User talk:Collect

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)

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)

I do not agree with it all <g> which is why I ask for opinions. I have about a 2000 to 1 dispute ratio <g> (edits to major disputes) which is lower than most admins have. Collect (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that your edits (at least recently) are largely on contentious pages: Drudge, Warren, Business Plot, Timmons, and, fairly or unfairly, you're not viewed as a peacemaker on any of them. I, too, am frustrated by the vast number of POV policy violations in the encyclopedia, but it's a big encyclopedia, and there are lots of places to improve it. Make it easier for editors who will not agree with you politically to understand that you are not just here to pick fights by doing more work on uncontentious articles. You might even find that you enjoy that side of things more: I certainly find it more satisfying when my improvement-to-drama ratio is higher than when I need to make fifty edits to defend a minor deletion in a minor article. The entire set of hundreds of Guantanamo habeas articles are an appalling mess of pov and spam and coatrack and factual inaccuracy, but there's an ironclad group of editors who will defend even the most minor change to the death, so it's not worth the hassle and I leave it alone. THF (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you check, you will find that often I end up making the compromise possible between people who are on both sides of me <g>. Look at the Rick Warren article where a compormise is going to be made because I took a stand between both sides. Avoiding contentious articles just because they are contentious seems craven -- especially since most of my edits are, indeed, on non-contnetious articles (such as Skittles (confectionery) and the like, or on WP related pages. Collect (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'm describing perceptions, which are going to be the controlling factor. Editors of your political stripe are held to a higher standard on this site--witness the extreme lack of civility that Td314 got away with for ages, and wouldn't even have been reprimanded for if I hadn't stood up. If you had done that, you'd still be blocked. THF (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I found [2] to be illuminating about the charge Bush owned a shipping company <g>, "0008.jpg" for the charge about a Dutch bank "owning" Union Bank, "0012.jog" for the claim that a Thyssen connection was specifically shown, and "0014.jog" attributes the claims about the UBC history specifically to "Knight Woolley" and does not ascribe it as fact determined by the alien property custodian. And "0015.jpg" shows Bush was specifically not one of the incorporators of Union Bank. Amazing -- but hnn kept these documents readily available (I did not find them otherwise) and has the cover fax sheets showing these are the documents Buchanan relies on. BTW my "stripe" is middle of the road, and I can give you references for it. Collect (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Middle of the road" is within the stripe I'm talking about. Mainstream American political views are not viewed favorably here. THF (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Burke Group

You're aware of the synthesis issue; can I get your opinion on whether I've correctly placed a tag here? Lengthy discussion on talk page. Thanks. THF (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I took the opportunity to simplify the article a tad as well. Collect (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

apologies

Hi, I can see clearly now that I have been making some pain in the butt edits. I'm going to be more constructive henceforth. Abbarocks (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Collect (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Sockpuppetry

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#THF_and_Collect_sockpuppetry. Ty 07:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Verges on abuse since no such evidence can exist for a very simple reason. Collect (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

At AN/I. [3]. Mike Doughney (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascist eugenics and abortion euthenasia etc.

I think the key is the fascist states enforce its use on certain people rather than regulate against it. Dont forget this segment relates to the social Darwinism section and refers to the fascist use of these techniques to enforce their version of social Darwinism. Obviously the use of social Darwinism is more characteristic of the Nazi groups rather than the Italian Fascists, but I dont see an argument to say that racial policies aren't an aspect of fascist dogma, and abortion etc is a tool used to enforce that dogma. It all comes back to the definition again - that section in the article still needs work, so that it clearly states that it is the disputed definition of fascism that causes most of the argument. Mdw0 (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it appears that there is no single way fascists states handle any of this, and they disagree a lot. And a lot of non-fascist states do a lot more than "regulate" these. And no connection between using abortion and racism -- in fact some assert that abortion is racist in the US - yet we are not fascist. And if there is no way to connect the position directly with a core function of fascism, it does not belong in the article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot, John Buchanan (American politician), Smedley Butler, etc.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/march-2009/the-truth-is-out-there THF (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Collect (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rick Santelli

Hi Collect. Any thoughts on how the "rant" section should be handled as far as outside criticism/comments? Right now "it" is more than 1/2 the article, but others want to add even more, ie John Stewart's opinions, ect. Anyways no biggie as always, cheers! --Tom 14:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems under control but watchlisted now. Collect (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! Tom 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh

From what I've seen I agree with your edits, they're mostly weasel words. However, you might want to come to the talk page so we avoid Drudge Report: The Sequel. Soxwon (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I abhor excess verbiag (as I think you know). Collect (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes quite lol. I'm combing them as well, the phony soldier controversy section seems loaded down with too much detail. Soxwon (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how disagreements turn out to be agreements, isn't it? Next week you will surely be accused of being my soxpuppet. Collect (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

*Rimshot* :)

Soxwon (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Frankly, I think you are much better off getting John Kenney to comment. Although he and I have disagreed in the past he is always rigorous about wikipedia policies and scholarship - and he really knows the scholarship on Fascism far better than I do! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I was just amazed that a person whose own choice of words was used now accuses them of being POV. You'ld think he would understand that when you are given in to, that pushing it further does not work all that well. Collect (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA?

OK, I give up... which of the Opposers has been indef'd? No names, just the number will do. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa -- just a suspected alternate account as far as can be proven of a banned user. Thpugh he ought to be banned as well <g>. Collect (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Let it develop"

The template was/is still completely under development. Going to the template alone does not provide a full sample with parameters, for example: I invite you to reconsider buying into contentions of "bad faith". Thank you. PetersV       TALK 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I created the template. Please rest assured that I have nothing against America or Americans. They're a great people, confident people.

The reference to North America was borrowed from WP:BIAS and only used in the first working version of the template. It has by now been replaced.

Seeing that the issues you mentioned in your vote have been resolved, please consider reassessing the template's current version. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy I changed to "comment" but I would urge you to try language more akin to "This is a topic of importance to Latvians. Please, if you have questions about its importance, post on the Talk page here and ask. Thank you." Collect (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"How to" question re talk pages

Collect, you might be able to clue me in on something -- on a talk page, the conversation sometimes zips along fairly rapidly, and it seems most convenient for people to keep posting at the bottom of the page, but what if you want to post a reply to something that's further up the page? For example at the bottom of the "Starting_from_option_3" section of the mediation page I posted a comment on some language you proposed, but the conversation had already continued extensively below that, so do I just have to assume that people will look for new posts further up the page, or should I have posted at the bottom of the page with an explanation that I'm talking about something posted further up the page, or what? I didn't see anything about this on Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Talk_pages). Thanks Benccc (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If you choose "edit" you will discover that people replying to a post will use colons to indent their reply -- WP custom is that you can add replies pretty much amywhere on a page using that system. A lot of people use a "watch list" which means they see when the last post was made to a page -- to see recent additions use "search" on the page for the current date (like "15 mar" will let you see each post made on that date as you go down the page,) I hope this helps! Collect (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got the hang of the colon thing now, but wasn't sure how people kept track of where new comments were. The watchlist and search method you mentioned makes sense. Thanks. Another question if you don't mind -- what's the standard re "outdenting," and why do people sometimes write "outdent" when they do it? Benccc (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

When you get too many indents, the page looks sorta like thins. "outdent" is a convenient way of getting back to a more normal layout.

(out)Sometimes you will see "ec" at the start of a post. This does not refer to the old publisher of Mad Magazine, but means "edit conflict." Sometimes you will get an "edit conflict" warning when you are trying to say an edit -- just copy your edit, and paste it back in place in the top edit box. Then you will be all set! I hope this helos. Collect (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Collect. That does help. But why do people write "(out)" or "(outdent)" at the start of the post? I mean, it's self-evident they're outdenting, no? Is it just a quick way to say "hey, this thread is getting pretty skinny and I'm just gonna widen it back out"? Maybe I've answered my own question there.... But is it frowned upon to just outdent without putting "(out)" or "(outdent)" at the start? Benccc (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit if an affectation as far as I can tell, but one person complained when I did not do it when I widened the thread, asying that he was unsure whom I was replying to <g>. In any case, when a thread gets too narrow (typographically), I find it harder to read. Meanwhile I still favor short posts. WRT "compromise" since it is part of how mediation works, I am still amazed at those who feel it is a "we win, you lode" sort of thing. And in cae they think ArbCom will take this - they won't. Arbitration is for cases of misconduct, not for cases of editorial disagreement, which is what we have here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights into WP protocol.... I share your understanding of Arbitration. As for compromise, I agree that "winning" and "losing" have nothing to do with our responsibilities as editors. Outside of adherence to policy (to which compromise doesn't apply) it seems clear that editors must negotiate to resolve different opinions on how we may best serve readers. How important/relevant is an issue? Where in an article should it be placed? How might a paragraph flow best? How reliable is that source? All matters of opinion and negotiation. Benccc (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess you can see why "non negotiable" hits a bad chord for me <g>. The policy which counts, IMHO, is producing a BLP which will still be accurate in a century. Too many people feel "if I can fnd someone saying this, that therefore it must be in the article" which results in very bad articles indeed. Another problem is the belief that all POVs can be handled by simply piling on stuff with the other POV until the article is a couple hundred thousand words long <g>. It is far easier to write a too long article than to write one which is short and correct. Lastly, there is a temptation in WP to add multiple cites for every single word written. Heck, I have seen up to a dozen or more cites used for a single word -- and yet I do not think it enhances the information conveyed one ounce. Editors should use blue pencils. Collect (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about "accurate in a century." If we say "the Titanic sank," how could that be any more or less accurate a century from now? Nonetheless we see many things simililarly. I think that editors diminish the value of an article by adding information indiscriminately; that deciding which information to exclude from an article may be difficult and contentious but is often necessary; that editors do readers a disservice when they try to influence readers' opinions of a subject, particularly when editors compete with each other to see who can pile on more information that expresses a particular POV; and that the quality of citations is much more important than the volume. I think editors sometimes pile on citations in response to the contention that a point is false or unverified. The larger problem, of which these are all (I believe) sub-problems, is that editors can easily lose sight of how best to serve readers. Would a significant number of readers find a piece of information illuminating or useful? Is the information presented coherently, and is it integrated well into the surrounding article? It seems especially difficult to keep the interests of readers in mind during editing disputes. Benccc (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many editors use their own strong views (even if not "COI" it comes dang near close to it <g> especially when some use "COI" as a way of eliminating other legitimate viewpoints) rather than seeking an article which will stand for a century. "The Titanic sank" is pretty much a fact. The reasons why it sank are not as clear ... we could have one editor saying "it was capitalist greed" which sank it, another that it was "too much faith in God protecting those 'in peril on the sea'", another citing the Captain's ignoring the iceberg warnings, another saying it was the fragility of the steel used. In fact, the last is likely a major cause, but it was not known until well after that "article" was putatively written. Rather I see a lot of the heated discussions about Gladstone and Disraeli, heated arguments which today are not really treated with as much gravity as they were then. If you will recall the trial where the White King used "unimportant" and "important" as though they were the same word? In my experience, fully 90% of what people insist is "important" in biographies, isn't. Collect (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Benccc (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Please see my responses at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacks against the Messiah

Dear Collect, Some people are attacking and harassing The Messiah at the Gates of Rome. Please help. Tnak you. Das Baz 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Some people have commented and edited the article, including me. I don't know how you harass an article so I assume he's accusing people of harassing him. But you will make your own judgement I'm sure. I think everyone has been trying to improve the article, and that there's a bit of WP:OWN here. dougweller (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That well may be. All I can do is look at an article I have looked at in the past, see whay appears to be a problem, and try to help out in some small way. <g> I have seen a lot of WP:OWN though in articles -- it is way too common! Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

You were mentioned by an editor here: WP:ANI#Influencing a change in a source. I suggest taking a deep breath before responding so a war of words can be avoided. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor who wrote to the EB does not post what he wrote. His comments about me and outing me as "James C----" was improper, his actions since even more so. Collect (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to take the deep breath advised. I never "outed" you, I simply stated that someone of that name made the change, which is public knowledge. Outing involves disclosing secret information. You also falsely assume that I said something nasty about you to EB. How old are you? Stop being childish and grow up. ► RATEL ◄ 13:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)

Any reason not to post what you actually wrote to EB? And you put a name in quotation marks "James C--" -- what precisely was that name intended to convey? As for the rest of your post -- NPA. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter? Stop it! This is silly. I put quote marks to show I was quoting something written elsewhere. Take a walk in the sunshine. ► RATEL ◄ 14:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet most people saying someone wrote something would not think to put the name, and only the name, in quotes. Might you show me where you routinely do so? I admit it may just be a matter of your personal style about names. Collect (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism origins

I'm not allowed to change for fear of violating the 3RR, so might I suggest for style changing the opening paragraph to something like:

Conservatism is a political and social term from the latin term conservare meaning to save or preserver. As the name suggests is usually indicates support for the status quo or the status quo ante, though the meaning has changed in different countries and time periods. Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture.

Just a suggestion Soxwon (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Latin" is capitalized -- see how the Latin derivation is handled in the Plumber article, perhaps that would work? We also do not need "status quo" in there really ... I would say "traditional state of affairs" as being quite adequate without going into Latin lessons <g>. The "meaning" remains the same -- I think you mean "It may have varying connotations in different countries and historical periods"? Sound right? Collect (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding allegations and extraneous material to mediation

Collect: I have recently removed two blocks of text added by you in the mediation. Allegations or other material unrelated to the issues under mediation do not belong on the mediation discussion page. Please confine your remarks on that page to the issues at hand. 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Material was in response to personal asides or attacks, and not intended in any way to interfere with te mediation. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Can we please remove the 'POV statement' on the Daily Mail political slant. I am a Mail reader and it is clearly a Conservative newspaper. It has never ever supported the BNP or far-right. Can we please stop the left-wing critics altering the article. I find claims of BNP support quite offensive and libellous. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As do I. They have also said "Nazi" and "fascist" in the past as well. "Conservative" is moreover well-sourced. Collect (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, such claims are nothing short of ridiculous. You have provided more than enough sources to support the 'Conservative' slant. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. And drop in here soon. Collect (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

I have to temporarily revert your addition. No offense intended. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

No problem -- glad to see Twain's remark about his death seems to apply to your full retirement! Collect (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The same user has added BNP to the Daily Mail article again for the third time. They have been warned several times and have now posted a citation which quite frankly proves nothing. Is there someone I can report them to for this persistent vandalism? Christian1985 (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Referring to the IP above -- not to Bugs <g>. I noted it, but you got there before I did this time. WP rarely does a full block of an IP -- but maybe an admin will take pity on us. Collect (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

As I said, because the definition isn't concise, removal of items that don't fit the narrower definitions isn't appropriate. Only a few weeks ago the Falangists were being counted in this group, and removal of them wouldn't have been appropriate either. The section mentions the notation of political academics, and a para-fascist is appropriate in an article on fascism. Just be careful you're not cutting to meet your opinion of what the definitions are. For me, personally, having this section was helpful in giving concrete examples of groups that appear to be fascist, but aren't according to certain definitions. Mdw0 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess we differ -- you will accept stuff which is not fascist in an article about fascism, whilst I would keep the article to the groups which are pretty much accepted to be fascist. The falangists were in Fascism -- the Francoists were not - and a lot of the Franco stuff has been removed since then. Shakll we see how others feel? It does not seem that this is a matter of highest importance? Collect (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So when Franco did the Nazi salute while standing next to Hitler, he was just kidding, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Nazi salute" was essentially the same salute that kids in the USA used for the Pledge of Allegiance then as well <g>. That is one of the Josh Billings problems. [4] Collect (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Those kids look Japanese. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

100% American -- and the "Nazi salute." Mussolini had more of a right to it han Hitler did -- it was the ancient gladiatorial salue "Hail Caesar, We who are about to die salute you." The British Navy did not use it because it took too much room, I suppose. Interesting stuff. Collect (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hitler gave a lot of things a bad name. Look what he did for the swastika, for example, which was considered a good luck symbol. If he had made the rabbit's foot the national symbol, that would have ruined the rabbit's foot as a symbol of good luck. Although, in retrospect, having a rabbit's foot as a national symbol might not have struck the right note of terror. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

MP and the HG -- recall? Coupled with the Holy Hand Grenade -- some combination to strike fear into enemies! Collect (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you might bring that up. Had Hitler known about it, he might have used it. I'm picturing a rabbit with Hitler's hairdo and mustache. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans and such

I've characterized your ideology as "conservative" in this comment. [5] If I've got that wrong and/or if my premise is incorrect, feel free to correct it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Post on my Talk page if you have any other questions "

Hi , thanks very much for your kind offer (its at the bottom of the Fascism talk page). It concerns my very next post after that one. It's rather a delicate matter, I'm afraid. Please have a look at the bottom of the talk page of Medical Cannabis, firstly to assess the legal matter I mentioned at the very end of that page, especially after I inadvertently mentioned it in black and white. But more importantly I would be interested to hear an opinion from a Wikipedian of demonstrably high intellect (ie yourself, no flattery intended) about who was to blame for the trouble I found myself in there. Being totally unaccustomed in my normal (or abnormal) daily life to sudden, contemptuous accusations of fraud coming from complete strangers , I was extremely shocked and upset and taken off guard when precisely that occurred. I fear, however, that I may have flown off the handle somewhat and possibly overreacted : what interests me, if you have the time or inclination to consider it, is to what extent, in your opinion (which I am inclined to respect, as I said) this is the case. Please do bear in mind that my first reaction was to never darken this entire enterprise again, having never, to my recollection, been insulted like that before by anyone other than women with whom I was emotionally involved at the time. If this matter is too trifling to merit a response, I perfectly understand. But, it would be interesting to see your thoughts on the subject. Thanks and sorry for the length of this paragraph . Yours, Zombie president (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Er, please disregard the above- the guy I thought I'd upset turns out not to be. Thanks anyway Zombie president (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No sweat. You wandered into a hornet's nest there, and one person made an assumption that you were the same person who had been there recently (likely with similar views). This is a common sort of behavior -- both for people who are pushing one POV with "single purpose accounts" and for those who are upset who then see every new face as a potential SPA. I have, moreover, stated there that I believe you to be a new user and not an SPA. Does that help? Collect (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thanks but I think I've kind of gone off the whole idea of Wikipedia, to be honest. Thanks again.Zombie president (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Collect (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing policy draft

Hi, I drafted a restructuring of the Editing Policy (User:Rd232/EPmock), following a discussion you were involved in at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy. Pls comment there. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 17:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing of the article Fascism and editing on Wikipedia in general

I appreciate your openness and constructive criticism of the article Fascism. My only concern is that you are getting into too many unconstructive arguments with the user Four Deuces. Bear in mind that in this world there will always be someone who is diametrically opposed to your ideas and looks down on what you are doing. The problem is that if they aren't willing to listen to you, there is no point in convincing them I have got into such snarly confrontations with some users, such as one user named Imbris and a user named SlamDiego. The confrontations were pointless and futile. My advice to you is this: don't get lured into an aggressive argument with someone who is constantly putting down what you are doing, you will not be able to convince them of anything. As bad as it may seem to say, the best thing to do is ignore them if they have nothing constructive to say as their criticism. I was once tempted to disprove a very flawed point that was added in the talk page that argued that there was such a thing as "Red Fascism" under Stalin, this is a pejorative use, as fascists are anti-communist, but I resisted getting into the argument knowing that it would lead nowhere. I will be honest in saying that I disagree with some of your perceptions about left-wing fascism, I see fascism as a sort of bizarre fusion of reactionary nationalist and leftist nationalist forces that are socially right-wing (i.e. believe in social hierarchy and social competition rather than egalitarianism which is socially left-wing) while being economically centrist or are centre-left (i.e. protection of private property, the class system, and allowance of private enterprise while promoting social welfare and government intervention into the economy). However, unless I can concretely disprove the argument with facts to show that it has no basis, I have no ability to disprove it. I suggest that you be cautious with where you step, you can argue with an irrational person until you are blue in the face, it achieves nothing and is a waste of time. If you discuss with a rational person like myself, I will point out flaws in your points but I will not put you down at every turn. Wikipedia can be a very bad experience if you argue with every person you may disagree with you, but it can be a very good experience if you learn to be constructive, learn that you may be mistakened, and take pride in learning from your mistakes or flawed assumptions and in the process learn something. To be honest, probably all that we have written on Wikipedia will eventually be for nothing as it will be either slowly bitten away by critics or that Wikipedia will cease to exist in the future, but I value the learning process of it. I hope that you look at Wikipedia from this point-of-view from now on. Winning every argument may be a sign of cleverness but not wisdom, losing many arguments but being able to learn from the mistakes and not holding a grudge against those who rationally and logically disproved your points is wisdom. I have lost many arguments, but in the long-run I actually enjoy losing them because I learn from my mistakes, I hope you will do this too from this point on.--R-41 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice -- I tend to be too quick to find errors <g> rather than just let them slide. TFD moreover seems to be unwilling to read all the stuff out there ... again, thanks. Collect (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I'm a conservative, so I'll just conserve space and use previous topic. In what ways are you unsatisfied with the article Fascism? Soxwon (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Had you seen it at the outset, you would understand just how bad a catch-all it was at its worst. I'd like it to give a solid explanation of what "Fascism" is, and what it encompasses. It is a lot closer now than it has been in the past. There are, however, some who feel that it should include anything anyone ever called "fascist" - which made for a fairly horrid article <g>. At one point it hit about 146K in size -- we got it down to 124K, and it is now back up to 130K. I would suggest that material which ends up being "all the fascists disagree on this" may be interesting, but ultimately does not belong in the article. OTOH, I had a hard time showing that trying to give full histories of every dictator in the article was not going to help. BTW, I am not particularly a political conservative, I am, however, an "encyclopedia conservative" in how I view articles. I would allow almost anything in userspace, and then be fairly caution in mainspace on WP. Collect (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

e

Well, one of the reasons I suggested making an other category is that we can keep things reasonable by insisting on keeping only the most important so the section doesn't become gigantic. Soxwon (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you read the comments, you would discover an insatiable appetite for enlargement of the article <g>. Collect (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but WP:UNDUE states that each item is to get what it's worth. I think that the original (Italian) and some of the MAJOR movements should coverage, the rest maybe blurbs. Soxwon (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

SHORT blurbs, in fact. Expect resistance. Think of Borgs. <g> See comments where an editor expects detailed demographics of Mussolini's supporters. Collect (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using my talk page to argue with User:The Four Deuces

As said in the headline, please stop using my talk page to argue with User:The Four Deuces over points on fascism, I consider that to be very disrespectful.--R-41 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa -- I am used to folks discussing anything over here, and did not consider your position would differ. You might ask TFD not to discuss me on your page in such a case, I would hope. Collect (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[6]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your tendentious editing on Drudge Report

I want to ask you nicely to stop doing what you are doing on Drudge Report. I have tried to make that page as informative as possible. You may think I am a liberal and it offends your conservatism, to see me editing the page, and you have accused me of OWN issues, but if you look closely you'll see I actually welcome any reasonable additions to the page (including yours), even if it tends a little towards the hagiographic as regards Mr Drudge. But I've noticed some worrying things about you, and it must be deliberate because you know how wikipedia works. For example, in the last two days you have waited for me to arrive for my daily editing/vandalism removal session, then you pounce, trying to out-edit me and create numerous edit conflicts. It's clearly there in the logs for all to see. It's dirty pool, so stop it. I hope you have no admin ambitions, because I shall monitor your machinations and ambitions on wp and make sure everyone is apprised of your disruptive behaviour if this continues. ► RATEL ◄ 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually even like Drudge. I do, however, feel that it is those people who most need to be protected from those who pile on every controversy they can find, who misrepresent cites (a 20% increase in viewership is claimed to be a 20% decrese with a straight face?) and so forth. I am what is called a northeast liberal -- and I find claims that adding quotes opposing Drudge are "hagiographic" to be sufficiently off the wall as to comment me to suggest that you, in fact, not post on this page. By the way, I outranked admins and had the equivalent of well over a hundred working for me at one time, so I definitely have no ambitions to become one. By the way, try using a "watchlist" as it means I do not lurk in wait for your edits at all. I currently folow several hundred articles. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The 20% thing was a genuine error, ok? I'll admit that. I misread it. I'm not sure what your sentence containing the word hagiographic means above; it does not parse for me. I use a watchlist religiously and also monitor a long list of pages. And btw if some article appeared that said the DR was doing incredibly well and the traffic had increased 300%, I'd be the first person to insert it, I assure you. Notice that I welcomed your balancing quote by Ben Shapiro, because it improves the page. I won't comment on your claimed history of being Wikipedia Master of the Universe. ► RATEL ◄ 00:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As it was not on WP, the comment is unneeded. Collect (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You've violated the 3 revert rule. I suggest you revert back. Introman (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding the OR tag is not a revert -- it affects not a single one of your edits. Try again someday, but I would suggest that your acts on multiple articles approaching vandalism are of concern. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Fascism article. I'll be happy to report you. Introman (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As I am not endeavoring to violate any rules, and trust you are not either, let's not worry too much. have you dicided that editors are not losers yet? <g> Collect (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)