User talk:Collect

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)

(outdent) Guilty. Not hard-core, though. I don't have ears or a communicator or anything. I only have the following series on DVD: ToS (partial) TNG, V. I like the beginning of DS9 but not the end. I have 6 of the movies - I waited in line to see the first one when it came out. Does that make me a "fan"? I was, however, too young to participate in the first letter writing campaign. Well, I could have, but I didn't know about such things then - and I would have had to block print. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:08, 6 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)

But it wasn't a template, except for pointing to WP:NPOV. OK. I'll try to be more mealy-mouthed.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:35, 5 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)

Interesting attitude. I trust you gave the same warning to Mattnad? Collect (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I told myself you would go straight to the "did you give the other guy a warning too?" defense. My warning stands. No more reversions on the JtP article. Tan | 39 14:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear me -- did you read my post as being a defense of some sort? Mea culpa. Mattnad continued reversions for seven hours after the warning, as far as I can tell <g>. And he tends to post a lot on this userpage. Collect (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe the former plumber :)

I must be a glutton for punishment but I have jumped in. Good luck and don't let the agenda pushers get to you! Unfortunately, articles like JTP and Palin and others are weak points of this project but still need to be attended to. Cheers! --Tom 15:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Another harassing sock

See User talk:TheBossOfColect. I already reported them at WP:UAA. If it continues I'll request an underlying IP block at WP:RFCU. Do you have any suspicions or evidence as to who the sockmaster might be? Kelly ^hi! 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Joe the Plumber occupation-mania is reminding me of Traci Lords. Since she wasn't legal when she was doing porn, does that mean she wasn't really a porn actress? I'm sure she'll be glad to hear that. Kelly ^hi! 03:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well -- we already know John Glenn should not be astronaut in his infobox ... the game-playing by the other editors is astounding, and I am amazed KC is taken in by it as she is otherwise a smart puppy. Too bad we will never see any off-wiki communication implied by some of their usertalk posts about her. Collect (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

26 years

Well, I guess you have me by 10 or so (Archie, anyone?). You should know by now though that tit-or-tat sarcasm is extremely unlikely to yield anything constructive, so when you see the opportunity to do so, please do your part to keep the debate collegial. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any discomfort I may cause you. I am, however, a strong egalitarian, and I felt another's comment was far less so. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No discomfort on my part, except that dilutes the discussion and makes it harder for me to see if there's consensus or something close to it :-). My point is that if you have a concern about someone else's comment, it's unlikely that 2 wrongs will add up to a right, eh? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was a Wizop for a great many years with 100 "admins" under me at a time ... I commend you to look at User:Collect/actual summaries to see how one of the particpants acts <g>. He has since made a bunch more such "summaries." Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Baby, It's Cold Outside would make an excellent soundtrack to this conversation. I'm not suggesting that you're randomly poking people, I'm just suggesting that you not poke back when poked. Dig? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As, for example, here. Let it go - do not continue the complaints and arguments. Johnny put it well when he suggested you "you not poke back when poked". The article is under probation; such actions are blockable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa. He made a charge and I am not to respond to such. Collect (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, yeah. Otherwise the fight never ends. Ignore it. Or "rise above it". But don't keep it going. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kind of ironic you're getting this warning this week - Democrats are in a tizzy about Palin because she talked about campaign media bias in the Ziegler documentary. They are saying the same thing - she should just take anything that anyone says without responding. For the record, I don't think you said anything that was out of line or uncalled-for. For you to be getting warned seems like something of a double standard. Kelly ^hi! 15:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No irony at all. The article just went under probation - you did read the notice I linked, yes? And several other editors have been getting warnings as well, and I've been wholesale archiving on the talk page. Thanks for suggesting the probation - but now that its in effect, everyone needs to be pristine in their behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely! The person who did the talk page "editing" gets less of a warning than the person who gives the diff to prove what he did <g>. One real funny bit came when I was told to "stay away" from JtP or be blocked -- and then the fact I stayed away was used as an argument against me <g>. Collect (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

? What jtp? What argument? Difs please? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber is another article where campaign fallout continues. Might be another candidate for probation if things don't ease back soon. The irony statement wasn't intended as a criticism, just an observation. Kelly ^hi! 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh, THAT article. Didn't twig when I saw Jtp - I'm not on that nor Barack Obama atm, I am happy to say. One nasty contentious political article at a time, or at most two, is my limit I think. And I have all the other stuff on my watchlist. But seriously, you cannot go wrong by always being the More Civil Party and following AGF. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried that -- got yelled at for saying "thanks!" at the end of posts and was told civility was bad in that case <g>. 1600 admins - 1600 different styles, I suppose? Thanks! (oops!!!) Collect (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe

Added a comment, I'm not sure that the indents ended up right but I was trying to say inclusionist was wikilawyering, not you.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for misunderstanding your position! I had read a lot of your comments in AfD (I tend to stick to MfD myself <g>) and was rather unsure about it. Inclusionist and I have a peculiar relationship -- he likes the fact I do not like deleting folk's userpages, but not that I am quite strict about what belongs in a BLP. Collect (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

no problem. My wikiphilosophy as i see it is a bit looser then average on fiction and a couple other areas, but on the strict side on blp inclusion.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See User:Collect/thoughts for some of my extreme views <g> Collect (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I like most of it. The Do no harm is why i feel differnt about blp's then other articles. If the article on the Millennium Falcon has too much detail, what does it matter compared to a real life person having misleading info in there biography.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would (were I king) extend BLP to all articles which deal with living persons as well. Collect (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anchorage Daily News dabbling in Trig Trutherism now

Not just for Andrew Sullivan anymore! Heh - it's pretty hilarious how Dougherty tries to shift the responsibility to the lunatics who e-mailed him. How far does the Anchorage Daily News have to drop into tabloid territory before it's not a reliable source anymore? Kelly ^hi! 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Teledildonix314

I don't know if you've been following the controversy with User:Teledildonix314 on the Rick Warren article over the past 2 weeks, but if not, you should know that he's a radical gay-rights activist (note his user name) who absolutely hates Warren and has repeatedly vandalized the article, so it's useless to argue with him - believe me, I've tried. I and other editors attempted to have him blocked by administrators, but he posted a lengthy apology/admission of guilt/attack on the discussion page, and he wasn't. I think the reason he posted it is because an administrator threatened to block him if he didn't or continued his behavior - which he has.

I've seen that you've already attempted to remove his banter on the Warren article a couple times, but all he'll do is continue to edit-war with you - he's unbelievable. Anyway, I've gone ahead and reported him again on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you and a couple other editors also report him, the administrators will take it more seriously and deal with him sooner. Anyway, keep an eye on the article. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to others: I did not regard this as "canvassing" as I had been active in the article and shared the concerns about an editor who made quite unusual talk page comments. Collect (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, i'm concerned about the way i have been interacting with you, and i want to see how to avoid conflict and resolve our differences. In order to do this, i need to reasonably Assume Good Faith. Today you attacked my ability to do so, and as a part of what i believe is a larger pattern of antagonism, i have specifically directed an administrator's attention to this exchange between us. Virtual Steve has been a third-party observer, so i wrote in the following section on their TalkPage. Thank you for your consideration. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 04:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VirtualSteve#Rick_Warren

Actually, i've decided i just don't want to be in conflict with you, so my solution is for me to just walk away for a while and cool off and think about more productive things. Next time i converse with you, i'll just try to start over at Square One with the whole AGF, bury the hatchet, and get on with learning how people interact in a more friendly fashion. Maybe i can't guarantee i'll be a Good Example, but at least i'll try not to be a Spectacular Warning. Thanks, good day. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 09:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Three-revert rule warning

Please review WP:3RR. You may already have violated it on William Timmons; this is your official warning. Dicklyon (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR removal of disputed material in a BLP is an exception. Also note the discussion on the article as well at the appropriate noticeboards. Thank! Collect (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

de mortuis nil nisi bonum?

Why did you quote that, what does that have to do with anything? travb (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Roman adage. "Speak no ill of the dead" is a rough equivalent. Collect (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that.

At Edward Moskal. If that is the only part of that amazingly convoluted article I broke in restructuring, I will faint from shock. All the best. :) sinneed (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I owe you

RE: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia/FAQ

thank you so much collect. I notice you have become quite a fixture on the MfD circuit, saving many editor's contributions. In return for your kindess, I am going to stay away from Joe the Plumber from now on. Thanks again. travb (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gosh -- no need (give and take without rancor is ok -- it is the ones who show anger who upset me most). But heck -- tell you what, I will not deliberately disagree with you if you do the same? <g>. Collect (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

See this. Kelly ^hi! 17:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And this. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both -- I have suspicions about this "character" as well. Collect (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way -- can we get a blanking or deletion of the sock's userpages? I think they may possibly qualify as "personal attack" to be sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD them - G10. Place {{db-attack}} on each page which you feel attacks you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect few would argue that they do not attack me, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't the most horrific I've seen, but it was very clearly intended to be nothing but an attack on you. All gone now. WP:SPEEDY is good to peruse - a lot of the crap we get here is actually fairly easy to get rid of - the templates are in the box to the right, and correspond to the criteria in the policy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Merci. I would have ignored it had he not chosen to go to my usertalk page <g> you would be amazed what I let roll off my shoulders her. Collect (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

<- The discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheBossOfCollect. Kelly ^hi! 01:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

James Cagney

And, after months of only working on it in fits and starts, I've pretty well finished the James Cagney article. I've added the personal and political life sections which hopefully give a bit more insight into the man. I've also updated all the references to the standard wiki templates. I'd really appreciate your comments on it, and what you think might be needed to improve it further. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall take a look -- I haven't seen anything horrendous for sure <g>. Collect (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've updated your reference to the citation templates. If you have any more of the info to fill in on it (author, dates etc) i've left the blank fields in to add. Ta. --Ged UK (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Merci. I fear I am not a great Knight Templater <g>. Collect (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, neither am I, but the new citation tool on the main toolbar is a real boon! --Ged UK (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:William Timmons, you will be blocked for vandalism. The comments you called irrelevant and personal were my comments to refute an ongoing claim by Rtally3 that he hadn't been blocked for sockpuppetry. Don't do that. Your disruptive behavior is getting close to blockable. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider attacks on who the editor is to be outside talk page guidelines. You appear to feel that it is a legitimate subject for a talk page. We appear to differ, but templating me for that difference is wrong IMHO. Thank! Collect (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ponzio's

Nice catch on that NYT article: I'm not sure how I missed it myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to William Timmons, you will be blocked from editing. Collect, when you remove stuff under an edit summary that claims two new editors support you, when that is clearly not true, you are just being disruptive. One editor questioned one portion of what you removed (not the whole Iraq section); the other had an undue weight comment with respect to the details in the Lennon section. Nobody suggested removing the Iraq section. I've requested suggested changes from both of them. I'm trying to get all the input about what might be objected to, and so far there's not much, so settle down. I also filed a BLP/N item to seek more objections if there are any. So far, we don't see much problem. Just you and the WP:SPA guy User:Rtally3. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon, it's grossly inappropriate to leave vandalism warning templates with an experienced user over a content dispute. Please use dispute resolution instead. Kelly ^hi! 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the WP:DTTR essay. Sometimes, though, when an editor is being unreasonable, a warning with a little caution picture can help get their attention to the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir, you deliberately misstated fact in an edit summary, and conveniently forget the views of two new people who agreed that the material did not belong in the article at hand. In addition, threats do not make for collegial discussion as a rule. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'll link what you're talking about, we can discuss it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support at RS/N. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are surely welcome! Collect (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, Collect! Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't blowing you off on the William Timmons thing - it's just that it appears to be a complicated issue and I wanted to take the time to look at it in depth. I'm really unfamiliar with the situation and/or controversy. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 15:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem! One ed just likes to use sources which mention Timmons in one line out of hundreds of pages <g> which does not actually impress me as doing homework on getting real cites. Heck, if one line is all I need, I could come up with several hundred interesting cites for Palin <g>. Collect (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be much happier to use sources that say more about him. What have you got? Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Union busting

I don't really know if you have any interest or strong views on unions or union busting, but I know you've put a lot of time into making and improving Wikipedia articles. While I know we don't always agree, I thought your input on this article could be helpful as some of the conversations and disagreements there are longstanding and, because there are only 3-4 regular editors, getting new opinions is hard. I've nominated the article for peer review, but if you have time or interest, I'd be grateful if you could take a look and see if you can help make the article better.

Rutherford B Hayes

Inre this deletion diff: The removed nicknames were ones I had sourced as being in common usage at the time of his presidency. Are we to only keep the ones that made the longest lasting impresion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Some were only, as near as I could tell, used during the campaign -- there is no bright line on this stuff (sigh) The problem is setting a standard which does not have several hundred campaign slogans and editorial cartoonists names come into the list - I apologize if I took one out which really should be in there! Collect (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tsmollet

I've asked you a question at MFD.—Kww(talk) 13:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I was not trying to violate any policy, I was simply trying to save an article for personal reference. Thanks for posting excellent points in the discussion. --Tsmollet (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiversity project on Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections

Hi Collect. I started a project on Wikiversity a few weeks ago but got distracted by other things for a while. The project, Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections, is a research project aimed at describing the process of creating good, NPOV articles about topics that tend to stir very strong points of view in those contributing to the articles. The 2008 elections seem a good subject for the study, since it was a very "hotly debated" topic for a long time, but unlike similarly long-disputed topics (such as the Middle East Conflict), it has a slightly more defined starting point and ending point (though of course many of the articles are still being intensely debated).

The Sarah Palin article is one of the first "beta" studies, so since you were involved with improving that article, I hoped you could help experiment with the Sarah Palin resource. I would also greatly appreciate any feedback or ideas you have about some starting questions about the project as a whole. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail Article

Can we please remove the 'Homosexuality' section on the Daily Mail article? I find it very offensive as it is clearly a left-wing attack on the paper. I feel that the section has no place on an encyclopedic article. 77.100.207.175 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have yanked it several times -- the article it mainly complains about was run in many other papers for sure! Collect (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

THF

As I wrote on the Morton Brilliant Afd:

Please keep in mind that the nominator who Collect is arguing with was just booted for 3RR a violation.

The best thing you can do for an article that you want to keep is add the {{rescue}} tag below the AfD. Then members of the WP:ARS will swoop in and save it. Ikip (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Collect (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you userfied the article so you can work on it further? Instructions here User:Ikip/AfD, another editor who regualarly deletes helped me build this, I just keep getting suprised, but never as much as I have with you. Ikip (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

I will take a look when I have a chance. I think it is a good idea of yours to draw in other editors. You may wish to be more systematic - the talk pages of our core content polcies have links to places where you can request editors fluent in those policies to comment on a content dispute. If you get really frustrated you can also file a Request for Comment. By the way I do not know what a cites<g> is. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Merci -- and will you get me a new keyboard? <g>. Last three times I went searching for fresh eyes, I got accused of "forum shopping" by those who were dominating revisions. RfCs now are seldon efficaceous at all. I also am faced in Daily Mail with people who wish to claim the Tory paper is "fascist" <g>. (As an American, even I can recognize a Tory paper). Collect (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you and I have disagreed in the past so I think you are safe from "forum shopping" accusations - plus, at Wikipedia more is always merrier. But using those policy incident boards is one way to protect yourself from these accusations. Another way (which maybe you did) was just to go back trhough the article's history and solicit the views of anyone who was an active contributor. By the way your keyboard seems to work fine? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly enough -- honest disagreements do not bother me one whit. It is the ones whose disagreements are not based on honest discussion which get me upset. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You define "loose cannon"

At WP:ANI RE:

In short -- the unpardonable sin of not being an admin who has the power to save the history of an article is the problem. Ikip is actually trying to do what would appear to be "the right thing" here. Collect (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I love that, it is so true. Just when I think I have you figured out Collect, you continue to suprise me. On joe the plumber--I thought I had you all figured out, then you start saving MfD and AfD articles. Then you assist me with one of my templates which are going to be deleted. Then you argue against PRESERVE, now you are sticking up for me at ANI. Your behavior is like a pendilum. Other than User:NuclearUmpf, I have never seen behavior like this. Keep constantly suprising me, in a good way! If there is a barnstar for this crazy behavior, tell me, and I will give you another barnstar. Ikip (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that it is indeed I who is consistent? WP mainspace is not a place to push viewpoints, although a lot of editors do seem to try doing so (some of whom have COIs, it appears). Userspace, OTOH, is a place for people to be themselves -- as long as the pages do no harm to WP, and are not excessive in some manner. User templates, to me, are really part of how users define themselves, so I am loath to censor them. Thus that dichotomy. AfD nominations are another matter -- all too often they seem aimed at specific editors rather than at the subject of the article. I tend to think that the notability threshhold is misused far too often. Does this explain a few things? Collect (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatly on wikipedia, editors are so partisan, biased, and piety in their attacks on editors with different viewpoints, that you consistent position on wikipedia is not only unusal, it is inconsistent with the way editors are here. Ikip (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I have already added a: Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. If you do not stop, I will begin searching for editors on Joe the Plumber, and other pages you recklessly edit war on, to co-endorse a RfC against you. I have had it with your tedious edit warring, deleting so much well referenced text.

In preperation for the RfC, I will then systamtically dig through your entire edit history, as I have done with countless other admins before. 03:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Gosh -- an unsigned bleat? Collect (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot

I have been reading the stuff at business plot... and the content keeps flipping back and forth. I hate to see good editors at odds with each other. It seems the added material is related to the overall picture of this conspiracy. I wanted to ask Ikip for better cites cause the relationship between the added information and the conspiracy is amazing. Then I see you in disagreement with him. Darn. Can some of the article be split off into several smaller articles and still maintain notability and cohesiveness. Its all fascinating. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The "conspiracy" is a footnote in history except for some conspiracy buffs. The "added material" in the sense of huge numbers of references which do noit relate to the actual topic is useless. The article was actually stable until he added all the stuff about Nazis and the like -- and the material about individuals whichis fully referenced in the cites does not belong in the article at all. And, of course, the bit about "media spin" totally does not belong at all. The idea is to make readable articles which do not misrepresent the weight of the event. Inclusionist seems not to accept that. :( (and please re-add the npov tag -- that sort of thing is not considered properly removable if there is any contest) Thanks! 04:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Collect (talk)

Opps. Sorry. I'll get it back right now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you caught it. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So your saying the citations need to back up content... and so he should add the related content? Should I advise him to do so? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip removed some of the worst POV language -- but the article is still overburdened with marginaly relevant (at best) cites and material -- including claims not even made by the committee in its report. Take a look at the stable version before please. Only material directly related to the "plot" and directly cited belongs in the article. The other material does not belong in the article at all. Thanks! Collect (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is indeed a monster. Spin-off articles could be well worth considering. How would one best determine what to spin-off and how much, without detroying the cohesiveness of the existing article? Looking back... this thing has been growing and shrinking for months and months. Heck... the talk page is longer than the aricle. It needs a spin-off too (chuckle). Will help if able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article had, in fact, been cohesive and NPOV. The ading of scads of unrelated material and insertion of an OR "timeline" and material which makes charges against people which were never tried in court makes the article quite a monster now. Collect (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

With your latest edit, I think you meant {{synthesis}}. THF (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Likely so <g>. I am not a huge template user to be sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Devdas

Check it out: http://www.livemint.com/2008/06/05234329/Multiple-takes.html I feel pretty good right about now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Real American

Sorry to not reply to this at the time. Yes, his user talk page isn't filled with welcomes and messages about how wonderful he is; normally we give welcomes to users who contribute productively. His talkpage is full of "threats" yes, I'm assuming you mean the request to shut up that he added, the deletion tags which are a standard response to somebody creating an utterly useless and WP:MADEUP page and the blocks put there in response to him creating useless articles and leaving lovely tidbits like this around. I did try and explain the notability criteria to him, but he doesn't seem interested in finding decent sourcing only proclaiming that he "didn't do it to get on the news". Quite frankly I don't understand how you can go "keep, because we didn't try and be lovely to him and give him a hug and maybe some chocolates" when every interaction with him has been met with bile and a refusal to even try and toe the line. Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had mixed results dealing rationally with some folks (see Ikip/Inclusionist/othernames) (Tautologist/othernames) and a few others -- perhaps he is indeed one example who is so recalcitrant that the treatment was proper, but somehow I think that having others also post on his talk page would have been better than seeing one person iterate warnings <g>. I still suspect that we lose far too many starting out (I ran into an actual campaign worker for a political party who accused *me* of being one <g>). Thus I am more apt to give two bites of the apple before coming down hard. At that point, by the way, I would be apt to propose the deletion myself! Collect (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats fair enough, I guess, although I'm not really sure what could have been done to get someone else involved; it was a rather self-contained process in that all his real edits were to my talkpage/his talkpage in response to something I'd said/so on. Anyway, thanks for your speedy response and for giving me something to think on; getting multiple people involved does sound like a better idea for the future. Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Stay on track

Collect, you've several times stated on Talk:William Timmons that other editors agree with you and that the sources don't make the connection of the memos to the election. These appear to be false and unsupported statements. Have you even read the sources? Or looked for a name for who these other alleged editors would be? If so, you know they're false (or correct me if I'm wrong). Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I stated that the material was IRRELEVANT. I did not say OR or SYN, so I would appreciate an accurate post from you on this. The election had no relevance to Timmons and the Thurmond memo. None. Collect (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But your statements in support of your opinion are factually wrong, which is why they're off-track. The 1972 election is discussed in the cited book as the key reason they wanted to get Lennon out. Read it. I added page numbers to the cite to help you (even though the whole book is about it). Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing related to Timmons in the book is a copy of the memo. No text mention, and no text mention in the book remotely connecting Timmons to anything else at all is in the cite. Collect (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The connection of Timmons to the memos is clear in the sources and supports what is stated in the article. The connection of the memos to the activities of the Nixon white house and their historically notable activities is also clear in those same pages. Why would we mention that Timmons received and sent a couple of memos and not say what those memos had to do with anything? Your statements like "The election had no relevance to Timmons and the Thurmond memo" are clearly absurd in light of what's in the cited pages. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources, by showing the memos, connect Timmons to the memos. They do not show a connection between the Thurmond memo and the campaign. They do not show any connection between Timmons and anything more than answering Thurmond;s question. They do not show any connection between Thurmond and Lennon and the campaign. In fact, the texts do not say anything really about Timmons other than the fact he got a memo from Thurmond and that he answered it. Any added sysnthesis is not in the sources at all. Collect (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They absolutely DO show a connection between the memos and the campaign. We have not synthesized anything, nor said anything extra about Timmons, not even that he was the obvious person to care about Lennon disrupting the convention that he was planning. What phrase is not supported by several of the cited sources? Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Then use a precise quote from an RS saying "Timmons acted to deport Lennon to help the campaign" or anything remotely near that -- none of your current cites come close (and I searched them thoroughly). And "The ACLU sought Timmons memos because Timmons had something to do with Lennon" or anything remotely near that. All you have is Timmons responded to a Senator's memo." And your cites do not say anything more than that about Timmons. Collect (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't make such a claim unless I had such a clear source. That's why I don't make such a claim. Sure, one can easily read it between the lines of what is sources, but Timmons didn't leave a document saying exactly what he did and why. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) IOW, there is no proven connection stated by any of your cites connecting Timmons with anything more than responding to Thurmond's memo. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you seem to think that. I've only stated what's in the sources, as I said, not what's between the lines. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi, Swastika References Being Purged from Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll watch it -- but I am not really an expert on that party ... Collect (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascist corporatism

Greetings, You are correct that the article does not contain the corporatism connection. Articles should justify their categories. The first line of Portal:Fascism confirms it, and the Corporatism article contains a section on italian fascist corporatism, too.

This aspect could use some elucidation. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I.e. corporatism is more a subset of fascism than the other way around. Collect (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, from the principal of it Fascism is a type of corporatism, not the other way around. All cases of fascism display the subjugation of the individual to the purposes of the state (corporatism). Not all cases of corporatism are cases of fascism however (military, centralized gov't, supression of opposition, etc.) This is supported by what is already in WP. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing

What do you think you're doing adding lies to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party article, like this edit [1]

Remove this slanderous lie immediately. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear me. Calling a four toothed ratchet a four toothed ratchet is slander. Amazing. Can you name a five letter word associated with bridges? Collect (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"with genocide of all non-Muslims in the area."

I know you're a retard but make an effort. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, honestly. I hate the Syrian Social Nationalist Party as much as anyone, but you're making up stupid lies. The SSNP is NOT for the genocide of all non-Christians in the area, considering that the SSNP was FOUNDED by a Christian and its membership is majority Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4destruction (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit I made was about the ratchet. Anything else was at most a revert to what was there before. As for calling folks "retard" -- it is unlikley to gain you any points at all. Collect (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren article - Proposal 2.0

I confess that I can't see where the latest proposal from you is stated. Can you restate it for me? I would like to get this part of the article settled and am certainly willing to compromise where appropriate. Thanks. CarverM (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(from T:RW page) try: Obama chose Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation. Several organizations criticized Omama as a result, contending that Warren had compared legalized same-sex marriages to the legalization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia. [1][17][3][18][19][20][21][22][23] based on Warren's December 2008 Beliefnet interview [24]. Warren sent a video message to his church that said that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but does oppose the redefining of marriage.[11] Warren publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.",[26] eliminating the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.[27] (then very short abortion paragraph which seems really minor in news coverage) (from other page) Collect (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Try this, although I'm not sure I'm wholly supportive, I'm just brainstorming.

Warren was chosen by Obama to deliver the inaugural invocation. Both came under criticism as Warren had been a public supporter of Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Some also incorrectly asserted that Warren had equated the legalization of same-sex marriages to the legalization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia when he was simply opposing the redefintion of marriage.

I am not in agreement at all with the inclusion of the Beliefnet article nor some of the other YouTube and blog sources for reasons well developed by Lyonscc and others. However, I do agree that there was a controversy around the inauguration and that it should be mentioned. I just don't see the need to blow it up larger than it is so that the gay lobby can insert inappropriate materials into a BLP. I hope I'm being logical in this. I look forward to your response. CarverM (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read my opinions, I actually think the entire section is being blown up well out of ptoportion. It is unlikely that "incorrectly" would get accepted by the others as a compromise ... the ide is to get as neutral a section as possible.

"Warren was chosen by Obama to deliver the inaugural invocation. Some groups criticized this Both came under criticism as Warren had been a public supporter of Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Some also incorrectly asserted that Warren had equated the legalization of same-sex marriages to the legalization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia when he was simply opposing the redefintion of marriage. which he denied in a message to his church. " is far more likely to work ... care to propose it? Collect (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I like your changes. What I don't have the time for is the references. What might you suggest? CarverM (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Propose the language -- the cites come afterwards. Collect (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll consider it over the weekend. CarverM (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:TAGGING

Very amused to see you cite to this, because I created it two years ago. Glad to see its message has disseminated out to the editorial masses. THF (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Gosh -- I am now part of the "masses"? <g> Collect (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just that I'd forgotten it was out there and hadn't used it since 2007, so when you cited it, it looked awfully familiar... THF (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

I think you've already reverted me 3 or 4 times at William Timmons, instead of answer simple questions on the talk page. I've tried to cooperate, even putting your irrelevant tags back into an older version in order to restore sourced material that you had removed under the guide of tag replacement. Please slow down, be careful, and only put into the article what belongs in the article, and take you commentary to the talk page where you can answer the questions about what the problems are that you think you see. Dicklyon (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:TAGGING replacing removed tags is not generally counted for 3RR. And I have iterated my position that material which is irrelevant to a BLP should not be in the BLP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your last 4 edits were straight reverts of different attempts to improve the article; they did a lot more damage than just re-inserting the silly tags. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring over tags is still edit-warring, even if the people removing the tags shouldn't be removing the tags. Raise it at BLPN rather than making multiple reverts. THF (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Curiously enough -- I already did raise it at BLP/N -- hope to see your comments there. Collect (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am confused Collect, what part of THF's essay says that you can't get booted for 3RR? Wikipedia:TAGGING#Removing_tags, I guess THF clarified it. Ikip (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Try the article on WP:3RR regarding BLP disputes. I think we had discussed this before. Collect (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, can we avoid editing and reverting on the paragraph until consensus is reached on the talk page? We seem pretty close to a compromise. I'm leaving the same message with Dicklyon. THF (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked Dicklyon for 48 h, but I decided not to block you, because you was not engaged in this edit-war to the same extent as Dicklyon was. However I still want to say that a discussion on the Talk page is always preferrable to blind reverting. If other party does not want to partipate in the discussion you can always report them to ANI. Ruslik (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I do indeed use Talk a lot! When I have used noticeboards I have been accused of "forum shopping" in the past so I try to keep the discussion in the article talk page. Collect (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Come join the circus

Editor x teaches editor y how to behave, to the thrill of hundreds of wikipedians in the big top

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:THF_and_User:Collect. It is the greatest second greatest show on Earth. Scratch that, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Colonel_Warden is now the greatest show on Earth. Ikip (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Page not yet existing. Collect (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk-page conduct

Word of advice: bolding on talk-pages is viewed similar to CAPITALIZATION -- i.e., screaming. It is more WP:CIVIL to use italics or to avoid it entirely, except in the cases of !votes and polls. THF (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa but at least I don't use "red" as some did <g>. Comes from being in a computer culture which even allowed font changes in sigs ... Collect (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your OUTING complaint

Collect you seem very intent on presenting the last word in relation to this matter at my talk page. So that you can continue on good terms with other editors at Rick Warren et al I have left you a note here at the very least for your information so you can see that your concern has not been ignored but also so you can add a compromised response to the two editors you have accused; that is if you are of a mind to do so.--VS ^talk 22:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Collect (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good return note - thank you also.--VS ^talk 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Collect (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon Wiener

Thanks for removing the refvertisements - I wasn't sure about them as it appeared they were linked as 'tasters' for the book. -- samj _in^out 16:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! Collect (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Hello, I have blocked you for a period of 48 hours for violating the three revert rule on the Drudge Report article. The article was locked for 3 days by admin Deacon, and even after that time you and User:Soxwon still continued to edit war. In future please consider adopting a one revert rule. If you believe this block is unjustified, please use the {{unblock|YOUR REASON HERE}} template directly below this paragraph. Thanks and regards, Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Collect (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I regret the inadvertant violation -- in retrospect the question over whether the EB should be labeled "online" should have pended as I already posted on RS/N about the question. The article is one of the more minor articles I have been working on, and I shall avoid that article for a week or so to let any ill-feeling die down. Thank you. Collect (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked a few months ago, and then unblocked after a similar promise. The lesson I fear, is yet to be learned. For that reason I feel I have to decline this request. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|I realize how harmful editwarring is to the WP project, and I am very sorry for my actions. I shall specifically strictly restrict myself to 1RR or less for at least a month, and I apologized to Soxwon, and asked that he be unblocked. I shall also avoid the Drudge Report article for at least a week, as I have many other articles being worked on. Collect (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)}}

Thank you -- now on to those Skittles ... Collect (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Same happened to me the other day; after Collect reverted 4 times and I warned him, I inadvertantly did a bit too much warring with another guy and got blocked. The other guy even recommended unblocking me, but it didn't help. What can you do? Dicklyon (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked for Soxwon to be unblocked -- neither of us intended it to be considered a war for sure, and the back and forth of seeking terms we could both accept was, I fear, overinterpreted. I tend to not compain about others as a rule. Have a great day! Collect (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon Wiener

I reverted your deletion of the high school graduation; it's generally accepted that high schools are notable, it's helpful for creating high-school alumni lists, and Wiener actually did go to an interesting high school. THF (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Alas -- the entire article was so puffy that I viewed it as an exemplar of "too much detail which does not affect the perspn's notability." Collect (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Buchanan book

What book? THF (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa -- a book was, I thought, announced -- but does not exist. Buchanan wrote articles, and that should be the word used. The NYT, by the way, has not considered him worthy of a mention <g>. Can you, while we are at it, critique User:Collect/essay? Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The essay is trying to do too many things at once (narrow WP:N, redefine WP:NPOV and WP:CITE and WP:FA) and will not be the worth the effort of the fight you will have over it, which I strongly suspect will be fruitless. There isn't a consensus on Wikipedia that agrees with the entirety of your positions; I'm not even sure I do. If you just want it out there as your personal opinion in userspace, I'm not sure what good it will do, but. If you want policy change, better to start at WP:VPP and related WT page on something narrow, but better still for you to first build up your credibility by doing a lot of quality editing, and reducing your dispute-to-edit ratio. THF (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)