Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:01, 10 November 2008

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:

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!

Yankees

Look at History of baseball team nicknames for details, rather than my repeating myself too much. :) They were first called Yankees the same year they were first called Highlanders. I think which name was used varied from newspaper to newspaper. The same deal happened with the Cubs, which were called Colts by some papers and Cubs by others. Modern fans don't understand how things worked in those days. Nearly every nickname of the classic 16 teams originated in the newspapers. Sometimes the clubs even asked the reporters to come up with a new nickname. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a bit about the nicknames -- what surprised me was the use of two names in a single article. Then I wondered if the nickname had an older basis .. guess I should read the article. Collect (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual, then or now. Think of the Yankees being called the Bombers or other names. Or the White Sox being called the Pale Hose or the Chisox. Or the Cubs being called the North Siders or the Denizens of Wrigley. Now go back to the 1910s or 1920s, and you might see "Dodgers" and "Robins" in the same article; or "Senators" and "Nationals" (or "Nats") in the same article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Cagney donations

Hi there. Thanks for your addition of a source for this article. There's not much around on Cagney's politics, and I'll certainly include the ref (so it actually shows up, which it doesn't appear to in Categories) when I get round to writing about his politics, which seem to have changed during his lifetime. --11:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think his politics changed about the time he met Cohan <g>. (I think the template specifically ignores refs, but they show up when editing -- either an undocumented feature or a glitch. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, though i'd be reluctant to necessarily link the two things together without a reliable source to do it for me! --Ged UK (talk)

All is anecdotal - they met according to the studio, but Cohan died fairly soon after. Not that keeps WP articles from being laced with them, of course. My reference to "meeting Cohan", however, was to the work on YDD (hence the <g>), not the anecdote. I suspect the machinations of the CPUSA regarding the Russia-Germany treaty made a lot of folks rethink politics. Collect (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, it's hard to source accurately. Certainly WW2 made lots of people re-assess their politics, perhaps unneccesarily, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if JC did too. --Ged UK (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found hard copy of "Cagney by Cagney" -- fills in a bit. Collect (talk)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin?

Please post at talk. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MisterAlbert

Hi. Please see this. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not totally surprised at this, having read up on his history. Dave Collect (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Plumber

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Joe the Plumber, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what template I deled. Collect (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I deled a section (not a "template") in dispute which has an absurd number of references attached. In addition, the reason was given in the edit summary. And I would appreciate AGF. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well-made (whether I agree with your reasoning or not), and I apologize. This issue tends to bring out the worst in all of us, I fear. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Collect (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC_on_Joe_the_Plumber_tax_lien_on_house Inclusionist (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facts707...

This guy/girl is obviously collaborating with 4Ls, but I don't know how to handle this. I could employ a strategy well-known by Powell regarding Theater Nuclear War, but I don't see this as worth taking myself out of the picture for just a pawn. Appreciate any suggestion. Fcreid (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have cross-linked spoor on user talk pages at this point. This one may be a sockpuppet for sure, to aid in a wrestling event. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin image?

I note that the CFD tag is removed on the "Palin-Nowhere" image, but I can not find any report that WP had received proper license yet. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed incorrectly by the uploader. I've restored it. Nice catch. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was a WP:ASSUMEACCIDENT article ... Collect (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No tag on SP page at all, at least the tag is on the image page. Collect (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now due time for the image removal if I read correctly. Collect (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't delete the image myself, as it was I who tagged it. You could tag it as {{db|CSD:I7 - Image with a disputed fair use rationale which has been tagged for over seven days}}. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it. ALL tags were removed by agr on the gounds that the "editors" decided they could not replace it with text. I pointed out this was wrong, but do not know the procedure to reinstate the deletion tag. Collect (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inuse

I had some problems creating this request. Please look at my edit history.

I am sorry for any problems or confusion which I caused. I added a {{inuse}} tag to the page, please confine your comments to the talk page for now, and you can remove the comments which are in the wrong sections later after I am done and remove the {{inuse}} tag. Again, sorry for the confusion. Inclusionist (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished creating the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber and removed the {{inuse}} tag. You are welcome to edit. I suggest moving your comments elsewhere. The only comments on the actual page should be what issues to be resolved. Again, I apologize for the confusion and thanks for your understanding and patience. I respect your tenacity and passion on this issue. Inclusionist (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures

I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided substantial input on that policy, based on an increasing body of international law. Collect (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin talk page

I removed a comment before you, as the talk page is not a forum for providing links to whereever. Hope you don't mind. Cheers! --Tom 13:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH <g>. Straight commercial spam that. Collect (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muthee

Thanks for your efforts on the Thomas Muthee page. However, you pulled some sources because they were in another language. While I understand your objection, that leaves the sentence totally unsourced. Please put the sources back, or (sadly for me, who worked hard to find it) take out the whole sentence. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that we can find English sources for almost all of it -- using sources which few understand has been done in the past to insert erroneous material in some articles. Surely there is a Kenya paper which will give the opening dates for the school? Jclemens will, I think, vouch for my feelings on sources.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REF#Sources_in_different_languages "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do use sources in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." is the official style guideline for WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool down

Take another look. He did not do what you think he did. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did move stuff around -- the worse stuff was the other day. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No he copied stuff, He probably could have done with putting it in quotes but I do think he did it in good faith. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still confusing after all the 30 edits overnight. I fear I think he is abusing process in order to prevent reaching a consensus he does not desire. Collect (talk) 21

56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No I don't think so. I actually think his edits today are to try and reach a consensus. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabile visu! Collect (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prescott Bush

Please do not feed the trolls as you are doing on this talk page. Engaging in such conversation is pointless and only disrupts the talk page further. Instead, you should remove all discussions not related to article edits. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time it has actually worked -- so while I appreciate the suggestion (and I have deleted pure trolls) I felt that this particular case as it reflected what had made it into the main article in the past had to be addressed. Yes -- that stuff had once been in the main article. Sigh. Collect (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs and such...

Think you whacked the entire topic in talk that outlined Facts707 initial deletion of the entire VP Campaign section along with the blob that later stuck in. Could probably revert talk and just rv that one change. Also, given that Facts hasn't defended his wholesale deletion from the main article, if you need me to rv anything until that's settled, just let me know. Fcreid (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I saw was the seemingly intact reprint of the article section. Sorry if I erred. Collect (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem whatsoever. I'm actually ambivalent to the wholesale deletion of the Campaign pieces, but despite WP:AGF I smell a rat, and something tells me that resulting subarticle will start collecting all those smears that have been discounted in the main one. :( Fcreid (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara West

Not a problem. Several editors have been working on it to improve the references and to neutralize the language. Thanks for the head up! SmallRepair (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess you can see what I thought -- several places I have seen subtle stuff worked in by making big shuffles <g>. Collect (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Is there any reason other than your edit summary of "nope" that you removed this reliably sourced statement on the Joe the Plumber article? Bstone (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It qualifies as trivia -- it is unrelated to the campaign issues, nor to any bio of SJW. Collect (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It adds to his notability and is not trivia under any sense of it. Please do not remove reliably sourced sections in the future. Bstone (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated reply

[1] Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic Joe the Plumber discussion moved

Hello, the discussion on the Joe the Plumber talk page had wandered significantly from improving the article and has been moved per WP:TPG to [2] if you wish to continue your discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Nottingham

When you deleted the external link to the "dossier", you also deleted all the categories. Please check your edits in the future. bd2412 T 05:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Good to see you again, Dave. Frank Fcreid (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was I gone that long? Kidney stones tend to knock one off balance, I fear. Collect (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think ya made a boo boo, at talk:Sarah Palin. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What boo boo? I know I can err for sure, but the only odd point I made was about the Rasmussen poll? If it were put in, the floodgates of other polls being put in would open, IMHO. Collect (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lower half of the talk-page's posts were made small. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thunk I had it right (first try made everything tiny) -- I think blockquote malfunctions as I checked preview and it looked ok here (sigh). Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup. Collect (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin BLP violation????

In what way does this remotely violate WP:BLP?:

Palin's high profile in the 2008 presidential campaign has fueled speculation of that Palin may run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and as of November 2008, there is an active "Draft Palin" movement.^[1] However, Palin has so far not expressed interest in seeking the presidency in 2012, telling CNN, "Right now I cannot even imagine running for national office in 2012."^[2]

It simply states that there are elements of the Republican Party that want her to run in 2012, and that she has presently stated she has no interest in that. All of this is non-controversial and cited from verifiable sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a conjecture which is contrary to what she has stated herself. Thus it fails under the "conjecture" pare of BLP. Sort of like saying "Some people say John Doe is considering running for Congress, but John Doe is denying it" -- all it is, is speculation. Even from CNN, speculation remains speculation. Collect (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fun facts....

This stuff was fun to dig up diff... though I probably sourced it too well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<g> I deled a couple of overkill sources, I hope I chose ok. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. I thought it better to give too many than to have someone question where the information came from... or worse, to have it said "only one source reports this", before a none-discussed deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know how things ran before -- this time I trust the consistent system will make it a decent article. Collect (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbar West

While I believe that you may have an argument for decreasing the content, I'm concerned that you are edit warring while not participating in the talk page's discussion. Let's take this to the talk page. Three editors have been previously banned for 24 hours for 3RR violations on this page. Thanks! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting assertion, though there is no way my edits could be construed as "edit warring." Collect (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further you seem to forget that I have, indeed, gone to Talk, quite a bit whilst you have been absent from the discussion. Kindly do not make false assertions. Collect (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that you have participated in the talk page whilst edit warring. Please, I encourage you to read up on WP:3RR and in particular WP:BRD so you aren't the fourth editor banned from the page. Thanks. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barbara West. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Barbara West (TV news anchor) ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation is ill-founded at best, and abusive at worst. As I have not come anywhere near your claim of multiple reversions with 24 hours, I fear it is just plain abuse on your part. Kindly desist from such. Per WP:BLP, contentious material requires consensus to be reinserted, not the other way around. " Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't fall into the same trap as others have done. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 13:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asserting that you are using this as a trap of some sort? Collect (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ "What next for Sarah Palin?" by Ali Reed; BBC News, November 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-07.
^ "Palin Returns To Alaska Politics, But What's Ahead?" by Martin Kaste; All Things Considered, NPR, November 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-07.

[1] "What next for Sarah Palin?" by Ali Reed; BBC News, November 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-07.

[2] "Palin Returns To Alaska Politics, But What's Ahead?" by Martin Kaste; All Things Considered, NPR, November 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-07.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 :::Your accusation is ill-founded at best, and abusive at worst.  As I have not come anywhere near your claim of multiple reversions with 24 hours, I fear it is just plain abuse on your part. Kindly desist from such. Per WP:BLP, contentious material requires consensus to be reinserted, not the other way around. " Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." Thanks. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect#top|talk]]) 12:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 ::::Please don't fall into the same trap as others have done. [[User:Therefore|&#8756;&nbsp;Therefore]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]]</small> 13:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
+:::::Are you asserting that you are using this as a trap of some sort? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect#top|talk]]) 13:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)