User talk:Collect

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.

Note: 'It is now proper to add "homophobe" to any biography as long as you can find 'someone' using that word about the person - I presume this applies to categories as well as WP:BLP no longer protects living people from being labeled with pejoratives. [1]

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

WP:Source pH

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)

Hail and Farewell

The Arbitration Committee has made one of the singular worst decisions in its entire history, finding that a person may be given a broad topic ban for simply having what an arb calls his "general attitude" and without a scintilla of evidence of wrongdoing. And while being told that "bickering" was a blockable offence (where the bickering was opposing this decision!) Thus I say Ave atque vale, which someone is sure to say is offensive.

For my Jewish friends: Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor.

The committee members will, of course, be the topic of an ACE2013 essay here, and I welcome suggestions as to what I ought say about them.

Adios, Adieu, Farvel, Auf Wiedersehen, Dosvedanya, and no real time to say Good-Bye in every language around ... Collect (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I do urge you to reconsider, irresepctive of what I might consider to be the merits (or lack thereof) of the ArbCom decision. Nelson Mandela was wrongly arrested and jailed, but did not give up, and look where he ended up. By running away, you allow them to win, and/or show that they were right. By sticking around, dilligently working on the outside of the prescribed limits, you prove them to be wrong. Perceived injustice is only turned into justice by running away ES&L 17:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not dead - but I endeavour that this shall be a Pyrhhic victory for those who back such results. When called to task for quoting TR, by a person who apparently disdains any "hard to understand words", then it is fairly clear that Wikipedia really has some choices to make, n'est-ce pas? Expect an interesting ACE2013 essay inn this userspace. Collect (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect, for reasons completely unrelated to you, I have not been following a great many things on Wikipedia lately, including the tea party thing, so I didn't even know you were topic banned. That aside, I'd just like to say that if you leave, I'll miss you. Whatever you do, take care of yourself. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

For a while, you will be the only person left really protecting BLPs. I dasn't (archaic) edit there because who knows what "broadly construed" means -- I know that some senior (poobahs) apparently do not regard them as a serious issue <g>. It looks from here that "chronophagous" is the single most apt term for a runaway ArbCom. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to assume this is au revoir instead. KillerChihuahua 03:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Slurs

My understanding is that a slur can be removed on sight if it is not supported by multiple reliable sources that evince the material was worth publishing. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Tell that at WP:AN/EW at this point I am in "Hail and Farewell" mode -- more than five months into my six month "topic ban" from a topic I had not really edited in the first place, and where the main evidence was me using "bosh and twaddle" to refer to a hypothetical posed -- and Jimbo has not even seen fit to reply to any email. So much for my belief that he took his role as "appeal court" with a microgram of seriousness. Cheers -- but I rather think the time has come to say .... (fill in the blank) Collect (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that part of being a good Wikipedia editor is getting muddied and disparaged by a very poor system of dispute resolution. In my opinion, new editors should be warned about this, and strongly encouraged to use an alias rather than their real names.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I am very sorry to see that you're contemplating leaving. I've appreciated your straightforward and courageous approach over the years. I am not at all happy about what Wikipedia seems headed toward. If you for sure decide to leave, I wish you well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs, although I don't know Collect as well as Bugs does. Anyway, Collect, I wouldn't jump to conclusions about WP:AN/EW. After all, wasn't the thread closed without action?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I hope you decide to stick around. If the good people leave, then where will that leave Wikipedia? Andrew³²⁷ 08:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

At some point you have to ask yourself "What is the point?" Sometimes it is better to let a dying tree die rather than try to give the illusion of health by keeping a few leaves alive. Arzel (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm in the middle of my second ArbCom nightmare, and am curious to see how it turns out. If the result is as f**d up as before, then I may be talking like you guys.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A strength and weakness of Wikipedia is that a few experienced people working hard together can do just about anything. Up that to about 6 and it includes 60% fixing Wikipedia. Anybody in? North8000 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No vast center-right conspiracies for me, thanks.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I was wasn't talking about balance, just about making the machinery work better. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine I guess, but all of us irritations would have to reach consensus about how to improve things.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

My premise is that policies, guidelines and structures are what create and solve problems, and am trying to develop a roadmap and such at Wikipedia:Strategic issues with core policies, guidelines and structures North8000 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

People already don't follow guidelines and those that would enforce them seem unwilling to do so under many situations. For every editor like you there are 10 more with a seemingly infinite amount of patience to promote their personal propaganda or trash those that they hate. Arzel (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Why BLP is important -- and the true motivations of at least one sock puppet master in the past:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck (ha!), and smells like a duck ... it's probably a duck (your peregrinations in gay bars notwithstanding). sken 18:37, 23 t z (UTC)

Excuse me, but how do you construe my proposed edit as "labeling"? How is reporting the facts of a person's life (books referring to his sexuality) labeling? You seem to be having a lot of trouble thinking this through logically. You are also wrong about the notability and relevance of his sexuality. d is a conservative commentator with a lot of motivation to hide his sexuality from his conservative readership. Perhaps he is another F, closeted away. Is it our duty to help him in this endeavour? Why is his sexuality notable? Easy. He makes explicit and implicit moral judgements about people and their sexuality. The public deserves to know where he's coming from on this topic. fbe they'd see his defence of F, (COMMENT REMOVED BY y PER WP:BLP), in a different light if they knew he was accused of being a closet homosexual. dmade huge play of J and L touching each other during the last presidential campaign, implying they were girly-men, even queer. Again, anyone who makes public such aspersions can justifiable be scrutinized on these ground himself. sken 20:26, 23 t z (UTC)

Really, this has been a rather shameful display of bias and poor judgement by the wiki-ites here with veto powers. I have been accused of making stuff up, of having an axe to grind, of wanting to label someone as a "Jew" and a neocon, and of gay-baiting - all false and vicious libel against me. The descriptions in published books of x's behaviours and predilections are dismissed as trivial slander, when living people (B, Z) either had sex with him or were propositioned by him, on the record. Z said he'd sign an affidavit to that effect. B has the emails. The dearth of countervailing voices here, the lack of people without conservative agendas, is appalling. What's happened, has wikipedia been taken over by Bush-bots? It seems likely. Since all edits that cast what f be construed by the most myopic editors as a poor light on our GOP white knight are summarily and haughtily dismissed, with only a cursory attempt to "debate" the issue (including veiled threats of legal action, personal attacks on me, the building of an army of straw men and wilfully deliberate misinterpretation of what I have attempted to do), I am left with no alternative but to publish a web page elsewhere covering these issues. sken 05:42, 24 t z (UTC)

He's a Libertarian the same way he's heterosexual - only in his own fantasy of himself. In real life, he sleeps with men and donates money to the GOP, and votes GOP - all these FACTS documented reliably. There are no donations to the Libertarian Party of America that anyone has heard about. sken 21:50, 24 t z (UTC) And let me add that anyone with even a tiny scintilla of intelligence can see from the content of his "report" which way he leans politically. sken 21:55, 24 t z (UTC)

What rubbish! Something published in a well-known public figure's autobiography is not "unsourced or poorly sourced". Secondly, stating that a person is possibly homosexual, according to verifiable third party accounts, is not libellous, since homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not a crime, so no harm accrues to Mr x. We are not disclosing debate or accounts of whether or not d is a pedophile, rapist or Peeping Tom. The fact that you view gayness as litigable tells us more about you than it does about the American legal system or the true definition of libel. sken 21:41, 12 November z (UTC)

Homosexuality as something which f still qualify as "defamation per se" but it is becoming "defamation per quod" (meaning you have to prove actual damages to win a lawsuit, something a self-employed re-poster of internet links like dcould never do). In addition, dwould first have to sue B et al before suing WP for reporting their published recollections of salacious emails and dates. sken 00:20, 13 November z (UTC)

Here's a good Early Life description from WP: Albert Einstein. It shows a level of detail that seems unacceptable here. Why is detail being expunged unnecessarily? None of this stuff is legally actionable under any circumstances, so you are not right to revert on the basis of your (slanted?) idea of what "notable" means. If you are convinced I'm trying to make the subject look bad, why not balance that by inserting positive, but true, data? Build the article, don't stunt it! You do not make the subject seem better than he is by suppressing data available elsewhere, which is thus far your modus operandi. (And Cp, it was waaaay more than "rumours"). sk (Talk) 06:06, 18 December z (UTC)

Nobody gives a tinker's cuss for your thoughts on the matter, whether you "care for" dor not, how long you've signed up at WP, or whether you think the terms liberal or conservative or pejoratives or not. All of that adds nada to this page. As for the gay issue, it is highly relevant given the man's use of (supposed) homosexuality as a weapon against public figures (J) and conversely, his defence of a fellow conservative (F) who engaged in sex talk with under-age boys by blaming the boys. In light of these actions, his own obvious homosexuality is very germane, especially when it is public knowledge to anyone with a scintilla of intelligence, or anyone who reads widely. However, WP treads very gingerly with facts in the biographies of living people, for legal reasons. sk (Talk) 15:42, 20 February a (UTC)

Do not revert my addition again! You are starting an edit war over a non-contentious inclusion that I can back up in every way. 1) x thinks GW is bunk - everyone who reads/listens to him knows that that is true, and 2) GW is a fact supported by a majority of the world's climate scientists, and if you stopped listening to right wing talk radio for a second and read the scientific opinion on climate change you'd conceded that too. Back off, full bladder. This is not a place for you to settle grudges. sk (Talk) 15:31, 28 February a (UTC)

"Accurately sourced" - mp3s of x's own broadcasts are considered inadequate, published comments on non-blog sites are considered inadequate (that site's a "joke" dude!), etc. Where there's a will to exclude information form WP, there's a way. As for "critical comment", I was simply stating that others are critical of his stance, which is completely encyclopaedic, falling as it does under a section called Criticisms. Hilarious. Have fun writing your version of reality. I've stopped caring, because this has all the hallmarks of a madhouse. sk (Talk) 21:37, 1 e a (UTC)

But since the link to the M article existed on this page for ages, more than a year at least, why is there a sudden war over its existence? y has a campaign afoot to purge this page of any taint of critical content, that's why. G*ddamned conservatives trying to sanitize the wikipedia, ruining it in the process. Now wait to see them reply on how I've breached the assume good faith nonsense. Sigh. sk (Talk) 00:00, 20 q a (UTC)

I do not agree with your view, V. The tangential reference to x's homosexuality is not "gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets" but information contained in an autobiography by a well known person (Brock), and it is moreover public information that has not been challenged by x himself. sk (Talk) 00:15, 20 q a (UTC)

Libel? It was published years ago and no libel ensued. Moreover, the link to that article has existed on the dpage of WP for years without comment, until now. y has decided to include the link in his/her sanitization drive. Now suddenly it's untouchable? I don't think so. The "nasty faggot" jibe is quite in keeping with the sort of dirt, scandal and innuendo dhimself dishes out all the time; thus it is in perfect juxtaposition. sk (Talk) 21:04, 23 q a (UTC)

V, I personally do not care about the gay thing per se, but I do think that any allegation, if made repeatedly in published books, especially best selling books and autobiographies, ought to be at least mentioned in the article, especially if these allegations were neither denied nor attacked legally. Gayness is a very political issue in the US, and it's of great interest and concern to most politically-motivated people, and these would be heavily represented in the readership of this page. If Mr d simply linked to news articles on his page and no more, an argument could perhaps be made for excluding the information from the wiki page, but since d actually enters the fray and inventively uses the sexuality of others as a weapon, his own sexuality becomes extremely germane. Surely you can see that? I also think the M article is pretty well written, if a bit acerbic for some tastes. Having said that, I'm prepared to trade the M link for a proper inclusion of this information on the WP page. Now, how do you suggest we include the gay allegations in the article? If you like, I can come up with a suitably cited sentence or two. sk (Talk) 05:34, 25 q a (UTC)

We are not "outing" x, others have already done that. We simply report it. And we report the denial. Why is it noteworthy? 1) Because it is out there, in books and newspapers, and 2) because of his attack on a gay journalist. So it does have bearing, it goes to his character and trustworthiness, and it represents (I'll say it again) the most common reverted edit to the dpage. Let's report the facts as we should, and so discourage all the vandals. sk (Talk) 06:56, 30 q a (UTC)

The Toronto Star article says "d has some nerve, since he's a gay man himself". Pretty good source, IMO, although dforced them to withdraw that statement (this is notable in itself, must add it to the edit or edit footnote). I have no problem seeing the abstract for that article. sk (Talk) 22:08, 4 p a (UTC)

Well spotted, they are the same stories but I was fooled by the different URLs. As for the comment on "hypocrite", I removed that after you pointed it out, didn't you notice? There is a disjunction between the W thing and the gay aspects, but the Toronto Times's retracted sentence would have linked them nicely. I f have to use it as a link. Forced retraction? Papers only retract and apologize when it's demanded of them, rest assured. But I'll change the footnote to say simply "retracted". sk (Talk) 00:40, 5 p a (UTC)

I trust people can see that I do not care whether the allegation is "gay" or "homophobe" but that material which is a slur is contentious per se, and requires strong factual sourcing, and not using a retracted source. Cheers and farewell. Collect (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC: second survey

Hi Collect, thank you for your contribution to the RfC on Justin Bieber's behaviour and legal issues. Some users have posted that the RfC is currently a mess, and that we need to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. As such, I have created a second survey, which cuts the content into points. Could you take the time to post your opinion on each point, whether you think it should be included or not, or summarized, or changed. It will be a bit tedious but we need your detailed input to move forward. Thanks again. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

See my reply at User talk:Moxy#Justin Bieber RfC: second survey. I think we have to except the fact we have a new generation of editors here. We have much younger and less educated people here now. We have have to understand that encyclopedic content is not understood my many. At one point Wiki was filled with experts ...now everyone edits....good for growth but bad for encyclopedic content. We live in a youth based news world now where people think the daily lives of celebs is relevent to the world. Just look at Kim Kardashian they talk about a "cookie diet" ...just image what could be written about JFK or MJ...but lucky they are adult topics. -- Moxy (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Alas -- that does not mean us ancients should throw in the towel. Collect (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

I warned Peace In Mississippi (formerly TheKillingNoise yesterday) here yesterday. Unfortunately today, they've been edit warring to keep negative trivialities in Schultz and unsourced info in Appel (I've checked about five times and the sources don't back up her addition). Would you recommend a RFC/U or going straight to ANI? If RFC/U, would you be willing to certify? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Go to AN/EW -- noting that they had edit warred in the past, and this is a continuation of that behaviour. Collect (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Iona & Impact

Graham Norton is far more well-known than the only person referenced in the current section, Kathy Sheridan. Also it seems there a balanced to section to point out both Iona's positive and negative impact. Paul Moloney (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Find someone known to be an expert on extremism when you use them to call someone or something extremist. AFAICT, there is quite sufficient negative stuff in that article now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

" since it is said that a gay comedian's comments are "notable" we should identify him as such" - I don't see you insisting that other people mentioned on the page should be labelled "straight. Paul Moloney (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The word "gay" from Black Kite stating why Norton should be included -- I only do what folks suggest. Yell at them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Op47 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation there is ill-founded and egregiously in bad faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

ACORN

Try adjusting the material to match what it is you're driving at; the text Throughout the election season of 2008, supporters of Republican candidates portrayed ACORN's submission of invalid voter registration applications as widespread voter fraud is from the article body itself, but you wholesale reverted. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrections Corporation of America

The $20,000 given by CCA to Governor Butch Otter, spread over two statewide elections, was enough to make a substantial impression on Otter. It was matched nationwide only by the same amount given to four-term governor of Texas, Rick Perry, whose state hosted a dozen CCA-operated prisons, though it lost two contracts, Mineral Wells and Dallas, last year. Mineral Wells is vacant and Dallas ended CCA's operations. Activist (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We use what the source said and it said "since 2003" and it is clear that it was not illegal corporate donation, so that inference absolutely is inapt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Rats. Just lost an edit here thanks to one posted in a new section on your Talk page. I didn't imply that CCA's contribution was illegal. However, in a small state such as Idaho, the total was substantial enough to command a good deal of attention on the part of the recipient. I can't imagine that it wasn't germane with respect to Otter's protracted reluctance to deal with the problems that CCA persistently visited upon the state. There is little question that they should have been dealt with years ago and that procrastination compounded the difficulties. I hope I'm not sounding too critical. I've appreciated your edits over a wide range of subjects and a long period of time. I would suggest that we do list the contribution total without any implication that it drove any decisions, or was a quid pro quo, just as a statement of fact. Do you think that would work? Thanks. Activist (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS] means you need a specific secondary reliable source making assertions - it is not up to us to know or imagine connections - we only can use what those sources explicitly state. In the contributions case, the source stated "since 2003" which is pretty much what we have to live with. Collect (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I goofed. I was looking at the "lawsuits" section and overlooked the "oversight" section. I'm obviously trying to do too many things at once. Your edits are fine. Excuse my error. Activist (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Merci. Collect (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

DD

Per this, removing specifically reliable sources and Robertson's well documented black comments, was never discussed. Please don't claim consensus where none was ever established, let alone talked about. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Um -- I take it you seem to forget the rules about WP:BLP already. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you really going to pretend that this is a BLP issue? That exact content has been there since the beginning of the controversy, and you saw it. Why do you now think it rises to a BLP crisis requiring a skilled denial that it ever happened? As fun as it may seem to rewrite history, it's not in line with NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh? It deals with living persons and you say it only a "pretend" WP:BLP issue??? Really? Collect (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the hysteria, although the content surely surrounds living living people we are not in violation of BLP and you know better. This is a content issue, and we have reliable sources presenting NPOV content that you want removed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, see Talk:Phil_Robertson#RfC:_Can_we_include_the_comments_Robertson_made_about_blacks. and note that the result was not even close. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That was a bad call i think but the consensus was to allow removing of valid content. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Scarcely a week back -- way too early for you to reverse that decision -- trust you agree on that. Collect (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit disingenuous as you and i commented there the first week of January, hardly a week ago, and i pretty much gave up on that article since it was obvious to me how editing there was evolving. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Um -- the close was on 16 Feb 2014. I suggest that 16 Feb is quite recent. And the fact is that you commented there, and the close was damn clear. Your apparent desires notwithstanding, that you :gave up: trying to put in a POV there does not make it proper for you to insert the same BLP violation in another article at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As fun as it may seem to simply argue about trivial matters, I explained why I didn't see something from 6-7 weeks as recent, of course what happened last last would be but again who cares? I didn't try to put in a POV there, I gave my opinion on why removing valid content violated NPOV, others disagreed, and so I moved on. No one has yet to demonstrate any BLP violation has occurred but you may believe that no matter what is stated otherwise. It has been there the entire time while dozens of people edited that same content, even you I believe, and has only just been removed by you and now an RfC to discuss that content for the first time on the DD article is taking place. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ten days is recent. And we do not have RfCs on every single article -- that is known as "forumshopping" Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Sportfan5000 was a sock of a blocked user. Collect (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

HSU

Collect, I'm rather puzzled by your stance on this one. This whole thing has been a major media scrum from day one due to the huge public interest. This may not be the case where you live, but the two principals (and yes, their family and associates) are under public scrutiny. This is part of the general corruption associated with some elements of the union movement and the NSW Right. The Obeids are a case in point.

BLP is one thing, and we shouldn't use our encyclopaedia to beat real people with a stick that they cannot fight back against, but whitewashing the affair or sweeping it under the carpet or hiding it in some way just carries a whiff of the very sort of "nothing to see here, folks" attitude that aids corruption. It's like trying to shut down the Fitzgerald Inquiry. Sure, there's some political sensitivities in play and we don't want to become one-eyed or one-sided in our coverage, but neither do we want to hide or sweep away the truth, especially where there is such intense public interest.

The federal government has flagged a Royal Commission into union corruption. This is going to be a big deal for the next year or so (I'm cynical enough to suggest right up until the next election) and there are going to be any number of juicy stories. The HSU thing will be a highlight, and my educated guess is that more individuals and corruption will be brought into the light. Those in the know might name names, but not I. Not yet.

My recollection of this thing is that when it surfaced, you tried to shut it all down. Just a "silly season" story, you said. Well, it ain't. Not here. Perhaps you have an excellent knowledge and interest and experience in Australian culture and political history that you have so far managed to conceal. I cannot say. But it seems to me that those who do not understand a topic should not be offering high-level advice to those who do.

Having said that, BLP is a big deal - we are all living people and our rights are important - and your advice from that perspective is always welcome. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not try to "shut anything down" - and I suggest that listing the same person seven times in the same infobox is ludicrous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Jahi McMath

The fact of the matter is, a court of law has ruled that Jahi McMath is dead. Reference here.

If someone is convicted of a crime by a court of law, we categorize them as convicted of that crime. It does not matter whether that person objects or proclaims their innocence - a court of law has ruled that they are guilty, and so Wikipedia reflects that widely-accepted judgment.

Here, we have an analogous situation. Jahi's family tragically continues to claim that she is alive. That is an interesting claim, even a notable claim, and certainly worthy of consideration. But that claim conflicts with the ruling of the courts of the state of California, as widely reported in reliable sources, and that ruling must be considered controlling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The precept is "do no harm." In any case where there is a potential for harm, we must act in the most compassionate manner possible, and the idea that a redirect needs any categories at all is clearly not in accord with that precept. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So we are required to remove the category "People convicted of murder" from anyone who contests their conviction? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with having no categories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The main thing is redirects should never be categorized. Collect (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Denis MacShane

Hi, I'm a bit confused by your recent edit to Denis MacShane. You say it's poorly sourced, but it has two references (one to the Telegraph which is hardly tabloid). I'll admit that section is a bit of a laundry list, but that could probably be addressed by changing the tone rather than removing sourced material? --h2g2bob (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to start a discussion on Talk:Denis MacShane as there's several involved editors. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

See the discussion at WP:AN/EW please. Collect (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

3RRN edit

Did you remove my statement from the Denis McShane 3RRN discussion via this edit [2] because I'd gone over the top, or did it disappear in one of those edit conflict disruptions? I'd assumed the latter, but didn't care much because the matter seemed properly resolved. But since Sportsfan keeps reopening the wounds . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

EC stuff -- I did not try removing it, and when Sportfan5000 accused me of doing so the proper action was to restore it and note what happened. SF5000 has a very interesting view about BLPs, alas. Collect (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem at all. I was hoping things would just settle down, but must have had my rose-colored editing glasses on this morning. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. Edit-conflict edit

My edit summary was directed at the previous editor at Ronan Farrow, not you. My apologies. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC) NPCollect (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

I don't think I'm canvassing here. I merely informed every editor who already posted in the General Survey section to post in the second Point-by-point survey, since the response rate to the Point-by-point survey was a poor 5 out of 16. I didn't only inform editors who supported the inclusion of the content. I informed editors who opposed like Herostratus and Tarc because they posted in the first General Survey. I didn't inform you and the other three because you've already offered your opinion in the second survey. Look, I'm only trying to get progress here. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I merely suggested you read WP:CANVASS quite carefully, and make sure that you either write to either a very small number of people who are not known to have a view on the topic, or else everyone who falls into the potentially interested group you appear to have found -- and then make sure your posts are absolutely without any clue as to your own personal views on the topic. It is better to be wary of the problem than to have it raised at a less convenient location. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware or WP:CANVASS. So you're warning me about potential future canvassing? Seems weird because I've already finished informing who I've wanted to inform, doesn't seem that I'm going to do it again for the RfC. You said that I was "pushing the boundaries of canvassing editors". I'm sure I've informed "everyone who falls in the potentially interested group". Actually, the first reminder I sent out informed every single person who participated in the RfC to participate in the second survey. Some of those people (example Dr.K.) did not even participate in the first General Survey, and still have not participated in the first or second General Survey. Given that I've reminded them once, I took it as a sign of disinterest, so I did not issue the second reminder.

The second reminder is only for those who have shown more interest by posting in the first survey, because any opinion only posted in the first General Survey is considered a 'mess'?

If you had read my 'reminders' on their talk pages, you'll see that I have not attempted to influence their decisions in any way. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not in a position to judge whether you used absolutely neutral wording - I only noted that you made a great number of posts to user talk pages. Collect (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I know we don't always agree but I appreciate your sincerity and passionate contributions to the project. So thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I was aghast at some of the "opposes" to be sure. Collect (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Hey, I believe that BLP applies to talk pages as well as article pages. If that is the case, there are two editors who have asserted and continue to assert that all the scientists on this list article are actually part of a "vast conspiracy" of the fossil-fuel industry. I think that that should be removed from the talk page. Is that correct as a matter of policy or am I mistaken? Could you take a look? Capitalismojo (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed incorrect per policy to call them a "conspiracy", but I fear that "Man as a species is guilty of whatever we think is wrong" is a sort of religion which is regarded as "gospel truth" by some, and so it is rather like trying to make sure that any religious article is compliant with policy -- there are those who "just ain't gonna let it happen". At this point I rather consider myself a political "pragmatarian (tm 2014)" facing "true believers" of all sorts who decline to believe not only in the rights of others to sincerely hold disparate opinions without being deemed morally corrupt, but also that it is nearly imperative that such people exist in the first place. In the long run, I suspect that the "true believers" will gradually diminish their hold on some articles, and in many areas, but I do not think the current "people in charge" are willing to face up to their ultimate responsibilities for the current sad shape where "true believers" in any field can rule the project, or any project (noting that "true believers" tend to try to run whatever they can - not only Wikipedia.) End of micro-essay. Collect (talk) (Note: Ia m not using the term "pragmatarian" as used by some bloggers to indicate a specific type of "libertarian" but as meaning that societies which use dogmatism as a basis for rule tend not to survive, and that societies which are able to look at issues in a pragmatic manner are able to adapt to inevitable disasters and to surmount them -- which s how civilization actually grows and thrives) 13:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

This is easily one of the most disingenuous edits I've seen from any editor. I'm documenting it here, even though you are just as likely to delete it, so at least we have evidence you were called on it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have told you in the past" (unsigned)

Stay off this talk page.

That you might think there is an exception to WP:BLP so that you can use terms not in the sources does not mean that removing them as required by WP:BLP is "disingenuous" whatsoever. I never heard of the person other than on WP noticeboards, and have not the slightest direct interest in the person -- all I do is follow Wikipedia policies, and I urge you to do likewise. Cheers -- and DO NOT RESPOND. Collect (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(Bullshit removed) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomo, I don't know about the "patronising" incident, but regarding the other incident you must undoubtedly be aware that yet another admin said "Don't agree with the vehemence of that comment [accusing Collect of lying] but there is some sense in it." I think the issue there was use of the phrase "drinking the Kool Aid". Collect pointed out that the phrase originated with a mass suicide in Guyana which is correct, and not 100% irrelevant. That etymology is why I myself never have used that phrase (as far as I recollect). Its meaning may have evolved into something less drastic than mass suicide by gullible fanatics, but it still seems like a tacky phrase to me, and its meaning is sufficiently ambiguous that it could be taken the wrong way, or could be inflammatory. The person who started using it in this instance was obviously seeking to be inflammatory (also using phrases like "fuck the chicken"), so maybe your protestations would be more apt at another user talk page?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Sporfant5000 is a sock of a blocked user. Collect (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Florida's 13th congressional district special election, 2014". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 01:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In case you were thinking of filing an SPI

Hi. In this edit summary you stated rv probable sock IP. You are most likely correct. In fact this looks like a sock puppet of User:IIIraute, who shortly after using the anon-IP account to make a controversial change began edit-warring with you over that very change with his main account. Why is this likely him? Compare what happened at the page on Angela Merkel shortly before. An anon-IP account made a controversial change (over content IIIraute previous edit warred over) [3], then when that was changed, IIIraute ... jumped in with his main account to edit war ([4], [5], [6]). Note the geographical confluence of the two anon-IP accounts. When I had previous run ins with IIIraute it was pretty much the same set up. In all of these instances, whether in this particular case, on Merkel, or on other articles, first anon IP, then IIIRaute jumps in and goes right up to the 3RR line, then stops, and other suspicious, usually new or long dormant accounts show up to continue the edit war. The latter ones may be meatpuppets rather than sockpuppets, though a checkuser could clarify that. Thanks. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP opinion

Hello Collect, I wanted to stop by and get your opinion on a BLP lede question if you're willing. We have a poll going on over at Talk:Ken Ham regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the word "incorrect" with regard to the subject's young-Earth claims. I'm not looking to prompt you to go over there and involve yourself (that would be canvassing on my part), instead I'm just interested in getting your opinion here on your Talk Page. If you're willing to look at it, would you say that we should or shouldn't say the subject's claims are "incorrect" in the lede? Do you think BLP and NPOV require it, or does BLP frown on it? I'm curious to get your take on it if you're inclined to share it. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Conga line

I was being charitable to your "fans". Your BLP/RSN topics seem to draw them out of the woodwork. No offense meant. Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL -- I can point out a couple who seem to be inveterate "I oppose this because Collect is here and favours it" posters (some seem shocked when I happen to hold their views on a topic -- which makes them extremely uncomfortable, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

3RR violation on Charles Keating

You've violated the three-revert rule on Charles Keating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (12:51, 3 April 2014, 02:44, 4 April 2014‎, 02:52, 4 April 2014‎, 11:20, 4 April 2014‎). Can I convince you to self-revert your last change to comply with our policy on edit-warring, and to commit to discussing the issue on the talkpage rather than continuing to edit-war? MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted -- I trust you left the same message for the other editor who is also at 3RR? Collect (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW you should note that I have absolutely using the talk page there -- why did you feel the need to remind me when I already have done something? Collect (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for self-reverting. If you're already using the talkpage, then I apologize; please amend my post above to ask that you continue using the talkpage in lieu of edit-warring. Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) is at 3RR but hasn't gone over as you had, so I didn't leave a note, but if you'd prefer I can do so. I've also pinged him in this comment, which may suffice. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

count [7] 12:43 3 April [8] at 01:29 4 April, [9] 02:48, [10] 11:11 and tell me how many that comes to. Cheers -- but maths counts. Collect (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Writing disability is not limited to Wikipedia editors

Yahoo News: Plane carried 200kgs of lithium-ion batteries that were packaged according to international guidelines and fruits.

An amazing concept.

And in the past week the AP had to issue a spelling correction ... on an article about a spelling bee.

One can not make this stuff up. Collect (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources

In [11], you edit summarize "'abruptly' is not in the source." Were you being dishonest or sloppy? Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The source quotes a spokesperson with an explanation for the closure. When such an explanation is given it is reasonable to mention that reason given.

A spokesman for the Deen family, Jaret Kellers, issued a statement saying Hiers closed the restaurant "to explore development options for the waterfront property on which the restaurant is located." Kellers said no specific plans have been made yet.

is fairly clear. In such a case, it is clear that the "abrupt closure" was foreseen by those discussing the future use of the property. YMMV. As for accusations of editorial dishonesty -- I suggest that you know better than to play that sort of game with anyone by now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In [12], you edit summarize "'abruptly' is not in the source." Is "abrupt closure" in the source? Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked "abruptly" is an adverb. YMMV, but the use of that word as an adverb where a reason is given for the closure is potentially misleading to readers, the close was "all at once" ("abrupt" in that single sense) but not necessarily unplanned at all ... I had looked for the adverb where the claim was concerned, and found, instead, a statement that it may well have been planned for some time ("discussions" implies that there were "discussions"). Do you suggest we should remove the bit that discussions occurred? Do we have a source which says no one had been informed of the closure ahead of time? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)