainspace of project which has objectivity as its central policy. Wikipedia is not bias in favour of bourgeoisie egalitarian politics, the NPOV policy has no exceptions. The hatchet-job won't stand. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC) So what you're saying is, we can ignore mainstream sources, if you disagree with their content and you're even crying "neutrality" when it comes to Obama now. But anything beyond Enlightenment fundamentalism—that which is outside of what you consider the doctrine of progress and enlightenment—is heretical and thus its open season, we can just discard neutrality? No, doesn't work that way. I am not seriously suggesting that we change the article on Obama to say that he is a racist and a communist (even though thousands of mainstream media references asserting this can easily be found), what I am trying to demonstrate and show is that, the same standard of absolute neutrality on Wikipedia is non negotiable and extends to all articles, across the board, regardless of whether or not you personally like their views. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC) BNP The far right terminology was not my idea. I found it when I came to the article, and I would ask that you go back and place it there yourself since I'm not in the mood for an edit war.UBER (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC) If you don't like them have you considered getting yourself a blog. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I don't have time for your red herrings. You changed a controversial part of the article that I never touched, and then you accused me for creating the mess. Yorkshirian was the one who removed 'far-right' from the lead and it deserves to go back in until we come to some sort of consensus in the talk page.UBER (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Give over, if you don't like them get a blog , you don't like them do you ? wikipedia needs for respect an educational article please consider that aspect of policy. I don't like things but I want wikipedia to represent them from an NPOV position for educational purposes for children's education. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC) My personal opinion of them is absolutely irrelevant, but I'm flattered that you're asking for it anyway! Those that do matter (you know, those people called political scientists) have various ways they describe the party, however, and their characterizations need to be prominently displayed in the lead.UBER (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Your personal opinion of them affects your editing and makes it destructive. I am not flattering you at all, far from it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Ok rob, since you want to drag me into the mud and have a nice heart-to-heart chat: what is your personal opinion of them? I'm waiting on pins and needles.UBER (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Stop edit warring and leave that well-accepted sentence in the lead. Do not make this any more difficult than it already is.UBER (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Is this a project you are doing for school? Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Please stop wasting my time and see this.UBER (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I work on issues beyond my personal bias, please consider similar editing, the wikipedia will be the winner. 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Duly noted.UBER (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC) 3RR note Your recent editing history at BNP shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Extreme cliams Please take this as a final warning, your repeated assertion and additions to the BLP article claiming that they are white supremacists is an extreme position and not the type of addition that is worthy of entry into the lede of the article, possibly not at all, but that is another issue, please do insert it again. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC) First of all, stop threatening me. If you're hoping to intimidate me by dropping those bombshells in my talk page, you're pursuing the wrong path. You removed a reference from a reputable scholar calling the party white supremacist. I will find more references from said scholars, since you requested them, and will also include them in the lead sentence. Please do not tamper with them in the future.UBER (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I also forgot to mention: WP:BLP pertains, per its name, to biographies. And it also doesn't matter if the people in the party don't call themselves white supremacists. Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources to potentially deceptive primary ones.UBER (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I have asked you here and there in edit summaries, but you don;t appear to have understood..so .. Please do not post on my talkpage again, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC) BNP article Well techincally changing a comma to a full stop is changing the content, but that's quite petty. I didn't change the substance of the content, simply reqorded it to avoid going contrary to WP:LABEL, it still maintains the claim that they are far right and nationalist, maybe you mistook yorkshirians removal of the white supremacy claim and thought it was me? Actually looking at my edit i did add the content of "though the party disputes this" but you only just claimed on my talk page you'd be fine with it? and i included a ciation DharmaDreamer (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Lol you complain about my spelling then have to quickly change your message. The British National Party are nationalist. Fact. Neither the BNP, nor their opponents and as far as I'm aware anyone at all dispute this. There is universal consensus. Far Right however is a label that is disputed. As to you suggesting that6 I revert yorkshirians edit. I've been lured into that one before, Pushing me over the 3rr barrier while leaving the other guy below it. Anyway I haven't suggested it with you but would you consider Mediation? (Either Cabal or Formal mediation) The last people I had the bnp dsipute with simply refused mediation claiming there was consensus ignoring 1/3 of the people in discusion. Maybe if they had agreed we wouldn't even be in this situation. Im sure the others would agree to it, what do you think? DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Calling it a day I think people underestimate mediation but oh well. I think what we have now is acceptable and I'd support it After 2 weeks of edit warring I'm not gogin to nitpick, what we have now should be acceptable to both sides i think. DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Including fascism in the infobox was subject to a long edit war if i remember rightly. I don't think its fair for fascism to be included in its ideology as in reality it clearly isn't, however that fact that it has often been to compared to fasicm should be ntoed in the article if it isn't already but I dont think the lead is appropriate, Racism is a definate no-no. If you read WP:LABEL . Racism is the example they give. I don't know how much you follow the party. I see you're from the USA so I doubt you have daily news updates on them, (correct me if im wrong) but even their opponents wouldn't call them white supremacists. DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Correct me if I'm wrong but I always assumed on wikipedia, the purpose of citations was for evidence, people often critises wikipedia for being unreliable so I thought the reason was as a defence for people making stuff up. Therefore a citation should be used to prove a fact. A scholars view should be given due wight and be metioned whereever possible, but even scholars have bias and what they say cannot be passed of as facts, merely evidence supporting a claim. On another more personal note, I was just looking over your userboxs and saw you supported affirmative action. Just out of curiosity why is this, I won't flame you or anything I have just never really understood that point of view. DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC) It's an area where WP:RS conflicts with NPOV, and there are ways of reworking to ensure that both are satisfied. Would you condone the phrase "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organisation" with all relevent academic referenced etc? I've already seen concern with one of the editors, preston i think yorkshirian had concerns with. I'll review the others tomorrow morning when i've had some sleep. The BNP are not white supremacists, (POV but one widly held) so certinaly shouldn't get much weight. A mention I have no concern with but labelings and libeling issues can still come from it. DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC) This shows how you misunderstand, I mean don't get me wrong, I would say that the KKK is a racist organisation but you've just said you agree with the statement that is used as the example on WP:Words to Avoid Wikipedia:LABEL#Words_that_label Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral Far right is a term accepted on the outside but not on the inside. I'm just following guidelines which you are ignoring. not only the guildline, but the exact example you disagree with. DharmaDreamer (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Exatly why I proposed mediation, sleep on the idea at least, GoodNight Uber. DharmaDreamer (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC) It's not about what you include i'm against, it the style with which you write it. That KKK example on WP:LABEL, the two prhases mean exactly the same thing but one is presented POV and one NPOV, I've said I'd accept Far Right, and even the unincluded Extreme term, provided you write it in a NPOV manner, White Supremacy I'd disagree with entirly however, but thats another matter. DharmaDreamer (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I do not think it is necessary to say "identified by political scientists". And since they are already called "far right", extremist may be redundant. The RfC was over moderating their "extreme views". The Four Deuces (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Talk:Catholic_Church#New_GAR I have proposed that the current GAR is closed and that EyeSerene and I open a new GAR. Would you have any objection to the proposal? SilkTork *YES! 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Military history of France FAR initiated I have nominated Military history of France for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) ??? In fact other editors agreed that the Liberal Democrats were not left-wing. You have a Manichaen view of the world - red flag-waving leftists and right-wing fascists but most people do not belong to either group. Ironically the BNP supporters have a similiar view. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. I provided a source on social liberalism, please read the talk pages.[2] The Four Deuces (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC) You said, "you seem to be in categorical denial when it comes to identifying any strand of liberalism as belonging either to the left or to some part of the left". Well liberalism is not left-wing, capitalism is not left-wing, imperialism is not left-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Stop edit warring/trolling On the Catholic Church article, you're doing it again. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Wrong, Haldraper undid the trim down I did yesterday morning in the history section, to give undue weight to relations between Church and Third Reich, which are far from the most notable point from the era. Haldraper has no "consensus" since he hasn't even discussed it, just reverted it because it wasn't anti-Catholic. The section specifically on the titles of the Pope, was agreed on by Majoreditor on the talk as well. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)