User talk:Collect

leave messages to me on this page, please

Welcome!

Hello, Collect, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Seriously?

In what way is linking to an established reliable source "original research"? The citation is clear, absolutely regarding that Gas Pipeline section, and follows appropriately the prior text. --Kickstart70TC 18:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The AP article said the bidding rules were slanted against the major global gas companies. It tdid not say this was an impediment to the gas pipeline. Your use saying it was a problem for the pipeline was OR by WP standards. I was going to insert the correct language - that the AP felt the contract was slanted "against the giant global companies which control the gas rights," but another editor pointed out that the article was not strictly relevant to the claims made for it. If you wish to claim that the global gas companies somehow were cheated in the bidding, then find a cite for that. If you feel they will win a contest about the bidding, find a cite for that. The AP article does neither. Collect (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jihadists...

I was wondering what Sarah had gotten herself into this time!  :) Fcreid (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is in the McCain campaign article -- hop in! Collect (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh... we'll see. Politics really doesn't interest me that much. Some people do, though! Fcreid (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain

Collect, I noticed you are a fan of Mark Twain. I am too. Here's a wonderful website that has quotes organized alphabetically by topic, and the site has other writings by Twain. Twain Quotes. Enjoy! Sylviecyn (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! See my user page <g> for why Twain has so many mots ascribed to himself. Collect (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

JTP

FYI, [[1]]. I requested the talk page be semi protected which it was for a few days. But the anon has returned spouting more BLP nonsense. I've reverted his trolling a few times and when I've done so he has blamed you for it. I'm not sure what his deal is, but since he's blaming you for what I've done, I wanted to make you aware. Dman727 (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suspect he is a sock (sigh). In fact, I am about sure of it. Collect (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

edit warring

i put you up for review here: [2]. my reason is that you repeatedly push for what you want in spite of others wishes. you think you are right and you seem unwilling to compromise. i tried to warn you about your excessive editing, but you said i was wrong. lets see what an outsider has to say. Brendan19 (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Intersesting -- you repeatedly insert contentious material in a BLP and report someone who points this out? Collect (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

your accusation that i violated 3rr in two places is factually wrong. please see the admin board and note your incorrect date. also, as i understand it, 3rr means dont make more than 3 edits in 24hrs. i made 3 on jtp and 2 on the other article. please explain how you think this violates 3rr. (and i understand that edit warring can be a violation even without making 4 edits. my 3 edits were not the same revert and i doubt anyone would consider it edit warring). thanks! Brendan19 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Try dealing with the actual results. And I would suggest 15 edits in a month is not "editwarring" by a long shot! I have now editted well over 250 pages -- and I think you have not. Thabnks! And please feel free not to reply. Collect (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

no need to be rude to one another. as for 250 pages, thats great, not sure what it has to do with the price of tea in china, but if youre really proud of it then more power to you. since you are such a prodigious editor i am surprised that you havent yet corrected your factually incorrect accusation against me. it is easily proveable that you had the wrong date here [3]. Brendan19 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You corrected the errant date. I did not think it was of earthshattering importance as I had intended not to file any formal complaint about your editwarring and reversions. And try not to make personal comments about editors. I am thicker-skinned than many are. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber wikiquote

Let's straighten this out. Are there any rules barring having a Wikiquote link placed on a page? If not, the link should go. Opinion should not prevent the existence of a link.

Further, if you feel the WIkiquote article isn't neutral; please add more quotes to it. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

First - the Wikiquote pages has nothing which is not already on the JtP page, which makes it rather useless. Second, the WQ page does not have any rationale for what is, or is not, an important quote. Third, the WQ page has an exchange, and the "quote" given does not fall into what most people consider "quotable." So we have a link to what is a strange use of WQ at best, which copies whayt is already on the main page. And I would like a template for WQ for pages which do not have what most people consider quotes -- which is something other people cite, attributing it to the quotee. Such as "The buck stops here" as a Truman quote. Or "I'd rather be in Philadelphia" for W. C. Fields. Alas, the closest one available is NPOV. Collect (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevent what quote(s) are or aren't on the Wikiquote page. The Wikiquote page exists. People will not know about the existence of the page without the link on the main Wikipedia article. I have seen many Wikiquote pages that seem lopsided; having a link promotes more people adding to it.

2nd - the rationale for what it is, is what it is. In other words, it is a page with quotations. Which is exactly what Wikiquote is.

3rd - Liking a template is not the same as having one. There is truly no valid common sense reason for the link not to be there. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Alas the "quote" on wikiquote is neither notable, nor not found in the article in the first place. Nor is it anything anyone else has "quoted" which makes the existence of the WQ page a puzzle. Sort of like having a link from a page of a transcript to the same material from the same transcript on a WQ page. Collect (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of us quabbling, then, let's use our resources and both add some quotes. Agreeable? Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure -- but let's try to avoid transcripts in favor of finding stuff which is quotable stuff -- WQ is not the place for transcripts, but the place to find interesting quotes. K? Collect (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill White

You left a null edit about needing sources, but it seemed to concern a section that was fully sourced.[4] Could you leave a {fact} tag or post something on the talk page? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another person edited between my two attempted consecutive edits -- the "Questions" section was not reffed, and was likely not to have a ref. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the problematic material from the IP that was mentioned at BLPN. He keeps returning to add it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So I notice <g>. Collect (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

JtP

I'll be nice about this, but we have well sourced information that Joe was not working legally as plumber. You don't seem to like that, but unless you feel that newsweek, the toledo blade, and MSNBC are all wrong (and you're somehow more knowledgeable than they are), please stop reverting this. Hardly good faith.Mattnad (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

First -- the police have had lots of opportunuity to arrest him. They haven't. There is no reason to believe the Ohio law on contractors is invalid. Second, the ref to the Ohio law includes "secondary" refs, which means the removal of that was improper. Third, addition of clearly contentious material falls under WP:BLP guidelines as removable. As for calling good faith edits "vandalism" - that is quite contrary to WP guidelines. Thankl you most kindly. Collect (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect, you are not as stupid as you're now pretending to be. There are many laws. One one can break them without being subject to arrest. The problem with that law citation is your misinterpretation that's it's relevant in this instance. Local officials, according the reliable sources you deleted, say otherwise. Please, stick to the topics.Mattnad (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No civil actions taken. No administrative actions taken. No sign of any actions of any kind whatsoever. Seems clear to me that no one else considers JtPs acts as a plumber under the Newell license to be "illegal." As for personal attacks, thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was civil action. Per the nesweeek article you deleted "On Friday, those officials said a letter was being mailed to Wurzelbacher’s employer warning him to get into compliance with city codes or face the loss of the company’s license." Care to revise your position? Mattnad (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And the full content of the letter? Seems to me you are quite jumping the gun on calling any actions "illegal." And the Newell state contractors license can not be revoked by the city - and it is the state license under which the contractors law falls. Collect (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect, so then we can us the term "non-compliance" with the law. But note, you're making a big deal out the work "illegal" but I didn't use that term in the article - you just deleted that material. If you're hanging your case on that argument, your justification doesn't hold up. And anyway, sounds like your agument is WP:SYN. What's the problem with the reliable sources again? WP:BLP allows for well sourced material and this is topical and relevant. Mattnad (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is with contentious material being inserted without consensus. You have started a RfC, let that process play out, which is its intent. Collect (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah, but just because you don't like something, doesn't make it contentious as defined by WP:BLP.Mattnad (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you wait and see whether others feel it is contentious or not? See WP:TE as well. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on December 11 2008 to Joe the Plumber

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Now you have something new to collect :-)

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Caught me as I was uploading a clear 3RR on Inclusionist (sigh). I did not intend any improper reverts, but was trying to make proper edits on the article page. One of the "reverts" was basically reordering one cite, and one also involved changing the tense of a verb. I must say that having minor edits reverted seemed odd, indeed. I am not a major editor on article pages, preferring to use Talk pages, and if unblocked I shall keep away from editing JtP article for several days at least. I would like to get back to rescuing some articles up for deletion, to be sure. Thank you very much. Collect (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)}}

Joe the Plumber

Some thoughts. Usually or mostly WP:BRD applies but in this case it's different as I see it. I'll keep it in general so you can "add names" as you wish (and not blaming me to take a side which I'm not). There is indeed a long-term discrepancy between you and another editor, preventing this article to involve as it should since this is the main advantage of WP in comparison to written encyclopedias. When there are two extremely different views on how the article should look like and what should be included or excluded there is only one way out: Open up, think about what this article will look like in a few month or a year despite of what you're editing now and things can smooth down to a "normal" level (regarding editing). Just think about it and try to solve it. I'll post the same comment at "the other" editors talk page, thus staying neutral in this matter.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually do try to reach accords (see the User:Tautologist material) and will endeavor to do so in the future as well. Collect (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the "User:Tautologist material". Your link leads to his user page which is his sandbox and I won't (understandably I guess) search further since his last edit was in October but if you "...try to reach accords..." you have to do your part to accomplish it as others have their part.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

i sincerely hope so. your opinions (usually opposite to mine) should be heard so that we can come up with a fair encyclopedia. we just need to make sure that we are all actually listening to each other. keep in mind that its ok to compromise and its ok if the page doesnt say exactly what you want it to. hope to work with you in the future and not against you. Brendan19 (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mevish1

Can you please respond to my comment there? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Did so. Collect (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop people altering the political stance of the Daily Mail. There is a guy who keeps changing it to 'populist'. The Mail is NOT populist in the slightest, it is clearly Conservative. Is there a way we can stop him vandalising it? Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know. I asked on the Talk page for any solid cite for "populist" -- but I suspect the editor involved just does not care. Collect (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I do care, actually. And I'm not a 'vandal'. I suspected that the Daily Mail's political allegiance would be a matter of contention, but I didn't realise just how quickly it would be jumped on. One has to wonder what the agenda is here. Whether the paper is 'populist' or 'conservative' or 'Conservative' is actually really a rather subjective question. I suppose it could be argued that 'populist' isn't strictly a political tag. However, there is NO way you can state that it is 'clearly' Conservative, Christian1985. And as for this, Collect: "try as I might, I could not find a cite for calling the Daily Mail "populist" for political views"... well, you obviously didn't search very hard. Here are just a few quotes:

"This is the modern Daily Mail, the paper that is becoming more populist by the week as it seeks to become Britain's biggest-selling daily title."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/jun/06/dailymail.mondaymediasection

"Philosophically it belongs to a tradition of emotional populism that has had many champions in the West..."

http://www.shakeupmedia.com/blog/2008/11/11/column-november-11th-in-defence-of-populism

"How on earth can a supposedly conservative paper take this editorial slant? Well, like fascism, it’s populist, and taps into the readers’ prejudices, fears, greed, selfishness and hatred..."

http://boatangdemetriou.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/why-the-daily-mail-is-a-fascist-not-a-conservative-paper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suburbanslice (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that your cites do not say it is "populist" in political orientation, but that its "tone" or "slant" or "emotion" is "populist." As far as being aligned with any actual political group -- that alignmet is "Conservative." And it is alignment with a party or group which is what the infobox asks for. I would suggest the fact that a huge plurality of its readers call themselves "conservative" is sufficient. "Populist" is not a defined British party, organization or movement. Collect (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to say that a huge 'plurality' of the paper's readers call themselves "conservative"? More subjective opinion. Please also note my earlier comment about 'populist' not being a strictly political tag. I used those three quotes to demonstrate that there are actually references to the Daily Mail being populist. I originally made the change to see what kind of response would be generated, and you have mostly helped me to confirm my hypothesis. Suburbanslice (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The term is "political AFFILIATION"-- there is no "populist affiliation" in UK politics that I can find at all. Per cite in article, number of self-identified Conservatives reading the Daily Mail is way bigger than any other party. Hence a reasonable statement that the paper is Conservative. If you can show me any "populist party" in the UK, I would be delighted! Collect (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well congratulations, another meaningless victory for supporters of the Daily Mail. I'm *very* happy for you. I'm also quite capable of reading non-bold text. Suburbanslice (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- my keyboard colon and semi-colon do not always function as designed. Collect (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		"The Guidance Barnstar may be awarded to users who help others locate valuable resources, information, or assistance." Thank you SO MUCH for helping me find a valuable page that I was only vaguely aware of before. Best wishes, Inclusionist (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The word Anent

Just a friendly suggestion: To get your point across more clearly use "about" next time. Anent is old English. Inclusionist (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

<g> I guess I am older than you are. Collect (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Per your cite -- the etymology is Old English, the usage is still current. Actually it is also apparently Scots. Collect (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill White

Please respond to my posting on the Bill White talk page rather than repeatedly inserting the material you're inserting. If you can get a consensus there, great. But if not, please do not keep reinserting the disputed matter. David in DC (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that I did not revert your edit. I doi question whether the material about "possible" sentencing runs afoul fo WP:CRYSTAL, however. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

<g>... whats that mean? i asked you on bill white, but maybe you didnt see. Brendan19 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates back to early online usage for "grin". See also "LOL" and the like. I've been online for 26 years now, and these antedate the "emoticons" you probably are used to. Collect (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe in reincarnation?

Thank you for being so suprisingly noble and unpredictable

Your behavior at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment reminds me of NulcearUmpf, a "mortal enemy" on Wikipedia who taught me how to edit war with acronyms. We fought for years, and one day, after I wrote an emotional essay, NulcearUmpf did a 180 ideologically, he betrayed his friends and became a staunch ally of those with marginal views. He died here, when those former allies got him indefinitely booted.

Collect, you are the last person I ever thought would vote "keep" on a MfD. The attributes and behavior I tend to respect the most is when someone does something so unexpectedly noble, a small act of kindness, something that, with all my flaws, I would never do myself.

Thanks for surprising me again. travb (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Check my history of votes <g>. I figure I am about 60% Keep, 20% "weak keep", 10% "comment only" and 10% "delete." Also on AfD and Tfd as well. On the other hand, I never met a long article which could not be shortened. I have saved some articles from AfD by adding refs to them as well or finding cites for notability. Did you read User:Collect/thoughts at all? Collect (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

i think travb meant 180. collect, thanks for the <g> explanation. i dont really know emoticons either- been online for # of years, but not too involved in chat. cheers. Brendan19 (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: User:Collect/thoughts No, but I will now. travb (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD

After your edit of an article is reverted, it is entirely inappropriate for you to revert the reversion. The burden is on you to prove that there is consensus for your original edit, not on the person who reverted your original edit. See WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Accordingly, the Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova articles are going to be restored. If you want to pursue your edits further, discuss them first on the appropriate article discussion pages.

As for your edits of those articles, you entirely eliminated well-referenced material without reasonable justification. Unfortunately, this appears to be something that you do on a recurring basis notwithstanding the objections of other editors. It is a disruptive strategy that should be ditched. 75.63.7.15 (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kindly note that I had used the Talk pages in each case to discuss the changes (which included such major changes as removing your "well-sourced" "however"s.) And since I hsad asked PRIOR to making changes, and sicussed AFTER making the changes, I consider your changes without even an edit summary to be the problem. Clearly if you are set on keeoing the paeans to the stars in place, it is reasonable for youto have participated on the discussion page. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist

Some of those quotes were really over-the-top. Did you ever consider taking this to the proper WP forum?LedRush (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Heck -- his were the mild ones -- you should see where I was checkusered, threatened, called names, accused of being s sockpuppet repeatedly, accused of being a paid whore and more. Heck -- why not look at User:Collect/actual summaries ... more if you want them <g>. Collect (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone mention my name? Ooh lovely! (<g> etc.) You know, LedRush, my old friend Collect has a very thick skin. Just as well, considering the flak he attracts. Eh, Collect? Glad to see you two getting along so well. Now if we could just extend that to everyone else... (<g>, <g> and <g>.)

Hm. "Paid whore" (supra!) - isn't that a tad, well, tautological? — Writegeist (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your MFD votes

Re: this edit, you seem to misunderstand the crux of the keep arguments in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. If the page was five, ten, fifty, or even a hundred years old, I would have voted to keep it. The reason is that it was *not* James' preferred version of the article; it was in fact a compromise version, as he said at the George W. Bush talk page. The fact that it is linked to by a talk page archive is also important - Wikipedia tries to minimise link rot where possible. I do not support the idea that people should be allowed to keep preferred versions of articles in their userspace for three years, and that is not the consednsus of the community. The length of time I would allow for a user to archive their preferred version of a page depends on the situation. If a user was constantly active, six months would be a reasonable amount of time. If a user was less active, or had other reasons not to edit Wikipedia for extended amounts of time (e.g. illness, holidays, family emergencies), then I would allow a little more leeway. Applying bright line rules to every situation in Wikipedia is neither useful nor helpful, and it can sometimes be better to ignore all rules. For a recent example of this in action, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth. Requests for adminship are rarely successful unless a user has more than 2,000 edits; however, lustiger seth became an admin with less than 50 edits because people took his adminship on the German Wikipedia into account. Graham87 12:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure as to the reasoning behind your post. I endeavor to use my 26+ years of online experience in giving any opinions. In the case at hand, there is a concurrent debate on "userfication" which is on point for this issue. Had the material been placed in the archive congruent to the GWB discussions, I am sure the person nominating it for deletion would not have done so. Instead, it is in userspace, for which guidelines exist and are continually being discussed. I think the "userfication" discussion would benefit form your "even a hundred years old" comment in determining a consensus there. As for admimships - I did not participate in discussions for several reasons -- first, I was a "Jimbo" in a set of forums which had roughly four million messages, and had up to 100 "admins" under me. Second, I regard giving power to those who ask for it to be problematic at best. And in the case you cite, I suspect the experience is not just "edits in English" but that the user involved had far more than "50 edits" overall wen you consider his total experience on the German version. Lastly, the usage of talk page archives is quite minimal - check how often they are referred to or used according to the stats programs. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I was mainly trying to tell you that three years is not a hard and fast rule for keeping user pages, and that hard and fast rules shouldn't be followed to the letter on Wikipedia. Discussions about what is and is not appropriate in userspace have been going on in Wikipedia for as long as userspace has existed. They heated up considerably with the introduction of userboxes in late 2005. The idea that Wikipedia is not Myspace has been unchallenged for two years, and userpages of users with no Wikipedia contrfibutions outside their user page are regularly deleted at MFD. I'm not sure when the idea that userspace is not a place to store your preferred version of articles became popular, but the discussion about the George W. Bush page is just another step in clarifying and optimising that part of the user page policy. Regarding requests for adminship, I rarely participate unless I know a user well enough to give an honest and informed opinion about them. Re: talk archives, I've probably read hundreds or thousands of them by now. Occasionally vandalism to talk page archives can last for many month or even years, because no-one is interested them and no-one puts them on their watchlist. However, Wikipedia's archives contain the history of the site and how its norms have evolved over time. Thus it is important to make sure archives are as well-preserved as possible for Wikipedia historians, people who are trying to find out how a Wikipedia page evolved, or people who are just looking for past discussions. Graham87 13:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet each time I point out prior discussions, I get told that prior consensus on any issue is meaningless <g>. As for taking any guideline as rigid, I would hope you have looked at my voting patters on xFD in general. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change, but that doesn't mean archived discussions should be obliterated or are always unimportant. I'd invite you to check out Wikipedia:Historical archive/Wikipedia chat; the page is over six years old, but some of the discussion, like which style to use for years, is still relevant to Wikipedia today. Archives can also be useful for tracking how a process evolved; for an example of that, see User:Raul654/Featured Articles. As you probably know, people come and go all the time in online communities, and a different mix of people might edit an article in 2008 as compared to, say, 2005, and might have a different set of opinions. Graham87 09:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Might" is a very vague word. In MfD, the word is not used -- and many similar articles routinely get deleted (I tend to think that six months is fine, but that some period of time will eventually get to be "too long." The fact that "content forks" are specifically singled out as not belonging in WP is also important. As I understand it, having multiple versions of articles or substantial parts thereof in space which is indexed within WP and by outside search engines is not desireable. The case at hand, while billed as an "alternative proposal," happens to fit the definition of "content fork" quite superbly. As for needing all proposals to be on hand perpetually, I have found, in general, that once the discussion is done, the proposal gets deleted. WP does have one peculiar exception -- that a featured article is kept in stasis - the newer revisions are not considered that same as the "featured article" when it was singled out. I find the rationale for this exception to be invalid, but WP still does it. Collect (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: the adminship request, the revolutionary thing about the request was precisely that people took into account the user's experience on the German Wikipedia, despite his minimal experience in the English Wikipedia. People who made comments in requests for adminship would sometimes take into account experience on other wikis, but they would ask for as much experience on the English Wikipedia as they would of someone who only edited en.wp. That is another step in the consensus-gathering process on Wikipedia. Graham87 13:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Again - I would trust I am not one who looks at rigid rules where they make no sense to me. Did you read User:Collect/thoughts? Collect (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't. They sound fair enough to me. Re: the idea of a sympathetic point of view, you might be interested in Wikinfo, if you haven't already seen it. Graham87 02:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Need a bot

Hmmm - based on recent discussion at Talk:Joe the Plumber, I think we need a bot to go through the articles of all deceased persons. Their occupations need to be changed to Corpse, Skeleton, or Dust. As an example, the Ramesses II article should show his current occupation as Mummy. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, there's a difference between someone who's alive, and a dead person when it comes to "what are they doing now" vs. "what were they known for during their lives".Mattnad (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You might try having a sense of humo(u)r ... many living people do have their former occupations listed. The idea of "corpse" was not intended as a serious suggestion. Collect (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What do we do for Bela Lugosi then? Collect (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh - that opens a can of worms. What do with the occupation for deceased vampires? Dracula has apparently been slain, so what is his current occupation? Clearly he is no longer a licensed vampire. Extensive illegal records searches by employees of the state of Ohio have revealed that Vlad Tepes did not pay his dues last year to Bloodsuckers and Undead Local #1313. Kelly ^hi! 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Dracula is in the business of repairing vlad tires. He used to be in the used coffin trade. I think his nickname was "Spike." (ducking) Collect (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I reported TheBossOfCollect (talk · contribs) at WP:UAA. Kelly ^hi! 20:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks -- I feel honored to have socks going after me. <g> Collect (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Cohort

I have taken demography and it is a term of demography. It may also be used by other people to stand for other types of people. In the precise sense, it means all who are born at the "same" time. But I guess sameness can apply to a 19 year period for American baby boomers 1946 to 1964 is 19 years. It may be a boom but it is certainly "More" than one generation. The wiki article on post World War 2 demographic boom of births, the canadian boom begain in 1947 and ended in 1966 which is 20 years. However that very same article also states that the boom in birth rates ended in 1957. Very stramnge. It may be due to the wishy-washy-ness of all pop culture terms. As it gains widespread use, it stands for many diffedrent things. Some of which may conflict. It is fun nonetheless to wonder how our cultural terms have become what they are Hammer of the year (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would consider "demography" to consist substantially of statistics. My background is heavy in applied math and sciences, and I tend to like really simple words whenever possible. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just didn't know that's your use of the word. The interesting thing about words and meanings are whether two words share secondary and tertiary meanings as well as primary meanings. The word "right" stands for the opposite of "left" as well as a "legal right" in French and Spanish as well. This means that the concept of the right hand side may have been connected with properness as well. Hammer of the year (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention ancient Latin <g>. "Left" is "sinister" which has a negative meaning. Collect (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Millenium '73

Hi there. Thank you enormously for your help with the Prem Rawat article. I don't know how you did it, but that blue pencil of yours is a truly splendid tool. Would you care to take a look at the above page? Mattisse is helping, but we (or perhaps I) have reached the stage of simmering and spluttering. Thanks anyway. Rumiton (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

your recent edit on Rick Warren page

Hello, i did not wish to undo your recent edit on the Rick Warren page, but it seems like there might be an error or an inaccuracy in what you said: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Warren&diff=prev&oldid=261689844 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Warren&curid=735151&diff=261689844&oldid=261687934 ("right wing politics" not supported by any RS I could find - has not endorsed candidates and has supported global warming initiatives etc.) But when i check with a search engine, i find immediately: http://www.google.com/search?q=Right+wing+politics,+Rick+Warren

The first few search results are showing discussions on CNN and AOLnews and other places where they debate which flavor of right wing politics and which sort of conservativism is favored by Rick Warren. They all describe his conservative and right-wing stances, and i couldn't see any instance in which he could be called 'left-wing' nor anything very far away from 'right-wing'.

Do you think maybe CNN and AOLnews are reliable enough, and their information sufficiently clear at first glance, so we could agree that Rick Warren is extremely involved in Right Wing Politics? This doesn't seem like a synthesis of original research, this seems (to me) like a rather plain sort of description which only gives a generic label and doesn't necessarily cause controversy if it is only mentioned in this kind of generic summary? Please forgive me if i am making some mistake about all this, i still don't know where some people want to draw the line between a good concise summary versus a bit of unnecessary Synthesis which could resemble Original Research. Thank you for your consideration, i am still learning how these standards work around here.

Teledildonix314 ^talk 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No cite for making the claim was furnished. Second, I found no evidence that he has ever endorsed any political candidate. Third, on at least a few issues, his position is not that expected for a person in "right wing politics." In order to make a claim in a BLP (Biography of a Living Person) on WP, the requirements for using specific reliable sources for specific claims is clear. Googling a phrase does not count as a "reliable source" nor do entries in blogs etc. count as reliable sources. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for making it more clear. You seem to be saying i can't use the term because it isn't cited. However, i disagree with you. Another editor wisely wrote: We are perfectly at liberty to draw inferences in writing an encyclopedic article. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. If it fits the definition as above then use it. That's why i was so certain i had a right to use the words "Right-wing politics", because of the good fit to the dictionary definition. But you are more experienced than i am, so perhaps i am just not catching on to some kind of nuance here. I will read more articles written by other people so i can see how they go about resolving this type of disagreement. I wouldn't want to conflict with you, i won't edit or alter anything you've said, and i won't edit any other pages where i might fail to make the proper understanding that you are suggesting. Could you suggest any references or Wikipedia Help Guides which have good examples of how to summarize accurately with concise words appropriate to the specific topic but without straying into any possible Original Research Synthesis? This seems to be where i have the biggest difficulties with language in articles. I want to use the best word, but people keep rejecting my choices of words if they sound like they might come with a value-judgement attached. Of course, i should probably stay away from anything political whatsoever, whether BLP or otherwise, because my mistakes are likely to keep smashing hornets' nests if i don't do things properly. Sorry to ramble, but you seem like you are good at showing new people how to be concise and accurate. Thank you. Teledildonix314 ^talk 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not know which editor would so casually disregard WP:BLP. And please feel free to edit what I write! I am certainly fallible! All I ask is that you use "reliable sources" and that the claim is supported by the source. You might also look at WP:WTA (words to avoid) which explains why some groups of words will attract lightning. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collect about your use of the term "right wing". First, that is an ambiguous term and it is hard to use a label that gets thrown around so vigorously within the political media. It would be better to simply state things issue by issue instead of a broad label that is pejoritive at best. Lastly, Warren is not within what could be classically termed the right-wing of politics. In fact, he has come under considerable fire from those on the right for his stance on the environment, his friendship with Obama, not being an activist in anti-abortion circles, etc. He is, however, Biblically conservative in his views and therefore holds many of the same beliefs of those on the religious right even though he is not a political activist. CarverM (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Undelete my user page?

Can you undelete my user page? I changed my mind and now I regret losing it.--2008Olympian^chitchat 05:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your user page seems to exist. Collect (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the page. The page which was there was simply one post accidentally placed there rather than talk. The userpage was, indeed, deleted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- IAMAA. Collect (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Happy to be of help. What does IAMAA stand for? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I Am Not An Admin <g>. I was a "wizop" with a hundred sysops under me for some years, and would not really like to take on the thankless work of an admin here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought an N not an M then, for Not? Or was that a typo?

This place is a little odd to sysop/admin - your authority is nebulous, your responsibility varies according to your availability and enthusiasm, as well as demands on your time, and every freaking body is your boss. Its a little odd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I need a new keyboard (or mew keyboard if the cat sees it). I am very appreciative of what volunteers do for sure, and have a profound distrust of people who seek a title for the power it bestows <g>. Collect (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, a new keyboard wouldn't help me a bit; I tend to type messily, especially when I'm tired. The poor kittens aren't to blame either, sigh. Just my own bad typing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I read somewhere that you were a Star Trek fan? I date back to the "first letter-writing campaign" <g>. If you aren't, then I apologize. Collect (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hatashe/Faruk Khan

I am honestly asking for your input here. How would you have worded the concerns I had, so as not to appear, in your opinion, as being harsh? I am trying to improve myself.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I get accused of being too nice to newbies <g>. I probably would have said something on the order of "I see you are new here, would you like some help in finding out how to show a "neutral point of view" in an article? Some of your edits do not quite fit in to how Wikipedia works" or the like. Does this sound too mealy-mouthed? I do know that I find impersonal templates distasteful myself. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

Enough. One more revert on Joe the Plumber, and you're going to be blocked for a week for long-term, persistent edit warring. After that block is up, any further reverts, we'll start at a month and go from there. Move on from that article. Tan | 39 03:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)