User talk:Collect

WP:BLP policy

The community appreciates your efforts to monitor for POV. At the same time, it is not POV to cite major, credible publications that say something positive about a living person. For example, if the New York Times states, "Gabrielle Giffords showed courage in recovering from her gunshot wound," then it is perfectly permissible to state in her encyclopedia entry that, "The New York Times hailed Gifford's courage in recovering from her injury." That statement, is, by itself, a fact. Let's not get too enthusiastic.

Well-meaning editors: Please do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you.

Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained.

I find it interesting that an editor who says he is "collegial" would ever have posted anything remotely like:

I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding ***. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless *** pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective).

And then, lets just go back to being fellow editors with an extreme dislike for an editor whose name begins with a C and ends in a T.

Sound "collegial to you?

Some of my essays:

WP:False consensus

WP:KNOW

WP:Advocacy articles

WP:PIECE

WP:Defend to the Death

WP:Midden

WP:Baby and Bathwater

WP:Wikifurniture

WP:Contentious

WP:Sex, Religion and Politics

WP:Editorially involved

WP:Mutual admiration society

User:Collect/Collect's Law

Happy Collect's Day!

User:Collect has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Collect's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Collect! Peace, Rlevse 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And sincere best regards and thanks to you! Collect (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Simon Walsh

Am not entirely happy with POTW's arguments on that. He appears to be using the (incredibly minor) notability of the subjects career/accomplishments to justify (and avoid BLP1E arguments) including the details of his (acquitted) court case. Either he is notable for the court case, in which case BLP1E should apply, or he is not notable for the court case, in which case accusations of a (low-profile) crime (which he was acquitted from) shouldnt be included. I am tempted to just remove the section entirely, but at that point the article is basically a stub on someone who hasnt really done anything of note. Your thoughts? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comments on improving the Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke Controversy article on the Fluke AfD

Hi, Collect; Just FYI, I've put my outline of what needs to be done on the Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article page; you commented on some aspect of the need for improvement on that page on the Fluke AfD, thought you might take a look; it is due to come off protection tomorrow (though it might be a good idea that it NOT yet, until issues are discussed)209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You are being discussed

At ANI. Also one of your comments at AN3 has been hatted as a "Personal attack." – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 12:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP at Tea Party Movement

Hello, Collect. I see you've deleted the material on the grounds that we should set aside WP:BRD in favor of WP:BLP (your statement was "Let's observe WP:BLP for contentious claims about living persons first - which is an absolute requirement by policy".) What are the specific Biography of a Living Person policy problems you see with that content? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The claim that a specific living person made a specific post on a blog is a "contentious claim" aboiut that person, hence requires strong reliable sourcing for the specific claim about that person. Not just "well the blog has a post which has that name on it" since the blog is not a reliable source as to who any poster thereon is. Etc. Anything less than a strong source should be removed. In the case at hand, more than one of the claims appeared on their face to fail that test. Collect (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There was 10,000 characters worth of text you removed with your deletion. Which specific living person/incident are you referring to involving an unreliable blog post? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, the section was replete with BLP problems - long passages are not immune to that finding. Including references to living persons making blog posts for which the blog is not actually a reliable source, and sources making claims about the motivations for such posts, claims based on anonymous sources ("A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying “Kill the bill, then the n-word.”" is a claim from an anonymous source - and one which has, to date, not seen any strong sourcing). Claims made about people where only anecdotal and anonymous sources exist are not strong enough to go against WP:BLP. Etc. Collect (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I re-read the text in question, and do not see any WP:BLP violations. If there is one, surely you can specifically point it out and indicate the portion of WP:BLP it violates. Please provide a specific example. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Read again - and note 1. allegations by anonymous sources and 2. claims that acts by individuals are attributable to a group and 3. that posts in blogs are claimed as a matter of opinion to be attributable to a group and 4. that where there is a strong claim about acts of a group that strong sources are required by Wikipedia policy. That you saw none of these is remarkable indeed - much like Alice seeing No one on the road - it rakes tremendous vision to see No one. Collect (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing how those things apply to the material you removed in the context of WP:BLP. As you're a frequent contributor on WP:BLPN, I'll make a post there and ask if someone else can shed light on how the items you've stated above specifically apply to the deleted material in the context of BLP. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Re 'left wing terrorism'

Regarding your recent addition of material to the article, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Attempted WP:BLP violation in our left-wing terrorism article AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted - also note that my edit was scrupoulous wrt BLP policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then defend it at WP:ANI. That is bullshit and you know it. Or have you found a source that supports the suspect being a leftist out to overthrow the capitalist system? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S: 'Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. Can I suggest you read our article on cognative dissonance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy - I made no improper edit, nor did I allege anything - the claims are reliably sourced, and my edits specifically did not mention a specific person by name. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Utter bullshit - but I note you aren't trying to defend your ridiculous position at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You deleted material on the the specific basis of WP:BLP. I cured the edit's failings in that department. That you are being grumpy is part of your charm - but please recall that I have defended you on numerous occasions. Cheers and have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's right. I deleted material on the basis of WP:BLP. More specifically, I deleted material that on the basis of no evidence whatsoever implied that an individual that hadn't been convicted of anything was a Marxist terrorist, out to overthrow the capitalist system. Or hadn't you noticed where this bit of ludicrous POV-pushing was going on? And if you claim to have "cured the edit's failings", why aren't you arguing that your edit should be restored? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, were you aware that Communist regimes were socially conservative and saw homosexuality as caused by the decadence of capitalism? TFD (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually do not care -- I had thought the regimes most opposed to gays were in Africa or in the Muslim world. Russia post-WW II was opposed to abortion and homosexuality on a strictly pragmatic basis - Stalin sought repopulation of Russia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So why would you think that anyone opposed to the the FRC would be trying to set up a Communist state? It seems that the Communists and the FRC are soul-mates on these issues. From which blog are getting this analysis? TFD (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The FRC is hardly a soul-mate with communists (or Communists) WRT abortion (if I may chime in).108.18.174.123 (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)'As I never said any such thing, I wonder what you think you actually are trying to prove? Sp please stay off this page if you are going to accuse me of saying things I did not say -- it makes it hard to keep fictitious charges off this page when you add things I did not say, TFD. Really. Collect (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Misha B

Maybe I went too far, my approach was if the unproven publicly made accusation had to be included, then it should be balanced with the truth and witness accounts. I may have gone too far, esp with the Misha B quotes. I am happy to see its removal. A co-editor is questioning its removal though....and I fear that more bullish others will wake up.

It is also here Controversy allegationsI have edited it down but should it remain or be edited further.

Regards the talk page bully accusations, mostly about her early teens, what should I do, though if I do it I will be accused of bias. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Two quick comments

1. Saw on ANI that you watch the JB article - you're made of stronger stuff than I, and I for one admire your fortitude.
2. Saw your comment to JM on the Arb Request page - you may wish to add a blank line between your comment to me and your comment to him, as the two run together as currently formatted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Dang the editing system <g> Collect (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's probably a conspiracy. ;-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You are a STAR!

I give out a lot of barnstars--this is the only one that is serialized.

		The Burkie Barnstar
		You are hereby awarded the Burkie (serial# 3) for your tireless and unwavering commitment to upholding Conservatism-related articles to the highest standard of excellence and quality. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 11:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Peter Jensen

Hi Collect. Significant and credible BLP concerns have been raised with respect to this article, which I'll not go into but I hope you'll take my word for it that they exist. In line with the general duty to write conservatively about living people, if you wish to provide sourcing for the article, particularly for information along the lines that you recently added, it would be useful to try to find sourcing that is authoritative and independent of the subject. This is not to criticise your recent edit, but to draw your attention to the fact that there are unusual circumstances. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We have reliable sources. Wikipedia uses Reliable Sources. The CBS, Toronto Star et all are Reliable Sources. The claim is not damaging to the person, and if OTRS removes the article - that is fine, I suppose. The person meets the notability guidelines by a mile. And note also that the laws of Canada do not apply here -- only the laws of the US and of Florida (assuming they did not move the WMF headquarters to CA) are of legal value. If the claim were "contentious" -- but the RS sources are within the past month. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. I should have known better. Cheers, Collect. Formerip (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For some reason "reely sekret" rationales do not impress me all that much. The curtain usually reveals not much. Collect (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Re User:Collect/Peter Jensen (trainer): I wasn't sure what you meant and, after checking, suppose that you may be confusing me with User:Wnt. Warden (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually not -- I find his interpretation of WP:BLP to be problematic at times, while you have contributed to many articles in need of improvement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming Children in a BLP

I know you are quite knowlegable about BLP's. I've run across an article, a BLP, that includes the names of the persons children...in the body and the infobox, I think this information is un-necessary and, in a real world sense, may be hazardous to the children. Predators use a childs first name to gain trust and remove the fear of "stranger danger'. "He knows my name. He must be safe." Ive asked at the help desk and they referred me to the privacy threads at WP:BLP but there is no mention of this issue. Any thoughts? ```Buster Seven Talk 20:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the naming of minor children as a matter of principle - though some seem to think that if a tabloid publishes a fact it is fair game. Jimbo holds the same position, as do several other editors at BLP/N. If I see the BLP at BLP/N I shall surely keep this position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your response is confusing in regards to Jimbo and other editors at BLP/N. Does (do) Jimbo (and the others) hold the same position as you? Or...do they hold the same position as the some who think its fair game if the childs name is in People magazine? You present two opposing possibilities and then claim that Jimbo agrees. Which one does he agree with? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think not -- Jimbo has made eminently clear his position about using tabloid claims in BLPs. And the claim "other places think nothing of violating the right to privacy for children" is not a strong reason for saying "therefore Wikipedia should say 'anything goes'". I thought I made it clear that minor children who are not otherwise notable in their own right generally should not be named in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind! Jimbo may have made it clear, but you did not make clear what Jimbo had made clear. Your ability to confuse a simple request is expected. I should have asked elsewhere. Your incapacity to recognize an olive branch is not surprising.```Buster Seven Talk 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh? I tried to respond as clearly as possible -- indincating that I and Jimbo and many others agree on not using the names of minor children who are not otherwise notable in a BLP. How much clearly might I have been? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Statement A: I oppose the naming of minor children as a matter of principle
• Statement B: though some seem to think that if a tabloid publishes a fact it is fair game. (A contrary position to Statement A)
• Statement C: (The very next sentance) Jimbo holds the same position, as do several other editors at BLP/N.

Since A is followed by B, and B is followed by C, the common, logical interpretation is that C refers to B rather than A. But...I know that interpretation cannot be the case since Jimbo would not hold that position. When you say "Jimbo holds the same position" its logical to assume that "...holds the same position" means the one just preceeding it...which is Statement B. Not Statement A. If you had said, "Jimbo holds the same position as I do" there would have been no confusion. Anyway, I knew the answer before I asked it. It really was an attempt at communicating normally. Not that I want to chat or have tea. I just hate the thought of having an enemy in WikiWorld. But...alas...my branch has withered and died. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I said that some disagree with me. Seems that should have been clear enough. I then stated that Jimbo and others agree with my position. I have no "enemies" that I know of - at least none that I call "enemy" nor do I keep a "list of enemies." The "though some seem to think ..." was a parenthetical observation and not a separate statement. Consider "Red and green are seoarate colours -- though some appear to be colourblind" -- would you not see the reason for the parenthetical observation? Would you see that as meaning that Jimbo and others are colourblind? I would hope not! Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A picture for you!

I am not going to say exactly who/what the following reminds me of ^{OK, it's Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive160#Matt Drudge (again)...} (hint: not you) but somehow it seems appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

First Rule of Holes: When You Are In One, Stop Digging.

PNAC

Let's review the edit: I had changed "an educational and political advocacy organization" description of PNAC into "a neo-conservative political advocacy organization". You then reverted because of "unsupported claim categorizing an organization". You've got to be kidding!

Let's review just from the Wiki PNAC: "co-founded ... by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War." So the co-founders are two of the more prominent self-described neo-conservatives and the stated policy positions are neo-conservative, but, somehow, the organization is not neo-conservative. Is this a joke? "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity" is precisely what neo-conservatism is! Every member of PNAC is routinely described as neo-conservative--including Perle, Gaffney, Wolfowitz, Schmitt, Rumsfeld and the founders Kagan and Kristol, who are the heart of the neo-conservative movement, which is an implementation of Straussian philosophy in foreign policy, characterized by several doctrines, two of which have been clearly identified in PNAC's own documents quoted above. PNAC is not dedicated to all neoconservative positions, but the entire goal of PNAC is a part of those positions.

Let's look from the other end, from Neoconservatism. "Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle. In the late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan ..." Then, quoting Michael Lind, "The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists." That's three people that are directly mentioned as top members of PNAC--Kristol, Wolfowitz and Perle. A bit further, PNAC is directly mentioned as a "related organization": "On February 19, 1998, an open letter to President Clinton appeared, signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with neoconservatism and, later, related groups such as the PNAC, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power."

Note that this is the background available just from reading Wiki. Looking at outside sources on foreign policy is even more direct on the relationship, although I don't want to spend the time searching for trivial information for a trivial fix. Your "correction" was based on the perception that the claim of association with neoconservatism is somehow disparaging. Neither the members nor I would look at it that way. Unless you're prepared to claim that an organization that was founded by top neoconservatives and had membership that was nearly entirely neoconservative is not a neoconservative organization, I suggest you undo your "correction". I will not engage in edit wars and will let you undo your own error. Alex.deWitte (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The rule is that claims must be directly supported by RS sources. In the case at hand, you did not so support your claim. Ot os clear that you are not doing so, but arguing that you "know" the "truth" - while you may be the world's greatest authority, that is not how Wikipedia works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why so many people hate Wikipedia as an inaccurate source on anything other than hard science. Your description is correct for factual information that is possibly in dispute. There is no dispute here--only ignorance. It has nothing to do with my expertise. OTOH, "educational" is lifted directly out of PNAC's own promotional literature. PNAC's "educational" component had been winning converts for neoconservatism. Why is "educational" preferred to "neoconservative"? Where is the citation? Do you expect every single word to be cited? And even when there are citations, independent sources are preferred over self-promotion pieces--that's also Wiki policy. Yet, you uncritically accept some words and not others. Please stop micromanaging and address substance. Alex.deWitte (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No -- it is the only way Wikipedia has of preventing really bad claims on a topic. Find reliable sources for the wording you want - the charter of an organization is reliable for what it views itself to be, for example. But insisting that you "know" what is the "truth" on a topic, even if you are the "world's greatest authority" generally will avail you not a bit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

TPM revert

I don't see the outrage over North8000's two reverts, that aside the reverts were done in response to his reverts and everyone at WP:EW/N will see that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your problem is the bright line rule. I take your post as a refusal to self-revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Charges

All I am reminded of is "I have a list" .... which is to say, absent any evidence you are willing to bring forth, you are willing to make charges about Wikipedia editors

I'm sorry, do you have me confused with someone else? I don't recall any such "charges". What I do recall saying is that we have no evidence that can be proven. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In which case you well ought to have said nothing at all. Evidence which is not presented, and may not even exist, has exactly zero weight in reasonable discourse. Collect (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't follow at all based on the discussion that took place. The question is whether the IRC logs are real or fake and whether the IRC channel exists or not. It seems almost impossible to have a discussion with you about anything. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When allegations are made about an IRC channel which may or may not exist (and I assure you that I know nothing whatseover about any such channel, and I am not part of any Wikiproject), and the logs may or may not exist, and, if they exist, may or may not be genuine, I consider the entire matter so intrinsically speculative that anyone raising it falls in my esteem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

All I know is that this IP claimed there was a channel. I asked for evidence and I was sent several IRC logs, which could very well have been faked. I've also asked for evidence that such a channel exists and I have received none. If those facts and attempts to get to the bottom of it disturb you, then that's your problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

IOW, you gave credence to rumours. For some odd reason, I try not to do so. Cheers.Collect (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The complete opposite is true. I gave no credence to such rumors, and I did not forward the "evidence" to arbcom because it lacked any and all authenticity. Asking for evidence isn't giving credence to a rumor. It's doing the opposite. If no evidence is presented, then the rumor is clearly false. For some reason, you and I see the world very differently. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My theory is that the rumour should not be promoted in any way whatsoever when no solid basis exists. Asking a person "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the classic example of such implicit rumour-mongering, and following that example is not, in my own personal opinion only, wise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation. It was claimed that X exists. I asked, does x exist? If so, show me the evidence. Because there is no evidence, I can conclude that X does not exist. There's no leading question here at all. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Again -- if I saw such a rumour, I would not go about posting on noticeboards "Is this rumour true?" - unless I felt it was very solidly based, I would scrupulously ignore its existence entirely and utterly. YMMV. Collect (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. This "SkepticAnonymous" person appears to enjoy causing chaos like this. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to ignore the rumour when it can be dealt with; that only propagates it. The issue was dealt with head on by asking for the "logs" from the editor and forwarding them to arbcom; we now know the logs are false. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

About the "sanitisation" of the Dan Roodt article

In this edit you claim that that the statement in the article implied that "Roodt loves Hitler". I'm sorry but are you sure you really understand the English language fluently? The statement says he met with a Swedish organisation which is on record as admiring Hitler - the junp from that staement to an implication that Roodt loves Hitler is patently absurd. BTW Can you understand Afrikaans sources? I'm a bit concerned that we might be going too far to pander to the "concerns" of someone claiming (without any proof so far) to be Dan Roodt. Roger (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And the only reason for including "guilt by association" claims is not to follow WP:BLP -- it is not our function to show how evil a person is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is a "guilt by association" claim - Roodt met with a Swedish neo-nazi group - he didn't become a member of the group or in any other way associate with it - he just met them. Nowhere in the paragraph you removed is there any implication that Roodt himself is a neo-nazi or "loves Hitler". To make a "guilt by association" claim from the paragraph as it was written requires a very large assumption - and/or poor understanding of statement in fairly simple English. The people he met are neo-nazis - they proclaim it on their own website - it's not a "claim"/"implication"/"accusation" or even remotely disputable. I'm sorry but I'm of the opinion you are going too far in whitewashing (excuse the pun) the article. Roger (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is no reason to impute anything about Hitler to the living person, then that info is not relevant here - put it in the article on that organization, not on a person who simply meets with someone from that organization. That is what is called for by WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, why can't we call people who claim to be nazis neo-nazis? Is it because they believe that they are the real malarkey mccoy and "neo" is abusive? TFD (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

People who self-desxribe as such can be called such. In the case at hand, the use of descriptors for the people he met was being used to indirectly ascribe a term to him which is not applied by reliable sources to him. It is exactly the same sort of problem as was found in McCarthyyism - where if a person met with Communists, that meant they were Communists. Of all people, I would have expected you to understand this sort of indirect connection is improper on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

To draw a parallel with that example, it appears that the analogy is you don't want to describe the Communists as Communists. If someone has met a neo-nazi group, it doesn't make him a neo-nazi, but it also doesn't stop the neo-nazi group being a neo-nazi group. It's NPOV to describe a neo-nazi group as a neo-nazi group. The neo-nazi group is also described as neo-nazi on it's article page. There is no BLP violation. Your change also removed the name of the groups, so people can't even read about the neo-nazi group on the respective article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Icorrect. I suggest that where a person or group self-decribes as something, then we can use their self-description for matters of ideology, ehtnicity and religion. What I do not support is using Wikipedia's voice to describe people or groups as being anywhere on a problematic "political spectrum" as there is no accurate definition thereof covering all places and all times, and further that using opinion sources should always then be restricted to citing opinions as opinions, and not as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. In the case at hand, a neo-nazi group so self-described can certainly be described on it's own page as "neo-nazi" but that does not mean "John Gnarph met with a neio-nazi group that admites Hitler" belongs in the article on "John Gnarph". In the case at hand, the intent was to use "guilt by association" un a political article - the sort of thing McCarthy was noted for, and for which I find no excuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a false dilemma here, a reasonable balance would be: John Gnarph met with neo-nazi group X. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my edits? Did you see the one where I removed the "Hitler" stuff? Did you note that I specifically made the edit [1]? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. The other unspoken option was to simply remove the mention about hitler and that is all. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Collect/Peter Jensen (trainer)

I've rewritten User:Collect/Peter Jensen (trainer). Best, Cunard (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the article would pass AfD now because the sources provide nontrivial coverage of the subject. Per the closing admin's comment, {{db-repost}} wouldn't apply to the article because of the substantial revisions. Would you consider returning it to the mainspace now? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it meets the rules -- you might wish to cut down the duplication of "sports pyschologist" uses to keep the ones who were really upset at it <g>, and the anme should be Peter Jensen (Canadian Olympic sports trainer) to also keep them from saying "it's illegal" <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The seven references I provided should clearly demonstrate that reliable sources from Canada and other countries consider Jensen to be a "sports psychologist". As you noted on the talk page, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, not editors' interpretations of Canadian law. The main proponent of removing any mention of "sports psychologist", Hillabear10 (talk · contribs), has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so hopefully there will be no further trouble with this issue.

Thank you for moving the page to Peter Jensen (Canadian Olympic trainer). Best, Cunard (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Rilk Dacleu Idrac

Is the material that User:Svikalovitch re-added the same that you removed earlier? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Including the odd wording. Collect (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Joan Juliet Buck

I put back your deletion of the wowowow.com line. There were references earlier but they were taken out by malicious editors, and to not even CHECK the website that's listed? That's lazy and counts as a BLP violation.--Aichikawa (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. "wowowow.com" is not a WP:RS for anything other than (at most) opinions cited as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude, it was. If you go into the history, I had stuff from the New York Times. Please have some faith before you just dig in. Wikipedia's record with women is NOT the best.[2]--Aichikawa (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I only see what is on the page when I edit - I do not look everything up in the NYT which is RS for such things as who started what. The problem is SPS sources is that sometimes what is claimed does not coincide with what third party sources say. Would you prefer that we accept such sources at face value? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal and editing of your comments on the NPOV board

Still has been removing and editing your comment on the NPOV board. Just thought you should know. I returned your comment twice, but have no interest in a 3RR for somthing so stupid. I reported to ANI as well. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Problematic removal

I found your removal of material problematic, not only because you cut so much but because you claimed consensus. Please don't do that unless there's a straw poll or RfC that unambiguously supports your claim. Otherwise, it comes across as rather unpersuasive. Anyhow, I wanted to say this directly to you, because it's a behavior issue, not a content one. I'll discuss the content further on the article talk page. Hope this helps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your strong POV pushing is quite evident. I consider such posts as Every last one of these articles is about conservatism, so they're all the sorts of articles that I focus on. It's not always about you, Belchfire; I had these watchlisted. Please put aside the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and More commonly, these articles are informally WP:OWNed by WikiProject Conservatism, whose semi-overt goal is to increase conservative bias, , will not abide by such restrictions. You may as well community ban me. If you single me out while allowing Lionelt, Collect and Belchfire to insert conservative POV, I will not watch etc. One real problem you have is that I am not a member of any Wikiproject, and I am not even "conservative." I suggest you read my last 25,000 edits or so as an exercise ... especially noting all my edits on "liberal articles" where I use the exact same criteria as on every other article. Your posts here, when them make such attacks on any editor, are not welcome, and I specifically request you make no posts of that type on this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Joan Buck

By wiping out repeatibly large sections with without discussion hoiw can you say it is wp:CONSENSUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.214.66 (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BLP for the reasons why material which violates that policy is actually required to be removed, and note that the other editors hold the same position. WP:CONSENSUS requires that you get the others to hold your view on edits, and that you clearly do not have. Collect (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

He knows

And doesn't care. ViriiK (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fatuous

I had to look that one up. Thanks for the vocab.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Christian_right". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Silly question

I noticed you used in one of your comments the term "google-farmed". Does this have a partciular meaning at Wikipedia-en? Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

People search for terms which they wish to find in any proximity at all -- Google gives a bunch of sites - and they choose ones which fit their needs - disregarding what the site actually says on the entire topic. Collect (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Collect. You have new messages at Amadscientist's talk page.
Message added ). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The only mediation I took part in fell apart over formatting and I just backed out. But the situation worked itself out through discussion (heated of course) on the talk page and time. Time heals all wounds.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you make of this?

Mass killings under capitalist regimes--it's a truly ludicrous article, with dead links to "The Maoist Rebel News" and message board postings for sources. It's essentially a giant collection of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR; its creator (AnieHall) implied in comments on the talk page of Mass killings under communist regimes that even she didn't really think it was a valid article but wanted to make a WP:POINT. The article's thesis, and AnieHall's openly stated belief, is that all nations are either communist or capitalist, and that all deaths from hunger or disease in all non-communist societies are "mass killings under capitalist regimes". The article links killings under colonialism and imperialism to capitalism, blames World War 2 on capitalism (even though the allied aggressors of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were both socialist states!), implies that India (a Cold War ally of the USSR) is an example of extreme laissez-faire, and even suggests that suicides of Foxconn workers in communist China are "mass killings under capitalist regimes". The lead effectively asserts that all "preventable deaths" everywhere are fair game! Given the methodology, one wonders why she stopped with an estimate of merely 1.6 billion mass killings under capitalism (you read that correctly)! In reality, "capitalism" is not a system of government; there are no capitalist "regimes"! There are only two sources that actually assert the existence of "mass killings" related to capitalism; one is a "Marxian theorist" whose biography is not linked to correctly (even though AnieHall created it). The other is the French Black Book of Capitalism. (It appears that the aforementioned "Marxian theorist" wrote a German book with the same name.) What I'm wondering is: Should the entire article be nominated for deletion, or should everything be removed and the whole thing stubbed except for the criticisms of the two Black Books? Thanks in advance for any input you might have, TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It is an absurd article. I doubt it would pass AfD as it is not using RS sources. Collect (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom Luna Article Edit

Collect, you edited the Tom Luna article and cited your reason for removing the gpo.gov citation as: "rm argumentation from a BLP, and removed primary source used to bolster the editorialising in the BLP, rm article about the Wikipedia article" and that is simply ridiculous. What I wrote was not "used to bolster the editorializing in the BLP" as it was clearly FACT from a government printing.

Yours Truly, Kleej13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

So you feel "It should be noted however ..." is strictly neutral wording? Or that "in Idaho a college degree is required to hold the office of State Superintendent" is NPOV and not OR in a WP:BLP (note that primary sources are rarely allowed at all in articles)? Etc? Sorry -- the language was not in keeping with the requirements of WP:BLP at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Iron Cross, Wilcken

I stated the wars during which an Iron Cross could be earned. If you did not take part in any of these wars, you did not get one. --Kar98 (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently stray Iron Crosses were awarded after 1813 and before 1870 -- so we have to use what the source says - otherwise we are using WP:OR "original research." I did determine that the source did not use "Kaiser" which I corrected. Collect (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Apparently"? JFC. Also "deciding to leave the army while on a assigned mission" = desertion. Also, even LDS sources use "desertion" [3]--Kar98 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source using the term - that is what WP:V requires. Examples of non-war awards include that of Friedrich Jahn, who was awarded the Iron Cross in 1840, showing that Frederick William IV did, indeed, give the award out. [4] refers to the Iron Cross being awarded during the Prussia-Denmark war in 1848 (even though I found a source saying it was not authorized for the Schleswig-Holstein war at [5] all it takes is one exception to be a problem for a blanket claim). [6] refers to an undated "rare" medal for the war being an "iron cross." In which case the claim that it was only revived in the Franco-Prussian War may be the iffy one. Collect (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine,

...but it was your manner of writing which caught my eye. I've found over the years that if someone - myself, for example - thinks that everyone else is at fault, then they should cast their net a bit wider still. --Pete (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read that user's "interesting" user talk page, by the way, and examine some of his posts across Wikipedia and on Jimbo's page. I am like Job, but occasionally an editor manages to sorely try my patience. I am willing to disagree with others, and have them disagree with me, but I have never made an "enemies list" ever. Collect (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to bother you again, but....

I was just wondering if you wanted to weigh in here, given your comments and your edits on the article under discussion. Thanks, TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I was already watching that "article." I can not believe anyone would seriously use the polemical "essays" as claims for "fact" on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:Paul Ryan

I missed it the other day, but I know you know that this comment wasn't appropriate. The old adage 'comment on the edit, not the editor.' If you feel there is personal bias, the appropriate venue is WP:RFC/U or disputing the edit itself as POV and a BLP violation. I realize this gets tiring, but you have to remain consistent in that effort and not act inappropriately yourself. And I have to remain consistent about calling folks out on this sort of behavior. Please don't let me see it happen again in this topic area (or anywhere).--v/r - TP 17:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note moreover that other editor's postings on this user talk page after being politely asked to desist. I was irascible I fully admit, but I rather think you might well look deeper into that perspn's edit history as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

page numbers

I am also a big fan of page numbers. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Frank L. VanderSloot". Thank you! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

Could you please comment on this on the MKuCR talk page.
Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking for comment

Given the recent series of charges and arrests, it's about time to revisit the Health Services Union affair, but before I dive in there, I'd be interested in your thoughts on balance at Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). If that's okay, then there should be no problems. --Pete (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow -- too many pointed adverbs, too much irrelevant "stuff" in it, too many minor lawsuits (when a suit is commenced a long time ago and there is no evidence at all that it was resolved against a person, it is likely that t was dismissed). In short - it is too long by half at least. I suggest you try pruning it down to a reasonable level for a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Global warming

I'm not sure why you have decided to mention you haven't commented on the AfD. You do have an extensive history of appearing at global warming related meta discussions and you appear to try and make it appear that you have no particular POV on the issue. Here you are commenting on the article in userspace: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lucy_Skywalker/Marcel_Leroux. Technically you didn't comment on the AfD, but you are involved in the discussions, and your comments as though you haven't are misleading. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh? Tell me exactly how many "global warming discussions" I have participated in. Then note I have over 25,000 edits. Virtually none of which are related to "global warming." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Collect, I want to thank you for your contributions, both on the MfD page for my sandbox Leroux bio page deletion, and for your articles listed above, each of which makes me sigh with warm recognition.

While at Wikipedia in 2007 I came to the sad conclusion that all "fringe" topics at Wikipedia were invariably the losers, invariably badly misrepresented and badly hounded, and in general it seemed due at least in part to the otherwise absolutely essential WP:NOR and WP:N. I still think the WP vision and ideals are great. But I've long believed that at least for now, it is impossible to expect Climate Science to get a fair hearing here. I note that even the four "noted" scientists with WP bios whom I linked to,Paul Reiter, Nils-Axel Mörner, Zbigniew Jaworowski, and Nobel prizewinner Kary Mullis in my defence of keeping the original article, have all had what looks unmistakeably to me like tarring, to link them with supposedly junk beliefs which undermine the credibility of their heretical views on "global warming". With that in mind I actually set up another wiki for "climate skeptics" on a MediaWiki platform, about a year ago, with intermittent work on it since then. When I heard the Leroux bio was about to be deleted, I came over here to copy it to my "sandbox" here, as I'd been advised elsewhere to do, as seemed reasonable. But that was not allowed to stay there in safety either.

It seems that I should in all good conscience be able to copy the bio of Leroux at least to my wiki, if it is not wanted here, and without the fuss over some kind of violations that I don't understand, that he seems to be injecting. I'd be grateful for any advice you can give.

cheers Lucy Skywalker (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thsnks. My position is that the topic he is involved in is not what is important, nor is whether a person is "fringe" important - what counts is whether a user of Wikipedia might wish to find information about the person. The "notability guidelines" are intended to make sure that we cover topics which readers might reasonably wish to read about - but it has gotten for some to be "a good reason to remove stuff we do not like" in any case. Wikipedia has tons of articles which are read less than ten times a day worldwide ... and I actually think the "number of views" is a better indicator of "notability" than whether the person is "important" by virtue of being "important" g>. End soapbox. And the actual copyright requirement is that your initial edit give the Wikipedia URL for the last version of the article on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all you say. Thanks for noting the actual copyright requirement. Does this satisfy? (it should AFAICT). Lucy Skywalker (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It well ought. And remove the "redlinks" <g>. Collect (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. By "redlinks" do you mean the references to WP templates that don't work on my wiki? because if so - I want to install equivalent templates and those redlinks work as reminders to myself... Now since you are helping me here despite it not being strictly WP, is there anything I can do in return for you/WP? Lucy Skywalker (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just saying nice stuff about me is more than enough <g>. Collect (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Misha B

For your interest yet another editor with probable support from others is planning to restore the Bully allogations to this page, see Misha AMBER Bryan, would value your comment if possible....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

umm.. we are discussing what you really really really meant by undue weight :) maybe you can correct my or the other editors interpretation of your words:) ...sorry if its me getting it wrong :) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The debate is going on and I would value both a guide to what you said (re: Archive2 UNDUE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misha_B/Archive_2 if my link attempt fails .... UNDUE nope i dont know how to link to the archive) and your independent comment, if only to say I am wrong :)

Currently the are two favoured versions of a revised controversy section on the Misha B page which was removed after your original comment. Addressing the controversy

1. Bryan became subject of a controversy during a live show in week three when judge Tulisa accused the singer of making "mean comments" and judge Walsh a "bully" backstage. Both later apologised. However, judge Gary Barlow later said he believed the wrongful allegations had ended Bryan's chances of winning the contest.
2. Bryan became subject of a controversy during a live show in week three when judge Tulisa accused the singer of making "mean comments" and judge Walsh a "bully" backstage. Both later apologised. The other two panel members and several contestants leapt to Bryan’s defence. Judge Gary Barlow later said he believed the wrongful allegations had ended Bryan's chances of winning the contest, "You have been wrongfully accused in the past of being someone that you are not." However good Bryan's performances were that followed the damage was done, she never recovered from the accusation. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally dont think it should be included at all. I am afraid the article is currently locked due to another editorial dispute which sadly I got involved in...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Atlas

I have posted a brief reply to your weighing in, and would like to point out to you that the Fox article people keep pointing to to justify the user rating's inclusion does not even mention the user approval rating.

I wouldn't be half as frustrated as I am by this whole thing if the people pushing the user rating weren't misrepresenting their sources. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not care about anything other than the use of WP:RS - and if RT is properly cited, one must not be upset. Collect (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing - it isn't. JH has been trying to push WP:IAR regarding this, but I'm not buying his "consensus." --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I demur. Collect (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Collect's Law

Wikipedia:Collect's Law, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Collect's Law and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Collect's Law during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nobody Ent 17:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

COMPLAINT - Removal of References on Frank L. VanderSloot page

Dear COLLECT -

After looking around I discovered a message you wrote that attempted to explain why you removed all references to me in the Frank L. VanderSloot page.

I am published and/or referenced in a number of legitimate National and independent medial outlets such as well respected journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Rachel Maddow. I am also recognized for my work on LGBT issues.

The Idaho Statesman Op-Ed would not have been printed had it contained factual errors. It is relevant to the larger story. As for being self-published, many independent journalists, like me, have their own blogs and do write well sourced credible stories, with or without editorializing.

Here is some of my work that has been published or referenced in national media and independent media.

FAIR.org in their Magazine Extra! - Idahomophobia -In a conservative media market, anti-LGBT bias thrives http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4341

BoingBoing.net - Don't let Mitt Romney's anti-gay billionaire backer whitewash his intimidation of critics http://boingboing.net/2012/03/21/how-mitt-romneys-anti-gay-bi.html

Southern Poverty Law Center Magazine The Intelligence Report The Story Behind the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/winter/the-story-behind-afas-bryan-fischer

BoiseWeekly.com - Regular Contributor http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/ArticleArchives?author=1654400

Boise Weekly - Exporting Homophobia: American far-right conservative churches establish influence on anti-gay policy in Africa Won 2nd place at Idaho Press Club awards 2010 for Watchdog / Investigative Report for this work that too 6 months http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/exporting-homophobia-american-far-right-conservative-churches-establish-influence-on-anti-gay-policy-in-africa/Content?oid=1767227

Furthermore I have been cited as a credible source on a number of LGBT related topics including:

1. Last May by bestselling author and investigative Journalist Jane Mayer in her New Yorker expose on Bryan Fischer 2. My work on Exporting Homophobia was referenced in Frank Schafer’s book Sex Mom & God (pages 255 & 256) 3. My SELF PUBLISHED "Nampa ID Recreation Center Denies Same-Sex Families" http://may-chang.com/?p=146 was cited in the The prestigious Williams Institute, a national think tank at UCLA Law that produces high quality research with real-world relevance, September 2009 Memorandum: “Idaho Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Documentation of Discrimination.”

I am insulted that because I am ALSO self-publishing means that I somehow do not maintain source and references credibility or that my opinion is not a legitimate part of the story. To removed other references of me published by Glenn Greenwald and produced by MSNB's The Rachel Maddow Shoe appears disingenuous and suspect.

I Think you get the point!

I get that past edits related two another pages were not adhering to policy. I was corrected and have complied ever since. Changing the spelling of my name should not disqualify credible reporting.

I would like to remind you, that the items you removed were correctly added by someone else - NOT ME! I there respectfully request that you please return all references to me that you removed, and correct the spelling of my name, which was what started this in the first place.

Thank You, Jody May-Chang Independent Journalist May-Chang Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jody May-Chang (talk • contribs) 18:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers print "reader's opinions" all the time without "fact-checking" them. And I am not the first person to direct you to WP:COI. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Her edit was merely a correction of the spelling of her name. The editor is not in any way violating WP:COI and there is nothing in WP:COI that should preclude her from editing the article in the future. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That editor cited her own story in an article. Does not that even concern you a teensy bit? And I would note that if she has written about a person in any publication, that she does, indeed, have a COI with regard to the BLP. Collect (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That depends. Was it an article that was published in a reliable source? Was the content appropriate? If so, then I don't see any COI issue of concern. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Clue: Wikipedia does not even allow "letters" to the New York Times as a "source". Clear? Collect (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not at all clear. In the case of the VanderSloot article, the citation to May-Chang's op-ed is allowable as per WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSOPINION. The citations have been in the article for quite some time, and it wasn't May-Chang that first cited them. There was no justification for the recent deletion. Anyhow, no need to continue this on your user page, as your concerns have already been addressed on the article's Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not an "op ed" - it is labelled clearly as "reader's opinion." Clear now? Collect (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider voluntarily userfying Collect's law

You can still keep shortcuts pointing to it in the main WP space (unless someone RfDs them). I generally support editor's ability to write nearly any essay they like, but one like this where most any edit might corrupt what you originally intended it to be might be better in your user space. Gigs (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Their sole intent is to corrupt it - I was intending to move it to userspace, rename, then back in mainspace but some of these jokers would still act like graffitti artists <g>. Odds are they will find another essay to attack next - and I think that some savvy admin should clamp down on such games, Deo volente. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So userify it so we can move on. Once it's in your userspace they'll be less justified in messing with it. Gigs (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, it is improper to do so under the MfD procedure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your objection to one of the two MkuCr consensus edits

I believe you read it too quickly. Can you double check your position and respond there? AmateurEditor (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks which are not duplicated do not need removal in a section. I do not approve of excessive wikilinks, but that was not the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Manual of Style for linking states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." The proposal refers to the Soviet link already being used earlier in the article, rather than earlier in the section. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The case at hand is a section in which it is the only such link - as the article does link to subarticles, it is not necessary to remove each link in each section. The MoS cavil mainly applies to some who wikilink every occurrence of a word or phrase in a simple article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"Cavil"? Look, if you feel so strongly about this, I'll drop it. I thought your objection was just based on a couple of mistakes and would change if you realized it. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My position is stated on the article talk page. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee election proposed questions

• Proposed questions for all candidates

1. The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not considered binding to any extent in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is this avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position?
2. The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
3. Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
4. "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Ought the committee be concerned about any evidence of factionalism, or is the principle of WP:CONSENSUS sufficient for any article dispute, whether a "faction" is present or not? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, is the proper course of action elimination of such a faction, or ought the decision be aimed at reducing the size of such a faction on any given article or articles?

Variants of these are indeed going to be asked of all the candidates Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Questions/General, and I shall present a precis of each candidate's answers thereto. If you are interested in these issues, you may find it easier to compare candidates on this one page rather than look at each candidate's spearate page. Nominations for the committee begin on 11 November.

Actual questions posed:

3e: Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?

3a (ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia? 3a (iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?

5b "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?

My comments are now at User:Collect/ACE2012 including my opinions on what the real qualifications for an arbitrator are, as well as my opinions as to some of the answers given by the candidates. Collect (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Re Chickenhawk

I understand, and indeed in retrospect agree, that my edit politicized the definition, and understand why it would be natural to re-edit or even cut entirely.

But please do not ascribe ill intent unless it's unequivocal. That way lies flamage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.155.15 (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Barkley

Upon what basis did you classify the following as "pure speculation":

"The establishment of such an organization, and not necessarily a desire to become governor of Kentucky, likely motivated him to announce his candidacy for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination on November 11, 1922. Critics recognized his intent, and he did little to deny their charges."

Libbey goes into some detail about his reason for concluding this, including charges to that effect from Barkley's political enemies and Barkley's repeated refusal to deny them. Do you have another authority that offers a competing view? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

And again we are on the verge of plagiarising Libbey when we include such speculation which is not needed in a biography. "Likely" is not "fact" and we would need more than a single source to avoid the issue of copying a source too closely. Collect (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have credited Libbey in-line (e.g. "According to Barkley biographer James K. Libbey, the establishment of such an organization...") I don't really see how it is plagiarism to state in two sentences what Libbey took two or three pages to discuss. May we not mention the concept at all without it being considered plagiarism simply because Libbey is the only one who has ever published a work that included this assertion? And I still don't know why you characterized it as "pure speculation". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

We have on the order of over twenty sentences from that source - which is problematic to say the least. Frankly, a much shorter biography would be of much greater value to readers. Collect (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The recently-closed RFC on Barkley's talk page seems to indicate otherwise regarding the length. Most editors didn't feel it was a problem. And the fact that there are more citations attributed to a 100+ page biography than to any one of the 10-20 page scholarly articles used to compose the article should hardly be surprising. If no other source treats the subjects addressed by the biography and the subject matter is worth addressing in the article, the only alternative would be to leave it uncited. The mere fact that it is cited often doesn't constitute de facto plagiarism by any definition I've ever seen. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite our disagreement on this issue, I found your copyediting on the Barkley article quite helpful. Would you be willing to continue working through it with me before a reviewer evaluates it for GA (it's presently nominated)? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I was away for two days >g> but shall be more than happy to continue the coyeditting. Collect (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Great. Just wanted you to know that I value your help. I'm well aware of my tendency toward verbosity, so this little back-and-forth between us where you delete a lot of what one of my college instructors called "low information" words and phrases and I add back anything that I feel is really, really important has been a good learning experience for me and is the kind of collaboration I often hear about and seldom actually see on Wikipedia. You went beyond just saying it was too long at the RFC and are actually helping me reduce the size of the article in a way that preserves the critical information. Observing your edits even put me in a mindset to go back to a couple of articles I was working on and "trim the fat" off of them as well. Sorry if my note sounded like impatience. I just wanted to make sure that my restoring of some information didn't come across as devaluing your overall contribution to the quality of the article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Collect/ACE2012

In a way I'm quite lucky I came across your guide...somehow that question about BLPs had slipped past without my noticing. I have now answered it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

BLP

This isn't covered in the Arbcom questions, but a note about my thoughts concerning information about people:

In the past I have suggested that articles on people should be transwikied to a separate wiki. Who's whos, and facebooks, and the like of the past, existed separate from encyclopedias, and yet were considered reference works. I think that we have a real problem in that we are progressively creating more and more exceptions for BLPs, when I think it would be better if they were split to their own wiki, so that such policies could be dealt with much more clearly, without the overhead of also dealing with the general policies/guidelines which cover the rest of the topics of the encyclopedia. (It would be easy enough to create an interwiki link, let's say bio:, and life goes on.)

Editors should be much more clearly informed concerning the difference between it being just fine to place unsourced info in an encyclopedia page (per "the wiki-way") and why placing unsourced info in a BLP could potentially be problematic. And I think that this just isn't dealt with clearly enough. Even with the WP:BLP page. - jc37 20:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

One real problem is that such a huge number of articles mention living people - moving them all to a separate wiki would be an extraordinary undertaking. Collect (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, not really.

Bots can use categories as a source of a list for action. And all the articles on people are categorised under Category:People.

It would be a little work to make sure that some miscategorised pages aren't moved, and of course to find articles of people which are miscategorised. But in general, the bulk would presumably be fairly simple. Just a time sink for bots : ) - jc37 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

AN3 discussion which mentions you

Hello Collect. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:GeorgeLouis (Result: ). You may add your own comment there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Robert Bringhurst!

Hi Collect, I really appreciate your constructive edits to Robert Bringhurst. They're the first to improve the article in a long while. I realized the bit about Enrico might violate WP:SELFPUB, but decided for inclusion after researching the subject. Most negative sources echo Enrico's arguments, so he might be important to mention. The Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas Newsletter published excerpts from the blog, would it be acceptable to cite that? Thanks again. --Rawlangs (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I rather think the article currently expounds in a very balanced manner the praise and criticism of the work - do you feel the material would add to the understanding of the reader, which is, after all, the aim of the article? Collect (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It would help trace the genesis of the arguments, so it might assist readers that way. Enrico has also published extensively on Haida myths, and Bringhurst responded to the criticisms in the same newsletter, but it seems like overkill to expand the Haida section further. Bringhurst is more than this particular academic tiff. --Rawlangs (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

again - I think the current version was well-balanced - Wikiedia BLPs are not the place to really delve into academic disputes, to be sure. Collect (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, it'll stay out. Thanks again for your work, your oversight, and a very capable copy-edit. Breath of fresh air. --Rawlangs (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

Greetings Collect. I noticed some comments you made regarding the poorly defined civility standards. I noticed an RfC you may be interested in, and in case you hadn't seen it, I wanted to post a link for you. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Cheers, My76Strat (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I like your essay very much Collect. I appreciate that you are willing to take such an admirable stand, even though the majority will likely scoff, showing their own uncouth tendencies. Best regards, My76Strat (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Merci. Collect (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your estimates excerpts at MkuCr

Did you want me to add the sources you provided to the workpage list? I didn't because the list is currently just estimates for overall totals, rather than individual states/events/leaders. Of course, we can add subcategories for those things on the workpage if you would like, since I know that most sources do have a narrower focus. But I'll leave doing that up to you, if you want to do it. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the more the merrier when it comes to stating and possibly weighing estimates. I think that Pau;'s estimate of under ten million toal for the USSR is clearly quite in the minority, to be sure. Collect (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you comment on Lyndon LaRouche

I'm considering expanding the sentence on Homosexuality/Homophobia within the LaRouche movement to a paragraph, and am receiving a lot of negative responses regarding a source that has previously been mentioned as primary, most of the concerns are related to BLP policy that I'm not sure are entirely valid, given that the source is LaRouche's own writing. I would appreciate your feedback.Thesassypenguin (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP vs Vandalism

BLP violations are not listed as a type of vandalism. I suggest you cite BLP in your edit summaries rather than VAND, this has the additional effect of offering protection against being thought guilty of EW, as BLP is immune to 3RR just as VAND reversions are, but VAND immunity from 3RR is generally only "clear" vandalism, such as the penis type. KillerChihuahua 13:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry -- the fact is that I "strongly suspect" the IP is our friend, and edits which are deliberately disruptive are a tad annoying. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If the IP is YF, then they is not only evading being identified, they are avoiding a block for 3RR. If you feel fairly confident, then take it to SPI. One puppy's opinion. And yes, I sympathize with the frustration, but it still doesn't really fall under VAND, it falls under BLP. KillerChihuahua 15:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI gnerally fails for "single edit IPs", alas. Collect (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Up to you, if you think it unlikely to yield results. If we get a spate of IP activity restoring the BLP, we may wish to protect the page. But for right now it seems handled. KillerChihuahua 12:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nudge

Islam is Abrahamic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Long live civility!

Thanks for your ACE2012 guide, Collect. You'll be pleased to know that I voted a straight Collect ticket. We'll keep our fingers crossed and hope against hope. Long live civility! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And I thank you in return. I trust you used a valid account for voting, however. Collect (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I logged in to vote. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Breda O'Brien

Hi there, I note you removed some of the edits I made to Breda O'Brien. I've no problem with most, but I think that reducing it to simply "even in the case of incest" simplifies her stance, which was not only against abortion, but in the case of the incestual rape of minors (not merely "incest") but that she supported the excommunication of the mother and doctors in that case. I hope you don't mind me inserting edits as such?

Paul Moloney (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The aim is to make a biography - not to initiate debates about a specific Brazilian case. Thus the edit is exactly in accord with the simple statement of fact as to her beliefs - which is what we all should want on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, my subsequent edit will be not about a particular case, but just to make the distinction between consensual incest and non-consensual (rape) incest. Paul Moloney (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul, if the Catholic Church, including Breda O'B, isn't concerned about such distinctions then maybe they don't belong in the article. The Church's "position" on abortion is very simple. (PS: I'm not Collect; I'm just butting in.) --108.45.72.196 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, could use your help with ALEC and Arizona

Hi, I think there is potentially an aspect of Corrections Corporation of America being present at ALEC meeting(s) where model immigration legislation was voted upon. And I would like to have sources in addition to a single NPR story. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There were some inaccuracies in the NPR story, though it was fairly well done. It had been preceded, however, by a much more in-depth piece by investigative reporter Beau Hodai in the In These Times magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 08:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U and other related (and unrelated) points

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on many things, so I noted with interest, that you and I made almost opposite points on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Malleus_Fatuorum page.

I have very limited experience with RfC's so this may turn out to be an education for me.

First, I'm not terribly surprised at your statement that RFC/U are broken. My sense is that while they are far form a panacea, they may have some limited value. If this is demonstrably false, then we need, as a community, to either fix the process, or abandon the process. I'm not yet convinced they are valueless, but that's more of a theoretical comment than an empirical one.

I agree NE Ent's point that RFC/Us in general are a lot of work to do well.. I don't believe in using a sledgehammer to go after a fly, but MF is no fly, and might well be the railroad spike calling for the sledgehammer.

I'm also perplexed by How many RFI/Us have you seen ever actually make it to ArbCom... but this may be my deficiency in protocol. I don't understand the concept of making it to ArbCom. I thought an RFC/U, in theory at least, stands on its own, and if done well, represents the community consensus on an issue. Somewhat naively, that could be the end of it, (but rarely will be). However, it could act as a useful summary of community sentiment should a case make it to ArbCom. Maybe you were referring to that, and apologies if I'm over-analyzing your wording, but your words hinted at a more direct link.

I thought DavidFuchs nicely summarized the challenge of dealing with civility issues in general. Summarizing the communities feelings on civility in the abstract is an exceedingly difficult task, and one that has been tried, but not yet achieved. However, again with the possibility of being a Pollyanna, I think the communities views on civility with respect to a single editor may be achievable, so I would welcome a well-run RfC, if only to give ArbCom some guidance on what the community wants.

As an aside, I have this niggling feeling that you are, or used to be active on the Well. Am I offbase?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the complete RFC/U archives -- almost all such pages are closed as "inactive." I.e. "nothing happened". Many are "inactive" by people using the simple expedient of ignoring them. Especially almost all since 2005. RFC/U is severely broken - and I suspect this is not news to ArbCom members. Are you referring to the old CompuServe "Well"? Not especially active there -- but quite active on a large number of specific CompuServe forums (AFAICT, I read somewhat over 5 million posts there, and examined over 10,000 images, and had well over 100 "sysops" under me at any given time.) Collect (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What about The Source?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

On RFC, maybe I didn't review the history because I didn't want to hear the sad news. On the Well, I don't believe it was ever associated with Compuserve. It still exists Well, was stand-alone, then part of Salon and now independent again. I contributed to a few venues, AOL, Fray, TableTalk and others, but never got into the CompuServe, or usenet forums. And my aggregate contribution aren't in the same ballpark as yours.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

OK -- I was on "The Source" to a very limited extent -- it was started by Jack Taub, then owned by Reader's Digest at one point, and finally by ... CompuServe. "The WELL" was affiliated with CompuServe for some years - I think you will find a few who remember that. Some of the Wikipedia folks I ran into on CompuServe (Ward Cunningham (wiki pioneer IIRC), for sure, and a bunch of others) are here as well. Used to interact with Ebert, Gerrold and some of the other CSI denizens. I also was involved with "WOW!" which was never given a fair shot AFAICT. (Sysops were told to reject any post with "sucks" in it, which was fun as my area was almost entirely teenagers!) My first "blog" was started in 1987 as part of a forum ... which makes me an "old timer" I suppose. I remember "Space War" on the old PDP-1 as well, and wrote a "star wars" game in TinyBasic using 2K of memory. Collect (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC/Us

I consider RfC/Us based on a specific rasonable content dispute to be wrong. [Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st] is a good example of one such - where the chosen victim actually followed policy and presented reasoning in a polite and proper manner on a controversial topic. If we use RfC/Us to remove disagreements on any topic when presented properly, we violate the core principle of Wikipedia that is is through disagreements that we achieve NPOV and not through having a small handful of agreeing editors with the same general viewpoint on an article forming auto-consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Collect! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The happiness of this season to you

	Winter solstice 2012–2013
	- GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI success rate

For one editor - excluding IP results - 5 "ducks" (not CUed), 4 declined outright, 31 "negative results" ("unrelated"), 7 socks, and one "sock" finding reversed by ArbCom based on information they were given. Checking "success percentage" v. "failure percentage" we have 7/38 (or 7/39 if we count CU as being fallible for a positive result). An 18% "success rate" for accusations from that one editor. He did find a bunch of nearly adjacent IPs which he accused of being "socks" which get blocked without any need for a CU in any case. Counting "declines" the rate is 7 out of 43 - 16%.

In seven years, I have been an "OP" making a charge that a specific registered user was a sock in 4 instances - 12 were ruled to be obvious ducks, 4 were CU matches, and zero were negative results or declined. Batting average - 1.000. Collect (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

DRN

There is a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard incident you may want to participate in concerning the Mail Online here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom request

Hello Collect, Happy New Year. I've mentioned you in an ArbCom case request submission. While you are not a party, your comments would be appreciated. LittleBen (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed appeal of topic ban

Mentioned here. LittleBen (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Content From Frank Vandersloot

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Gosh a TEMPLATE from a POV-pusher! Um -- the claim that Chang is a "journalist" requires an actual source per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Note to lurkers: RIR is at 5RR in under 24 hours there (and officially warned) -- and he complains about me being "disruptive"? LOL! Collect (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple sources already cited in the article that refer to Chang as a journalist.[7] They exist regardless of whether or not you refuse to acknowledge their existence, although I can't imagine why you cling to such a preposterous POV. Please stop stirring the pot with these tendentious edits. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless you come up with a genuine reliable source not directly from Chang making the claim, you remain at 5RR unless and until you self-revert. Fifth request. Collect (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you several times already, there are multiple independent secondary sources that refer to Chang as a journalist and they are cited in the article already. I can't imagine why you would steadfastly cling to such a contentious POV. I'm not at 5RR but if you want to file another frivolous complaint, go ahead. At that time, I'll petition for you to be blocked as a result of your disruptive conduct. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Excrement form you is not worth an iota of anyone's time. My "contentious POV" is that the damn WP:BLP is actually a POLICY here. And that 3RR is a "bright line" which you not only violated grossly, but seem unconcened after six requests to self-revert. Cheers -- now kindly stay away from this page in perpetuity. Collect (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect, you are sometimes quite sensible, and so I'm trying to figure out how you went astray today. My guess is that you hadn't in fact clicked on the link to Greenwald at the early stage when I first provided it and had simply become obsessed with the PDF hosted by Salon, imagining that that was the only source regarding Chang. If so, it might go some way towards restoration of a rational editing atmosphere if you could simply acknowledge it and apologise for causing today's extended diversion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of opinion pieces for contentious claims is always a problem at WP:BLP. In the case at hand, the person is not a "journalist" except by her own claim (check out and see if you can find any actual regular newspaper work etc. in her resume - there ain't any), and the "threat" is not made by VanderSloot in any event. Thus the fact is that that particular piece does not belong in any BLP, and the contentious claim about VanderSloot is not supported by it either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC) .

None of which addresses the substance of my suggestion. Oh well; "sometimes" it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mail Online 3O request

(edit conflict) Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for opting to use the dispute resolution process.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A personal favor

Paul Siebert has decided that it doesn't make sense for him to put any more time and effort into the workpage for Mass killings under Communist regimes given our poor track record of actually agreeing on significant edits to the article. Could you please look over the "Genocide" subsection at the workpage and add whatever you feel is necessary to make it acceptable to both you and Paul. This way, we can demonstrate that progress can be made under the current article sanctions. Thanks in advance. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I can try, but Paul seems to have idées fixes concerning the topic, as seen by his iterated protests that only a few million died, etc. Collect (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Christian Science

Just a note to say thanks for dealing with those edits. It's a shame to watch this happen just as it's up for GA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And thanks to you as well -- it was just getting stable when the new editor entered in with the "truth"/ Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note for Khazar [8] to say that I've stopped making any substantial edits for now to let the article stabilize for the review. I may make some writing tweaks, but if I want to work on anything major I'll develop it on a user subpage and wait for the review to end. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can not figure out why IRWolfie is so upset that "science" has a different meaning now than in the 1870s - did I give enough cites for it? I was amazed that he thought I would make any claims without pretty good sourcing <g>. Collect (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the point he's making with his focus on definitions of science. His main aim when he was editing the article was to make the point that CS was "pseudoscience" and "quackery" – based on poor sources, or sources who didn't actually say it, or sources who said it but only in passing – but those are words that don't add any meaning at the best of times. To apply them to religious belief is just odd. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ortiz

Hi. Please review this explanation of this edit. Please consider discussing on talk page rather than reverting. I understand the sensitivity of BLP. But I do not think this is so clear-cut a matter as to require summary reversion. There are enough WP:TRUTH-seekers haunting these articles. As long-established editors, let's try to show them how collaboration works. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel

Hi there, Collect. I saw you made some small adjustments to the Licensed products section of the Cracker Barrel article, and since then I've discussed a few additional changes with User:Jerem43 (Jeremy) who has agreed to two changes: the new deal is not for frozen foods but packaged meats, and a sentence about Kraft's use of the brand for cheese should be simplified. Jeremy has said OK to the changes and encouraged me to implement them, however because I've made the requests on Cracker Barrel's behalf, I'd like to avoid doing so. Would you be willing to consider doing so? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverting Marco Rubio edits

I've restored my edits to Marco Rubio that you reverted. All of the edits used the sources correctly, improved sources, or fixed erroneous information. If you would like to specifically challenge any of the current sentences, please state your case on the talk page. Thank you. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please READ WP:BLP. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Surrealism lives on at WP:AN/I. Collect (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes. It is ANI, after all. Also known as the drama pit of the universe. *shrug* KillerChihuahua 20:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

question

Hi Collect, you mentioned on the TPM talk page about it being okay to use an organization's website when it talks about itself/mission. What about using a BLP's website or even something like this in a bio? [9]. It's a 'viewpoint' piece where she mentions her background. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The only issue when using an SPS for information about onseself is whether the material can be viewed as "unduly self serving" - a person can not use their own website for calling themselfves "the world's greatest authority" on anything - but for normal stuff such as what they write about something or why they hold a position, it is generally acceptable. Collect (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'd like to use the Time piece because Time does fact-checking and in this instance she's talking about the tea party and mentions her background and how she got into it, so it doesn't seem self-serving but rather just giving information. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fred Hiatt BLP issues

Hi there,
You responded quickly and helpfully to my posting on the BLP noticeboard regarding the Fred Hiatt article. I'm reaching out to you again because the principle editor of the page has since rewritten a substantial portion of the article to incorporate some -- though not all -- of the text you wrote without maintaining the spirit or tone of the text, and reinserting much of the text s/he wrote that you edited out. Once again I think there are NPOV issues, especially as the partisan name-calling (one way or the other) makes up the bulk of the article, now, out of proportion with the informational content therein. On top of that, Wormcast's sense of ownership of the text is yet again preventing the article from growing organically towards a more encyclopedic, balanced article. I'm at a loss for how to proceed without turning this into a pissing contest, if you'll forgive the phrase. Any advice or help you could furnish would be gratefully accepted. I'll watch for your response here,
Thanks,
Joehjoeh (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Collect. You have new messages at Talk:KochPAC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

		Possible compromise resolution
		The Dispute Resolution Noticboard volunteer, Noleander has offered a compromise solution here. Please take a minute to add your response as to whether you agree or disagree with this solution. There are no "ground rule" limitations but please consider using brevity if commenting . Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prisoner X

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prisoner X. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion about the genocide article

Collect, I liked your suggestion the other day about what to rename the genocide article. But I have suggested a tweak for readability. Do you care to comment about this edit suggestion? I haven't initiated a new move request yet because I would like to get the wording right. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bush Derangement Syndrome for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yworo (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Watson

Did you mean to revert El Heuro instead of me? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep - I did not intend to revert you - but to go back to my prior edit, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Keith B. Alexander

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Keith B. Alexander. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Entertainment in the 16th century: AfD?

Hi, Collect! I actually have an account (I think we've crossed paths once or twice; nothing really memorable, positive or negative, as I recall), but I've decided to give IP editing a try for a while. As a side effect, I can't complete the AfD nomination process, since I can't create the AfD page itself as an IP editor. I've been looking at the Entertainment in the 16th century page, which looks like quite the mess; based on the title, it seems way too broad in scope (though naturally the article limits itself to Europe, itself a problem), it wanders off topic, the sources are questionable at best (one, as best I can tell, was created by third-graders!). I don't think there's anything worthwile in the content to be moved to a more appropriate title, and without that, I don't think there's any reason to keep it. If you have a moment, could you take a look, and if you agree, do the honors? Thanks! 68.48.34.96 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if you're wondering, I came to you based on the highly scientific method of choosing the first name that looked vaguely familiar on the RecentChanges list. 68.48.34.96 (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - but I rather think the topic is notable per se even if it either needs renaming or inclusion of material from outside Europe. Collect (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough; thanks! 68.48.34.96 (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

RSN

As a regular contributor to RSN, whose opinions I respect, but don't always agree with, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Colombo.2C_Rose.2C_Fight_Back_Legal_Abuse:_How_to_Protect_Yourself_From_Your_Own_Attorney. At this point, one uninvolved person has commented, but I prefer to have more than one uninvolved person comment under the circumstances, so as to get a clear consensus one way or the other. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification requested

I would expect this not to be discounted - clearly the person read the posts above, where Viriditas has been exceedingly active in charging everyone who !votes "oppose" with being CANVASSed - clearly his own CANVASS rather backfired here, and thus should not be ignored or discounted.

Could you please take a moment to explain these strange comments? I have not canvassed anyone or talked about this RfA anywhere. Please consider striking your comments as you appear to have misunderstood and misinterpreted comments made by another user, who admittedly made nonsensical comments that have no bearing on this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You charged me with being CANVASSED. I was not. You have not apologized for that attack. Cheers. Now leave. Collect (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, as there does appear to be a communication/language barrier. I have never "charged" you with being canvassed. I asked you if you were canvassed. Now, are you telling me because I asked you a very simple question, that gives you the right to make false statements? If that's what you are saying, then we have a problem. Since you cannot provide any diffs of me canvassing anyone for this RfA, it looks like you are deliberately lying. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It did not appear to me or to others to be a "very simple question" and the context was quite accusatory indeed. When one apologises, one well ought not make a meaningless one, as one risks being considered a laughingstock by others. Cheers. BTW, please note what I wrote, and not what you seem to think I wrote - it makes it very hard to discuss anything with a person who is able, like the Red Queen, to believe what ain't so. Collect (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, Veriditas. A charge of "deliberately lying" is a bit off the mark. Maybe there is simply a bit of confusion in this interchange; that could be the problem. If at all possible, we should try to assume good faith.GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect was given the opportunity to clear up this "confusion". He refused and persisted to claim I was canvassing. Since the fact of the matter was explained to Collect, and his reply consisted of "I'll do what I want", it can only be interpreted as a deliberate lie. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You have an interesting concept of "truth" considering your username. In fact, your conscept is far from "truth." Cheers. I told you to stay away - next time will bring a stronger reaction. An editor stated he posted at the RfA due to your post on his page. Granted that "reactive CANVASS" seems an advanced theoretical concept for you to grasp - but it certainly appears to exist. Collect (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I think you're confusing Viriditas with Veritas there... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Darn - and my mom was a Latin teacher making sure I had it 4 years in high school <g>. Six decades does make one fuzzy on "greenness", alas. Collect (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh. My mom was a business teacher, and tried to teach me to touch-type. It didn't take for me until years later, when I had to keep up with internet conversations... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's rap.

I want to clear things up, because we've both been here a long time and shouldn't be having this much trouble communicating with each other. Here is my side of the story:

• We went to DRN to determine the answer to the dispute of, "Are the territories part of the country." I mostly sat back while other people argued about how many sources they could gather, which had zero appeal to me as I thought the dispute didn't involve sourcing (we should be able to tell from a government what it claims is part of it, right? Rather than relying on Sparrow? Can third party books really annex an island to a country?)
• So, at some point, for some reason, the DRN decided to argue whether or not the country was a federal republic or something like that, apparently so it could remain faithful to the Sparrow source. I apologize if I'm reading this incorrectly, I'm basing this on comments since then.
• So, the consensus is apparently that the territories are not not part of the country, but it's unsure how much a part of it they are. So this federal republic stuff was waffle words to get around that.
• Unfortunately, in the process, the committee came up with a sentence that makes no sense. "The United States is a country governed by a republic" is simply not a thing that is said. It is not said anywhere on Wikipedia, at all. There is a reason for this. THAT is what I had the complaint about. Not the broad stroke, but rather this laser-pointed specific wording y'all had created. I continue to not understand what is wrong with "The United States is a federal republic," in part because people will say "Consensus!" rather than explaining it.
• So, it passed and I gave my objections. They were shot down, not on their merits, but because I have to respect the "consensus". While DRN is a tool to help resolve disputes, it cannot force a consensus. For someone who has been here as long as you have, surely you know also that a consensus is not gained from a simple vote. It is earned through time, discussion, and acceptance of a particular version by all parties who decide that it's more effort to change it than to let it lie. I was willing to accept consensus on the territories, but that doesn't mean I have to stare blankly while this horrible construction is forced through because it got one more vote than the other option.
• There's my story. What's yours? --Golbez (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The DR/N was not about the minutiae of the article - it was about the lead. We achieved what I thought was a compromise lead which met all of your points which you dwelt on at DR/N, and was accepted by a pretty clear majority. DR/N will never make any article perfect, nor should anyone expect perfection from DR/N - that is not why it exists. You seem to desire more from Wikipedia than it can give - we can not make articles be the "truth" based on what we personally "know" - we deal with what others say - especially what reliable sources state. And if they do not agree, we do not "choose the correct answer" - we provide all the positions to readers which are used by reasonable numbers of sources. My initial wording was not what the consensus arrived at - but since I felt consensus was more important than my suggested simple wording, I lived with it. Which is what you also ought well to do. And note that I entered via the DR/N and was not a disputant at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My dispute was not over how the article was worded; it was over what we should be aiming to say with those words. If, with the help of others, we determined that it DID include the territories, then we could work appropriately on the article. In fact, that's usually how it goes, isn't it? You start with a concept and then express it? You don't jump straight in to "here are 10 ways to express one side of the concept, and here's 1 way to express the other"? I didn't need DRN to tell me how to edit once the dispute was settled, thank you very much. We could have done that on our own.

Basically, it sounds like you're saying "Disputes are never about facts, disputes are only about which version of the text to use" which is absolutely wrong. They can very much be about facts, and they can also be about how to express them. When I am researching an article, I don't ask "Should this sentence read 'West Irian Jaya was renamed West Papua in 2007' or should it read 'West Irian Jaya was renamed West Papua in 2008'?", I ask "Was West Irian Jaya renamed West Papua in 2007 or 2008?" I get an answer and then work on possible wordings.

I note your summary was "I fear you misapprehend how Wikipedia works" but DRN is not Wikipedia, it is a small part of it, and you have your opinion over how it should work, and I have mine. Likewise, though, you seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works, because DRN does not have the power to magically turn a marginal vote into perfect consensus. No one does. --Golbez (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh? We do not use Wikipedia to tell anyone what we personally WP:KNOW to be the WP:TRUTH - we use the opinions of lots of reliable sources to give readers as much relevant information as we can on a topic, worded in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. I suggest you read the "WP:Five Pillars and note that this is a collaborative effort, not a place to make sure what you know is what is given to readers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that's one way to deliberately misinterpret what I said. Keep your alphabet soup to yourself. --Golbez (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your mature reply. I have been online for well over thrity years now, and have seen many types of behaviours. Collect (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why, after I explained everything, you continue to misinterpret me or misrepresent me. So, please, tell me to my face, what you think I'm after here, so I can respond properly. I want to work this out. --Golbez (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am now convinced your posts are proof that "no good deed goes unpunished." My goal was to reconcile as many views as I could in a simply worded and understandable lead. Clearly that task is insurmountable per your position. Cheers. You may now leave this venue. Collect (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I notice one of your recent edits included the word exeunt, which is defined as "exit from stage: used as a stage direction in a text in place of 'exit' when more than one actor is to leave the stage." Are you assuming more than one person is leaving the conversation? Actually, with this message another actor is joining it, but only in a good spirit and because I find the above interchange a bit invigorating compared with other dust-ups I have run across on WP. (Grin.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Mom taught Latin - if I expect he and I both to leave the stage, the plural is correct. <g> Collect (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

AFD - Legal abuse

Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lisa Lavie

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lisa Lavie. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OSC Woops

Sorry about clobbering your changes on the Orson Scott Card article. I'm not sure if I just didn't notice the "editing an old version" warning or if the wiki simply failed to notify me that there was an edit conflict, but one way or another, I thought I was editing the most recent version only to discover in my Watchlist that there had been an intervening change. I reinstated most of your edits with the exception of the "however" in the lead, which, after my partial reversion, I thought was necessary to highlight OSC's apparent change in position from the one in the preceding sentence. – RobinHood70 ^talk 16:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

NP - found "however" and think it not necessary when the reader can see any change in posiiton - it is rather like putting an arrow directly over a door saying "door" <g>. Also deled an "argue" in there <g>. Collect (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charlize Theron

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlize Theron. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

George Maharis

I would like to thank you for removing undue weight. Well, I didn't realize that "arrest" thing should have been easy to write about, as long as too much is omitted. I can't find a barnstar for you, so... there. --George Ho (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Trudeau boxing

Please see Trudeau's talk page for further discussion since I am not interested in an edit war. Also the undue weight does not seem to imply here. Krazytea(talk) 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Congressman John Fleming and "The Onion Incident"

We seem to have this situation resolved for a month or so and another user arrives and posts on this trivial incident starting the cycle over again. Thank you for the help. Can you monitor this article for repeat offenders? Politics555 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On my watchlist - the silly season mentality that every trivial incident for a politician gets magnified is an endemic problem. Collect (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Business Career/ Subway Muslim incident/Congressman John Fleming

Regarding this piece, if this incident is merely a one time unverified claim in only one of Fleming's 33 sandwich shops he has owned for many years, and Fleming was not there, and there is no evidence that the incident results from any business or political policy of Fleming, is it worthy of inclusion in a BLP? Joapedia (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It is a slendid example of "silly season political issues" at best. Collect (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that being the case (and considering the campaign season is over), and nothing ever developed of this situation, should it be removed? With your experience, you would know better than me. Thanks. Joapedia (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Use "not a tabloid" and "unsupported allegation of a crime not leading to anything" as the rationales. (WP:NOTATABLOID and WP:BLPCRIME) Collect (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Joapedia (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Need your help again. My removal of the content was reversed with the weakest of explanations. Joapedia (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Will look. Collect (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kurban Said

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kurban Said. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Mini-RfC

Thanks for your comments on the Lisa Lavie AfD. I'm asking various editors for constructive comments or explanations on my talk page: User talk:RCraig09#Questions. Thanks, from RCraig09 (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment on your user page

"Yep -- it is kind of hard to get less than zero percent from a fundraiser!" Actually, no. Remember, the fund raising company needs to be paid - even if it's also a non profit, it still pays wages to its employees. If the people dialing phones can't get donations to cover their time, a fundraiser could actually lose money. I'm guessing this was a contract that guaranteed that wouldn't happen. --GRuban (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been on a NPO board -- if a fundraiser can not guarantee even one cent, the odds are the fundraiser is working primarily for their own commercial interests. F'rinstance the "internet cafes" in Florida which gave under 2% of income to charity - or a "veteran's charity" which gave well under 1% ... I have a teeny lack of sympathy for those "charities" at all. Collect (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

account scammed

If anyone got a strange email from me - it was not from me - my contact list was hacked, and pernicious stuff sent to all on it. I have no idea whether I was deliberately targeted or not, but if I were, this may recur. Do not click on any links in a message purportedly from me which are from a strange domain of any sort at all, please! Collect (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You had better clarify if this was your email account or your wikipedia account or else a trigger happy admin might block you for being compromised.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

My Wikipedia account is not compromised in any way. The problem is at Yahoo mail and has been widely reported online for some time. Traced mainly to Russian hackers, with some suggestion of Korean hackers with similar attacks. No one should think that any emails coming from me through Wikipedia are in any way whatsoever afected, and most of the emails were blocked by Yahoo - after the first batch. Yahoo really needs to fix their own holes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, it's coming up labelled as coming from your bellsouth account. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That is because bellsouth does not have a mail server -- they use Yahoo <g>. And thus I have no choice about this stuff -- nothing to do with my security - it is all on Yahoo's end. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I was concerned that they might have retrieved a password or something. I had a similar issue with yahoo a few months back: just change your password, and change the settings to require logging in again every 24 hours. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears they have found back doors into Yahoo -- which is a major pain indeed! Youlda thunk that they would simply add a second tier challenge where certain countries are involved. Collect (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No rational violation -- last edit was clear compromise attempt - and made a total of 3 edits since 10 April, and a total of 6 edits in a period of over a year. About 10 edits in the entire history of that article. I suggest this is a carryover of the Shepard Smith BLP contro, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Collect, please read my comments at ANEW. I just want to make sure you are on notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Maharis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Maharis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirming a rumour

Yes - I have dental problems. It turns out to be common after extended radiation treatments for cancer. If someone thinks this is a good way to dis someone, then I suggest it reflects on them quite poorly. Collect (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

My ban appeal

Hi. You took part in the deciding of my ban, so I need to inform you of this appeal. It's your choice if you want to join in. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=551050869&oldid=551050508#Please_remove_my_ban. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this...

I apologized because it seemed LBW was angry at me for some reason. That was before he started making further accusations against me on the talk pages of other users. I took this as an indication that he was not willing to compromise. I knew before I apologized that I had been in the right and that LBW was guilty of TBAN violations: I apologized only on the off-chance that I had accidentally seemed confrontational and caused him some stress. His later actions proved me wrong. Further, there was nothing punitive about his block. It was preventative. Let's not speak of this any more, okay? Cheers, and happy editing! Konjakupoet (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The block was for CANVASS and then extended due to the colloquy. I think that it was indeed "punitive" here. Collect (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't prove it and I really don't want to, but he made about a half-dozen very dangerous personal-attacks personal attacks against me, and didn't show any sign of stopping (in fact he did it after getting blocked for canvassing). He was warned to stop. He didn't listen. What exactly is "punitive" about preventing him from continuing what he was doing? Konjakupoet (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No block said "outing" therefore your complaint is moot. What the block was for, was CANVASS per the block summary. Your apparent animus at this point ill-serves you entirely, by the way. Cheers. No response is required nor desired. Collect (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Indian poets

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Indian poets. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jesus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jesus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagreements....

Hi Collect!

Since we seem to disagree more often than we agree, please take a look at User:Stephan_Schulz#Collected_ramblings, in particular the third bullet. I usually strongly try not to shape my arguments to a desired conclusion, but rather to arrive at my conclusions based on the strength of evidence and argument (and I was quite happy when I was able to derive your square root of sampled class size estimate of the standard deviation from the definition of standard deviation and variance - I didn't remember that particular rule of thumb from my class on probability theory). But I will happily attack (what I see as) faulty reasoning, not matter if I like or dislike the claim made. I really have no particular opinion on, not interest in, the size of a tiny and mostly harmless religious group. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My "professional flaw" is a degree in science, with way too many math courses. You should be aware that I do not shape any of my positions on who holds them or not, and I keep no "enemies list" whatsoever. I chose the "square root example" as being something virtually anyone with any probability background has to encounter <g>. Cheers - and thanks. Collect (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Noted. Though I disagree it is an edit war at this point; he was bold, I reverted. He then broke process by reverting me, and I reverted again informing him of this. Should the edit war continue, that was the opening salvo, but if it doesn't then that was merely a corrective action. --Golbez (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And I think you ouht to look up the word "sovereign" - The US as a government is "sovereign" over the states in the usual and legal senses of the word. Collect (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Show me another article out of the ~195 country articles on Wikipedia that uses anything remotely resembling that kind of wording. I'll wait here. --Golbez (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, something from Google Books using anything vaguely resembling that wording. If you can't find one, think about why that might be. --Golbez (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Read case law on "sovereign immunity" for the United States government, for one example. Treaties calling the "United States" a "sovereign nation."

Recognition of its sovereignty over its present continental landarea of 2,977,128 square miles, or about 1,905 million acres (as recomputed for the 1940 Decennial Census), was acquired by the United States Government through a series of international agreements and treaties. The United States, however, did not gain title to all of these lands by such agreements. At the time of acquisition of sovereignty over the areas involved, title to about 463 million acres rested in individual States and their political subdivisions or in private owners, which title was not relinquished to the United States. title to the remaining 1,442 million acres passed to the United States Government during the period from 1781 to 1853. [10] for example showing the use of "soveignty" over the entire area of the nation.

Extensive discussions at [11] (primarily about the reasoning for double jeopardy and sovereignty - a state prosecuation does not render a later federal prosecution to be "double jeopardy" as the federal goverment is sovereign)

and a few dozen more examples on Questia - amazing you missed the vast number making such discussions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I ... didn't challenge it being a sovereign nation? I challenged your wording of it being "sovereign over fifty states". No one describes countries that way. Ever. I didn't dispute your SOVEREIGNTY CLAIM and anyone acting in good faith would comprehend that. I disputed the way you WROTE it, which has ALWAYS been the core of my dispute with you. Find me another country article that describes in the intro the country in question as "It is sovereign over x units". Any. --Golbez (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose was to get past the interminable quibbling over what the US actually consists of - if we accept that the sovereignty is not an issue, then using that term should get us past the perpetual impasse. Collect (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No one challenges the sovereignty. I challenge the way in which you state it. This is not the first time you've fallen in love with a wording with absolutely no basis in the history of the English language and fight to the death to defend it rather than, you know, writing something that isn't bad. --Golbez (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Except for organizations such as the UN and the US government which do, indeed, use such wording in many papers <g>. The original compromise from DR/N was, IMO, quite reasonable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Except what you quoted had nothing to do with what you propose. --Golbez (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You asked for sources backing the use of the word "sovereign" with regard to the United States lands being defined by its sovereignty ... which I provided, and directly on that point. My aim has nothing to do with specific words but with finding words which can achieve a [[WP:CONSENSUS[[. That has been my sole aim in all of this. And if we need to use the word "zyxxy" to reach such a consensus, then that is the word I would agree to -- it is not the exact word which counts -- readers look to find simple language making simple claims in the lead of articles. Right now, it appears several editors are so enamoured of their own particular legalistic position that they fail to realize the WP:CONSENSUS is what is required by the ptoject. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"which I provided" No you didn't, and you know it. There is nowhere on Wikipedia or serious scholarship that the U.S., or any country for that matter, is introduced as "having sovereignty over fifty states and a federal district." Yes, of course it has sovereignty over millions of square miles, but it is made up of those states, because they, unlike land, are political units. You're essentially saying it has sovereignty over itself, which is so tautological it doesn't even merit being on the Simple English Wikipedia. You've been here long enough, you can do better than this. --Golbez (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See Recognition of its sovereignty over its present continental landarea of 2,977,128 square miles, That which it is made up of is its land. Parsing it otherwise simply is tendentious "Humpty-Dumptyism" at its worst. And if all you can do is snark about :"simple English Wikipedia" you are quite welcome to leave this page to those who wish actual discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Golbez above asserts it is "tautological" that a country has sovereignty over itself. Which appears to say that "that which a country has sovereignty over is part of that country." Which is the crux here ... is having sovereignty over a territory the same as owning it? In the case of a nation holding sovereignty (not "trusteeship" or any leasehold or treaty otherwise) over an area, is it wrong to say the area is part of that country? Anyone please respond - but not by parsing minutiae or egg yolks <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not tautological to say that a country has sovereignty over itself, because one country may have sovereignty over another country. However, since the U.S. is defined as a republic, it is implicit that it has sovereignty over itself. But it is confusing to say the U.S. has sovereignty over 50 states, because each state shares sovereignty with the federal government, while districts and territories have no sovereignty. TFD (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the damn cites, TFD. And your assertions about "no sovereignty" for the federal district and territories is risible. DC has elected officials, as do the various territories, and the courts so state. And the US Civil War settled the silly claim that the US does not actually have sovereignty over the states, as do many SCOTUS decisions. Now can you get off the wall? Collect (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That is an odd argument. D.C. has sovereignty because Congress allows it to have a municipal corporation, while the states have no sovereignty because they are not allowed to secede. TFD (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That is nicely and absolutely incorrect -- states do have sovereignty -- they do not have a national sovereignty. Please read up on the term before trying to abuse it. Collect (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes and because states have sovereignty, it is confusing to say that the United States has sovereignty over fifty states. TFD (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

READ THE SOURCES - and since we have quotes direcly above about the US having sovereignty over all the states, your post is utterly and completely fatuous. In fact, I have never seen a less coherent argument about a topic widely covered in RS sources and scholarly journals than that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Having sovereignty over a territory is the same as owning it. This is basic. What is sovereignty if not that? In the case of a nation holding sovereignty over an area, the area is clearly part of that country. This shouldn't be controversial. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Christian Science

Please don't keep edit warring to place the disputed figure in the lead or infobox. It was an anomaly, and there are multiple objections to it on the talk page and the RSN. It is in the body of the article, which is enough. Even if not disputed, it's inappropriate to have multiple numbers in the lead – church figure v independent figure is enough. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As no one is now disputing the figure other than you -- and Binksternet at RS/N now only objects to it being in the infobox -- and your excuse is that you "know" it is an "anomaly" go the heck off and try convincing folks at the noticeboards that your knowledge that it is an anomaly is sufficient to refuse to accept the figure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people have questioned it. I don't want to take this further, but I don't want to just go back and forth with you either, so please revert yourself. This is a GA; the lead needs to be well-sourced and to make sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And I was the one who actually nominated it for GA in case you simply forgot. Meanwhile read Stephen's note above that he understands that the poll was very statistically valid and Binksternet's acknowlegement at RS/N that the source is absolutely a "reliable source" Your are now out on a very thin limb, and I think the folks who read the RfC at Talk:Christian Science are likely to agree that it is RS, and accurate from a mathemaatical poll standpoint, and that shouting "It is an ANOMALY!" is not found in any Wikipedia policy or guideline for excluding such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on now, best not to rewrite the history of the article. You nominated a version that almost certainly wouldn't have been promoted. I was grateful to you for the nomination, but it was premature, and a lot of work had to be done between then and its promotion. As for the source, the issue is only whether it should be in the lead. It isn't appropriate to keep on restoring it (seven times in five days), [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] as though no one has objected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The edits I did were worthless according to you? What in hell are you doing on this page then -- you should have deleted the barnstar I got if you really felt that way. Now go away. Really -- GO AWAY. Collect (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vegans

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegans. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eugene Plotkin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eugene Plotkin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

question

In an RfC/U, the requirement appears to be that two users must have the same dispute with the user in question. Does that mean, the same dispute on the same article, or does it allow for anyone with a dispute with that editor to add his dispute and certify the RfC? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically - yes. The idea is to prevent everyone who has ever had any dispute with the person from piling on at the start. Is it enforced? Not really. WP:CANVASS is supposed to prevent this - but the particular case is not cured by sending out a second notice - just like a police officer who searches a house without a warrant can not then get a warrant to search it again <g>. The reason the rule was put in place was because of abuses in the past which curent users seem not to understand. Collect (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vegetarians

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegetarians. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sockpuppet (Internet)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sockpuppet (Internet). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

CS

Hi Collect,

Your defense of good stats on the Christian Science article is spot on. It also makes me feel bad because I raised the issue in the first place.

I do not understand why others don't get it, and even among those who do, that crack about elementary stat books raised my dander.

Please check out my sandbox at Centamia and see if you think any of it is worth posting. I've pretty much had it with Wikipedia but as you've sprung to the defense of good stats (which I started), I'll push on at your suggestion.

Thank you so much for introducing an iota of logic into that article. And please forgive me if this is the wrong place to tell you so. Please advise.

Centamia ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centamia (talk • contribs) 09:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Southmonitor.com

You are the only person who took the pain to answer my query in a clear way. I think I understood the difference between the 2. Can I conclude that Southmonitor.com is not a reliable source? Benedictdilton (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. If the real source is Reuters, any claim should be ascribed to Reuters - the southmonitor link should only be used if there is no clear Reuters link, but the article should be ascribed to the original author/source. Collect (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party

I've just made this comment on the moderated discussion page:

There were four editors involved in the edit war: Phoenix and Winslow, Ubikwit, Collect, and Xenophrenic. Phoenix and Winslow and Xenophrenic have agreed to not revert. I haven't seen that commitment from Collect and Ubikwit. I will let them know that if they are unwilling to agree not to revert on the sub-articles either while they are being created or after they have been moved into mainspace, then they should agree not to edit the articles at all.

You may have mentioned somewhere on the discussion page that you agree not to revert, and if so, then please point me to it. Otherwise, would you mind stating that you either agree not to revert, or you agree not to edit the sub-articles we are creating? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have made an explicit statement thereon, and you should be aware that my position has generally been to find middle-ground where Wikipolicies lead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Content discussion, resumed

The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. For example: "One editor suggests that..." is picking on an editor, even if not naming them. If the point of the statement was to clarify what the use of "alleged" signifies in the article, then that is all that is needed to be stated. It can be helpful to see what guidelines there are for uses of words on Wikipedia, such as WP:ALLEGED, and to refer to these guidelines.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them, however obliquely, on the discussion page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, I did so. Collect (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: [19] Please participate and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic, as well as any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned about CANVASS with multiple notifications where a neutral post almost anywhere (including on the article talk pages involved) would have been seen by editors with large watchlists :(. I would, moreover, suggest that you include specific non-neutral language used by that editor - IIRC he objects to the off-chance that the article may become "non-negative" which appears to be a specific disacceptance of WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm very deliberately staying off article Talk pages with this, since posting it there could be seen as disruptive. Canvassing is allowed for two reasons. First, I'm canvassing everybody, including Goethean, Ubikwit and Snowded, not just the ones who might side with me. Second, it's not canvassing for a vote since RfC/U cannot impose involuntary sanctions such as a block or a topic ban; that will have to be done at ANI if it goes that far. If you are aware of a specific instance where Xeno objected to an article becoming "Non-negative," or any other incident of behavior you may find problematic, please provide evidence at RFfC/U. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I did find Ubi objecting to the TPM article becoming "non-negative" but Xeno's use of the word was not with regard to the current article. Collect (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Explain

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy is convicted of his fraud, explain with some common sense and brain why u reverted my editMurrallli (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BLP and read closely how we treat allegations and convictions in biogrraphies of living people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy is not yet convicted. Even the trial had not begun. Benedictdilton (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP and Wade Robson

I replied to you on the ANI page regarding protection of Wade Robson. PP was of course, turned down. It is still getting vandalised, but apparently not "enough" to be protected. I know I'm not supposed to go from board to board asking for assistance, but I don't know how to appeal this. Can you help? Ultra Venia (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kriyananda

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kriyananda. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On personalization

Hey Collect. I just want to leave a note about the direction the Rob Ford discussion seems to be taking. I noticed an edit to Dennis Brown's page where you refer to "political" editors, and now another where you speculate on the political motivations of contributors to that conversation. I don't know everyone on that page, but the Canadian editors I am familiar with are not "political" editors by any means. It really puts people's backs up against the wall when their motivations are questioned. This is a divisive topic, and I don't expect the current issue will be resolved smoothly, but if everyone stays focused on the content and the policies, there is a much better chance of people working together to improve our coverage of Ford. The Interior (Talk) 13:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The history of "political BLPs" is clear, and has been discussed many times on Jimbo's talk page (including a current discussion) as well as at BLP/N. I would, moreover, note that editors who add great amounts of "negative commentary" in a BLP are, in my experience, "political" - in fact I ran into one a few years ago who was actually a member of a candidate's campaign staff! We already have some who say that consensus can override policy - which is actually a pretty bad idea. If we stick to policy - including WP:BLP and WP:NPOV then that is what the project actually requires us to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh I know how stupid politically-related BLP's can get, and I empathize with your frustration. I usually stay the heck away. Just thought I'd say hey and try to reduce the temperature of that conversation a bit. The Interior (Talk) 14:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Done

Done. Sorry for the mistake.Casprings (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

NP. My interaction on that topic (other than trying to find compromises in the moderated venue) are de minimis. Collect (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Selleck

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Selleck. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please comment on Talk:Alicia Silverstone

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alicia Silverstone. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

edit checker

Where's the wikichecker you used? I'd like to check mine. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Try [20]. You rarely edit from 0700 to 1300 UTC (usually indicating midnight to 6 a.m. local time for most editors as a matter of common knowledge) and you edit 7 days a week (usually meaning you likely are a sutdent or else edit on work time, or on Wikipedia, more rarely retired) , and your major pages include: Talk:Tea Party movement[WP] (1,120)Tea Party movement[WP] (512)Talk:Sarah Palin[WP] (335)Talk:Karl Rove[WP] (239) Karl Rove[WP] (148) Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion[WP] (129) Scott Brown[WP] (118)Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher[WP] (109)Talk:Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)[WP] (107) and Sarah Palin[WP] (102). Collect (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Thing is, if you look at my contribs since 2010, the stats don't really match the articles edited. If you look at my articles created you'll see very different subjects. When I scroll through my contribs, it shows a very different picture. Also, was a student, graduated. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

<g> Which explains the hours nicely. Amazingly enough, a bunch of admins have no idea how to read such stats at all. Collect (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect, was your edit here [21] in reference to a comment I made on the moderated discussion? Or is this another matter? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw your comment that Ubi referred to a person as a "sociopath" and that was the only one I found in a Wikipedia search. If he used it in direct regard to the Tea Party, then you really can email ST with that information -- I have no way of searching deleted material :(. It does appear that editor likely has problems on Israel/Palestine edits however. Collect (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't find it as it was deleted by an oversighter admin. The comment was made on the moderated discussion page. Phoenix&Winslow saw it too. I deleted it, then found instructions for what to do over on the ANI page and sent the diffs in an email to the oversighter email address. The comments were deleted soon after. But today, after I made my comment on the mod/discuss page about nothing happening to him yet TE got blocked, Silk Tork left a stern warning on my talk page. I had no idea what that was all about. Later, I went to his talk page to ask about it and spotted your comment. Now I understand the chain of events. He connected our comments and thought they were regarding the same BLP vio. I don't know anything about the other article. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Have the admin who did the oversight post to ST then - I think that ought to address the issue for sure. (or point AT to the oversight address) Ubi sure seems quick to use "sociopath" in posts! Collect (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bruce Lee

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bruce Lee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laura Robson

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Laura Robson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting help on Tea Party movement

Would you know other NPOV experienced editors who would be willing to help out on the Tea Party movement article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Need your opinion on a BLP matter

Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Barnstar for positive contributions to the Tea Party movement discussions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alger Hiss

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alger Hiss. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)