You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to [[Talk:Hedwig of Holstein#rfc_04FEC09|participate in the request for comment]] on '''Talk:Hedwig of Holstein'''. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see {{section link|Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Suggestions for responding}}. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at [[WP:Feedback request service]]. <!-- Template:FRS message -->— <!-- FRS id 18821 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 00:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to [[Talk:Hedwig of Holstein#rfc_04FEC09|participate in the request for comment]] on '''Talk:Hedwig of Holstein'''. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see {{section link|Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Suggestions for responding}}. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at [[WP:Feedback request service]]. <!-- Template:FRS message -->— <!-- FRS id 18821 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 00:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
===Opinion===
You previously voted here as a keep for an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiyoshi_Shiina]. It is up for AFD again [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiyoshi_Shiina_(2nd_nomination)]. I was wondering if you could look at the article again and vote in the New AFD here. The newer article has more information and better formats. Also if you could see any ways to improve the article it would be appreciated. Thank you. [[User:CrazyAces489|CrazyAces489]] ([[User talk:CrazyAces489|talk]]) 03:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 03:03, 22 December 2014
WP:BLP and WP:NPOV should be adhered to, and the use of political articles for campaigns should be deprecated. Editorial position.
ArbCom made an incredibly poor decision (the TPm decision, but it is seeking to outdo itself now). At the one year+ mark, Mr. Wales appears to ignore appeals which are part of his duties per policy, nor grant even the courtesy of a reply. The concept that topic bans should be placed on anyone for evidence which they are not allowed to refute or discuss is less than marginal. Sanctions without violation of any policies or guidelines are intrinsically irrational. WP:Tiptibism is the belief that because one is able to do something that therefore it is right to do it.
Well-meaning editors: 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 avers 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? [1] shows his ideal BLP edit.
Quote of the day from an editor who seems to regard his own screeds as the epitome of "wit":
Twain is the perennial favorite of intellectual pygmies who believe a trite quote has the power to increase their stature.
I rather think his "wit" speaks for itself pretty clearly.
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!
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.
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&L17:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I had awaited Jimbo's reply to my emails about the appeal before fully departing (I did not participate in any of the Legobot RfC calls which I had usually done, etc.) -- so far, he has not deemed me worthy of a single response at all, and I rather feel that the delay is indicative of his valuation of editors, so - so much for Jimbo. Collect (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are mentioned in an arbitration case
The Arbitration Committee is currently hearing a case relating to US Politics. The case information page is here. This message is to inform you that evidence has been submitted about your conduct. As a result, the committee is now scrutinising your conduct in this topic area. If you wish to give one, your reply to this evidence must be received by 13 May 2014 if it is to be fully considered by the committee. The evidence is in one or more submissions on this page. You may reply to evidence by posting in a new section on this page. You may also submit your own evidence, subject to the rules imposed on evidence submission (and the 13 May deadline). I must also make you aware that the evidence that has been submitted about your conduct may, in the course of these proceedings, lead to an arbitrator proposing you be sanctioned as part of the committee's final decision for this case. Please contact a committee clerk if you are not sure what this means. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK[•]08:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For lurkers: [2] was the "proposed decision" including a number of people who had never been a part of the case whatsoever.
[3] shows a reasonably directly personal interaction with me:
You are not a teacher; we are equals. You should not have expected me not to correct what I considered a misunderstanding in the question: that one arbitrator's private approach does not mean the whole committee ignored the workshop and evidence pages. In your question, you wrongly implied we did. You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not. I will say nothing more on the matter. Regards, (User:AGK) (emphasis mine - it looks like he is saying I am not honest in how I treated him)
You say you are going to evaluate answers in an "impartial manner" and assign values "from 0 to 5 for each answer … In several cases the aim of the question is to get a feeling for the Wikianschauung of the candidate". Could you therefore explain how my seven answers together returned a score of 'one?' ((AGK)
Who am I "attacking or vilifying"? Whose flaws am I making polemical claims about? Is there "personal information" presented? Is the section "unrelated to Wikipedia"? By the way, WP:POLEMIC is not a policy - it is a guideline, and you are quite free to propose the page for deletion at WP:MFD I suppose. Using your "Arb Hat" here, however, does not exactly impress me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not speaking as an arbitrator; I am asking you to extend the expected level of respect to another contributor. Only you can decide whether or not to do so. AGK[•]22:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link
You mentioned that my comments were "Is pure drama seeking-- the discussion was on the same page, and readily quite viewable." This is, not surprisingly, not my opinion. I personally feel it shows a certain level for a failure to assume my good faith, but that's fine. I don't particularly care.
But, I did mean what I said quite literally, if there is a discussion about the 2002 source please provide me with a link, because I do not see it. If there isn't, could you please comment specifically about how my sentence is inserting (or interpolating) my own opinion into the source. I copy and pasted the relevant paragraph from the source and my addition into the article. Thenub314 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see exactly what was encompassed in the prior discussions. I have avoided "drama boards" and I commend the same position to others. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had made this comment and request in relation to you at that noticeboard, but as you have not adhered to it, I am not sure if it got lost in the noise (maybe as you do not want to follow that discussion anymore) or if you are not willing to see it through. Would you be willing to adhere to it to help sort the misunderstanding out? Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize
I think it is pretty clear that the end result will be the general blocking of many from all US politics articles for the next year. I have not had time to put together anything, and likely will not any time soon. My time has been consumed by family for the past 6 months, and that won't be changing anytime soon. I do hope I am wrong, however, about my first sentence. Arzel (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I am correct. RC was clearly going to present his solution regardless of any "evidence", and hear I thought RfU were designed to address concerns. Arzel (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two problems with your edits regarding Sobran and Francis: 1) The page (pre-Collect) did not allege that Sobran or Francis are anything. It simply noted that they were fired from their employers, National Review and the Washington Times respectively, for alleged racial bigotry. That stuff is verifiable and certainly relevant to their biographies. 2) Neither of them are alive, so your citation of "BLP" is erroneous. Steeletrap (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that someone was fired (by publications considered RS) for alleged anti-Semitism is not the same as saying s/he is an anti-semite. And it is absurd how many times I have to try to explain this basic logical distinction to you. Steeletrap (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try convincing someone else. I rather think "It was anonymously alleged George Gnarph was fired for being a pedophile" advances an allegation which ought not be advanced without exceedingly strong sourcing. The likelihood of harm is real, and the WMF position on such claims is clear. Collect (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Pedophile" is distinguishable from "racist" or "anti-Semitic" because it has a precise, objective meaning. You can prove someone is a pedophile but you can't prove they're a racist. Also, Francis advocated for the "supremacy of white European civilization" and Sobran gave lectures to Holocaust denial groups. That is perfectly sufficient grounds to (subjectively) denounce them as racists. Steeletrap (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK so George Gnarph was anonymously called a racist is acceptable to you? Not to me. And before you post again - I suggest you read the talk page. Collect (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section was not initially intended to be posted -- alas there is a lot of activity among editors seeking to "co-ordinate" evidence, which I find to be a very disturbing type of activity. (and the fact is that WP:BLP is an ongoing struggle for those remaining - just this morning an editor said that if allegations of "racial bigotry" falling in articles covered by the van Mises case were "verifiable" (as being printed), but he fails to note that the tem "contentious claims" well covers allegations of "racial bigotry" as needing strong sources, not just "someone wrote that:)) When such co-ordination exists, the probability increases that such coordinated efforts will have their desired result - to successfully attack the editor about whom the "evidence" is intended by sheer dint of repetition (The "Wikipedia gloss" I cite in the evidence).
The following evidence was not "provided by others", therefore the evidence was provided by AGK. The "evidence" is not found in any post on the Evidence page whatsoever:
11) Collect (talk·contribs) has been dismissive of other users' views (e.g. [6]) and needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants
and was posted by AGK as a "finding" in the TPM case. . This was not just "drafting" a decision- it is actively acting as investigator and as prosecutor in a case where the poster also is a judge.
I invite lurkers to weigh in on the "momentous importance" of the evidence, noting no one but AGK had mentioned it, and in context not a single one was offensive to anyone.
With "proffered evidence", I assume you are trying to say "drafted decisions". This is part of my responsibilities as an arbitrator, and therefore is not grounds for recusal. Please familiarize yourself with, and then follow, the arbitration policy § Recusal of arbitrators. Thank you, AGK [•] 14:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC) (AGK)
The section about arbitrator recusal which he referred to directly states:
and is expected to do so where he or she has a significant conflict of interest. Typically, a conflict of interest includes significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties
Which is pretty evident in the case at hand - AGK has had significant personal contact outside normal arbitrator contact with me. If any personal animus is seen, recusal is the only option.
The person then posted:
I am not speaking as an arbitrator; I am asking you to extend the expected level of respect to another contributor. Only you can decide whether or not to do so. AGK [•] 22:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Consider - a judge "asks" you to do something. Do you assume he is telling you the truth when he says "this request has nothing to do with the fact I sit in judgment on you"? Really?
Where an arb is directly involved in the production of evidence, in the examination of that self-same evidence, and in the sanctions proposed on the basis of the evidence he himself provided, that is clearly beyond just "drafting" and falls well into "personal involvement."
Beyond that:
[11] was the "proposed decision" for the Tea Party case including a number of people who had never been a part of the case whatsoever.
[12] shows a reasonably
direct personal interaction with me completely unrelated to any arbitration proceeding:
You are not a teacher; we are equals. You should not have expected me not to correct what I considered a misunderstanding in the question: that one arbitrator's private approach does not mean the whole committee ignored the workshop and evidence pages. In your question, you wrongly implied we did. You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not. I will say nothing more on the matter. Regards, (User:AGK) (emphasis mine - it looks like he is saying I am not honest in how I treated him)
You say you are going to evaluate answers in an "impartial manner" and assign values "from 0 to 5 for each answer … In several cases the aim of the question is to get a feeling for the Wikianschauung of the candidate". Could you therefore explain how my seven answers together returned a score of 'one?' ((AGK)
[14] shows the questions and answers from the ArbCom election pages.
On my user talk page the following "suggestion" was made:
Note: WP:POLEMIC is not a "policy" and, in fact, discourse relating to Wikipedia, and especially including evidence is specifically allowed in user space.
From his posts:
_Collect You are not sure whether this is or is not a quote, but no, evidence and workshop pages are never ignored by the committee or by me. despite the fact that is was an exact quote, and one which he appears not to have wanted to read.
People naturally gravitate towards groups that support their own view.
shows a clear desire to categorize editors as "part of a group" which I find to be an abhorrent and misused concept for an arbitrator. Especially as he had classed me as part of a very large "group" in the Tea Party case. And in the case at hand where he sought to label editors as belong to "factions" with which, thankfully, otter arbitrators demurred.
AGK specifically directs our attention to his comments in this thread
[15] To respond to the original point, I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions.
I did not say that you misquoted me. I said that you repeated what I said without comprehending it. The point is that this is not a case where "we can sanction someone, so we will". It is a case where "somebody is being disruptive, so we need to sanction them". Either you agree that disruptive editors need to be removed from an article for the good of the encyclopedia, or you think they should stay. If you agree, then we have the same view. If you disagree, well, you must consider your position.
IMO reads as a threat that my "position" on this issue will lead to my being sanctioned. Other parsing of If you disagree, well, you must consider your position. is welcomed.
[16] shows AGK's response to my points about being added only after a "Kill them All" resolution as defeated "I have nothing more to say."
I was not added until after the "Kill them all" resolution was downed, was added by AGK, and with the only evidence being from AGK. The evidence phase was already closed, and no opportunity for rebuttal was given whatsoever.
[17]Losing your temper won't help us. Question for you: do you think you have not "needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants" or "been dismissive of other users' views" during the dispute discussions? shows a clear case of prejudgment in the first place. Especially since the "evidence" shows nothing remotely like what he "knows" to be the "truth."
AGK in the past, when he was the "investigated party" wrote:
I am displeased at being listed as a party to this case. In the event that this request is accepted (a prospect I make no comment on at this point) and that the final decision involves some variation of the usual "All parties are reminded to act like reasonable adults" remedy, I would be annoyed enough to retire from editing. Doubtless many of the other administrators whose involvement in these disputes is confined to attempts to keep editor conduct in line will be similarly annoyed at having been listed as parties to this request. AGK 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yet he lectures me <g>.
AGK is "involved" now. Plain and simple. Both by acts and words.
:I think no one should have been added after the evidence phase closed, without re-opening the evidence page. I think adding parties after the Workshop was closed is even worse. If you want to close the case, then ban some people individually based on their activities on the "moderated discussion" or the talk page in general or whatever; or reopen the case, or start a new case; I think that would have been a better approach. But adding parties after a case is basically closed except for Arbs is just wrong. Having this "invitation to comment on the talk page of the Proposed decision" does not make up for not having Evidence open and a full case for those listed after the appropriate timeframe. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the case now at hand, I find above the dicta from AGK:
Preparation of a formal list of parties will not be required for this case. In similar previous cases, discussion about who are the parties has distracted the committee from resolving the dispute. As long as all editors whose conduct is being reviewed are notified of the case, and made aware in later stages of the case that sanctions may be proposed against them, it does not ultimately matter whether a given editor was formally named as a "party" or not.
to be troublesome at best, and completely at odds with any rational process at worst. Pays your money and takes your choice.
There are many actors in this dispute, and I have been slightly confused by the overlap between this case and previous ones (e.g. Gun control, Tea Party movement). Therefore, it would be exceedingly helpful if someone could provide an overview of the relevant participants in the Arzel 2 RFC (and in related article disputes). Ideally, such an overview would be grouped by 'faction'; for example:
Republican:
Editor A
Editor B
Democrat:
Editor F
Editor G
Unidentified:
Editor X
Editor Y
I would be happy to provide you with an extension to your word count if you supply such an overview in addition to submitting other evidence. Thank you, AGK[•]12:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shows an apparent desire to categorize editors and treat them on the basis of what someone asserts to be the truth about them, is violative of privacy, is violative of WP:OUTING and violative of commonsense.
Speaking personally, I do find it useful. However, given your objections, I will do this in my own time and without the parties' assistance. AGK [•] 14:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Is a promise or threat to "out" editors, or, worse yet, to make claims about them not based on objective fact. Which is yet another reason for AGK to recuse here -- prejudice, outing and categorization of editors are all against Wikipedia policy.
And his favourite treatment of policy is shown clearly by
1.A principle such as "Editors are expected to listen and respond to - not ignore - the community's concerns" would apply. However, these paragraphs are of little relevance to the dispute, and I do not think we need to mindlessly regurgitate basic policy in this way. AGK [•] 19:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeppers - an arbitrator saying use of policy is "regurgitation" where it interferes with his positions :(.
What is important is that trying to categorize anyone politically on the basis of properly conducted discussions on appropriate noticeboards does not work, never has worked, and never will work. This particular page is decidedly ill-suited for re-arguing decisions long since made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On which position Wikipedia shall stand or fall.
As a result of likely prejudice and involvement by an arbitrator, who may have already "poisoned the well", I decline to add any further evidence of any type whatsoever, and decline to participate in the workshop, and decline to "out" myself or anyone in any way or participate in such any such exercise. If AGK has indeed categorized or outed any editors whatsoever, even in internal discussions, this proceeding is nugatory in my honest opinion.
Note: I consider the following to be more than a tad "dismissive" of any editor:
I don't know how even to reply to a comment that plumbs such depths of absurdity. AGK [•] 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Grave Dancers Anonymous:
I'm not an arb, but I read it. It sure doesn't contribute to making the atmosphere here less toxic, or building an encyclopedia, or moving this case to a meaningful conclusion. Actually, it leaves me with the impression that you may be trying to poison the well, and at the very least, it's disruptive. Perhaps if you would leave out the Latin, sarcasm, condescension, wikilawyering, and passive aggressive tone, the actual substance of your complaint would be taken more seriously.- MrX 18:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually I thought about sending you a similar suggestion. I think you have a strong argument that AGK should recuse, but you focus too much on the moral outrage, and less and just simply stating the facts. Doing so makes it easy for people to ignore you, which does you a great disservice. This is a pattern I saw with several of the participants in the GC case unfortunately. I'm not saying you don't have a right to the moral outrage - perhaps you do, there are some strong indicators for shenanigans in the ARbCom taking politically motivated actions - but when the body you are appealing to, is also the body you are accusing, thats a losers game. Gotta make it black and white so there is no room for wiggling out of what the evidence shows. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is damn clear -- and was removed from the arbitration page as though it were an inconvenient truth. Which I suppose it is. Expect me back to ask questions at ArbCom Election time. Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor. Collect (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to be gracious when I made that comment, but I was trying to be gracious when I retracted it. Do you really think it's a good idea to then dredge it up, and if so, for what purpose?- MrX21:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the entirety of the evidence I provided about AGK was summarily deleted, I rather thought it rational to show how others involved in the issue reacted. If I misquoted your post, I will gladly redact it. As it is, I suspect you did not spontaneously think of removing it -- I wager that you got a post "suggesting removal" from an anonymous arb, right? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, my pinging you via WP:Echo likely reached you, and so I certainly don't mean to push, but will you weigh in on this matter when you get a good chance to do so? As shown in that discussion, I think that some WP:Reliable sources are being inappropriately discriminated against, similar to how People magazine was being inappropriately discriminated against (mainly by a lone editor), and that editors failing to distinguish between tabloid (newspaper format) and tabloid journalism is clearly still a problem for Wikipedia. Your take on appropriate sources for WP:BLPs often holds a lot of weight with the Wikipedia community; so I think your weighing in on this discussion will be beneficial. It may spare us and other editors from having to take this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, similar to the big People magazine WP:RfC discussion that was had there. And you know that I often appreciate what you have to state on such sourcing matters, whether I agree or disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alas -- my opinion holds no weight with an arb it seemingly appears, if you read the material above. Best wishes. Collect (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that you're upset. A lot of Wikipedians do listen to and agree with what you have to state about WP:BLPs; they don't always, of course. I'll go ahead and take the aforementioned matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard; I hope you weigh in on it there. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGK's defence
I do not think a reasonable basis for recusal is created by his efforts, here and in the earlier case, to portray me as corrupt. Actual corrupt actions or an undisclosed interest would be required for his portrayal to constitute a legitimate request for recusal: the proper formula is "my actions + his criticism = recusal". Collect is instead proposing "his criticism demands my recusal", a formula which if indulged would undermine the entire system of arbitration by allowing any one user to eliminate a perceivably-unsympathetic arbitrator through systematic and unfair campaigns. is AGK's defence on this.[20]
I make no comment here, but any editor is free to add concrete evidence that I called AGK "corrupt."
Any editor who feels that recusal by an Arb requires that the Arb be "corrupt" is also free to opine. As, of course, are those who demur with AGK's stated position. Thanks to all - I think my opinion is clear above. Collect (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google
So if the article on the case is notable (given the huge legal precedent it sets in Europe it certainly is) and contains within it the information google have been instructed to remove links to, wouldnt that mean google would also have to remove links to the article (which given how high wikipedia comes in search results will almost be the top entry if anyone searches in future) on the case that explains why they have to remove links? I am heavily in favour of an individuals right to privacy, but I cant see this ending well for anyone (wikipedia included) if Google has to start removing links to wikipedia articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, that is precisely the case -- almost as if someone wished a test case to be set up on Wikipedia before the ink on the decision is dry. I wonder how the WMF feels about such a deliberate edit? Collect (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well at this point the logical solution is to remove the info so the article doesnt get blacklisted.... Waiiiiiittttt a minute!
More seriously, if the ruling sticks, this might actually benefit (in the long run) the BLP area, because it will mean that non-notable/barely notable people will get more protection than they currently do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read this talk page, you will note my "unusual position" at the moment. At the moment, there are a substantial number of BLPs on which editors are running riot, adding "allegations" and innuendo galore because no one is saying "no". Collect (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A diff or two
Hey Collect, I understand it's a mass of stuff, and not all of it equally convincing, esp. not to others who are less acquainted with the matter. And it's hard to nail down a simple "unusual" phrase or common misspelling. But compare this edit with this one, for instance: same style of referencing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Winnow it down -- really the most convincing material will have to be found in overlap of articles and showing a connection between their edits. And remember we need to look at whether a usage is common on Wikipedia overall -- which is why the "nevermind" bit is weak. Right now it is like offering a diner a bowl of beef stew, but where the beef is widely dispersed in a massive amount of vegetables. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vegetables are healthy. I'm expecting readers to take their time and take it seriously. We're talking about prolific article creators with tons of edits, and we're talking about someone who went through some trouble to hide their tracks. I hatted one section, but gave you a new (short one): overlap between Candle and other (known and blocked) CoM socks. Know what all of them have in common? My talk page, haha. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Broccoli will kill any article <g>. The more you have people read, the less they will actually scrutinize it (for good or ill). In my former life, the best evidence was "weird spelling" of common words - it gave very strong evidence in only a few posts. Words like, for example, "provacator" or the like will result in only a very few hits, and the intersection is a strong piece of evidence. I also find that "intersecting edits on the same user talk pages" has a very low chance of randomly occurring - if two editors intersect on more than about twenty user talk pages (excluding Jimbo and other high traffic pages etc.), they likely have some non-random connections. I find it substantially more compelling from a statistical standpoint than intersections on broad groups of articles. Collect (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Edits to talk pages for admins are typically prompted by outside occurrences; in this case deletions, for instance. Then again, I think they have go-to editors for moving things from sandboxes. I'll see. You know this is an enormous timesink... Anyway, I did find out that both Candle and CoM have edited User:Jimbo Wales, which I thought was kind of odd. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That particular user page is a sort of playground for some, I think. Often, though, edits to talk pages are made to make an admin think that a particular position is widely held - most of those admins are not that active on the front lines of enforcing editing policies (BLP etc.) so having several "different editors" post substantially the same position does affect them. Collect (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BLP allegations
Quoting from the top of your talk page: "Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto." How fascinating, then, to see you adding "allegations" to a BLP (noting the edit summary, naturally). BLP defender my ass… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And note that I used exactly what the reliable sources stated, that no allegations of crimes are involved, and that Piketty admits he altered numbers. And I included his rebuttal as to the reason for changing figures.. Sorry Charlie - your ad hom attempt here fails quite miserably. As for your snide "BLP defender my ass" -- I think your own POV is showing -- I have no personal opinion whatsoever about Piketty, and this happened to get major news coverage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this hair-splitting in mind the next time someone gets lectured about Collect's personal extended version of BLP policy. — goethean21:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try at jumping in -- this is Beckettian in a way -- the statements that Piketty used incorrect figures are admitted by Piketty at this point - he stated he needed to alter some to smooth out curves. Now both of you are cordially invited not to post here without damn good cause. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what about Harvard University Press? Piketty’s publisher there, Ian Malcolm, is interviewed here[21]. From the sounds of it, he just reprinted the French version without applying the checks and balances that you’d hope would be applied to a Harvard economics book. He says how much money Piketty has made his company, and concluded by saying:“As long as there is bullshit and inequality, we won’t go out of business.”[22]
Nomo has been fairly blatant in this - starting yet another dramaboard section is not exactly what I desire - if you wish to see how "well" they work. If you desire, send me an email and I will show you what the EIR shows, or, better yet, you examine that tool. I also suggest you look at the nature of his posts in response to my posts in general. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit other peoples' talk page posts, as you did here. I know that you know this behavior violates the talk page guidelines, and I know you know better. I'm not sure whether you're just trying to be difficult at this point, but in any case, please stop. MastCellTalk00:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. You complained that "Santorum opposes euthanasia'" was unreferenced
I simply pointed out that the "Santorum is strongly against euthanasia" is precisely and exactly just as unreferenced. If one needs a "citation needed" than so does the other, and any other position is pure unadulterated manure. Cheers -- and stay the hell off this page. Collect (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Charlie Rangel
Hi there. Just a quick note explaining why I reverted your changes to the infobox on the Charlie Rangel article. If a congressman has served terms for different districts, we don't try and squash them all together into one continuous term on the infobox. Instead, they're split up. I get that one of your other reasons was that it's awkward to put a predecessor down for the NY-13, since the 13th is now very different to what it was, but that's how it's always been done, here on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Predecessors and successors are based on the district, regardless of how much it has changed. If you think the current thinking on this is wrong, I suggest you seek out a wider consensus for change, as this has been the standard for those kind of infoboxes for many years now, and just trying to make a change on one article isn't going to be the way forward. Hope this clarifies things. Redverton (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting this - I wasn't aware of this change in consensus. I agree that the predecessor bit ought to be removed after all. However, unless I'm reading this wrong, where was the agreement to then try and squash multiple terms together into one? Rangel hasn't been serving the 13th since 1971, so why state so? Plus, attempting to describe the composition of NY-13 in the infobox itself just makes it look messy. Redverton (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the weird edits about Rangel et al -- I ain't guilty <g>. The fact is that Congress itself does not use numbers for its members, it is just a convenience for running elections in the first place. That some folks seem to be obsessed with saying Rangel has multiple predecessors and successor shows the problem fairly clearly, I think. The idea is to show the district numbers and use "redistricted" to indicate that "predecessor" or "successor" is not rationally applicable to the person. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think we have reached an understanding. Before seeing your reply here, I did indeed add 'Redistricting' instead. Thanks again for letting me know about this change in consensus. Redverton (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me, I just noticed the mini-war that's happened on the article since I left. You would have thought that guy would have taken a moment to look at your talk page - if he was so interested in arguing with you - and could easily have seen how settled this issue is. The nerve of some editors continues to astound me. Glad it looks like it's settled now. Redverton (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The law requires people in wheelchairs to have assistance -- that is not a "notable fact" for a BLP. I believe we already point out that he is not able to walk unassisted. Collect (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what any edit summary has to do with the consensus on the talk page. Is there a reason you are not currently participating in the discussion that found consensus to remove the text you added back? I hope to see you there soon. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason for you to engage in argumentation here when it is clear that there was no such consensus to delete opinions properly cited as opinions from any such article? I hope to see you in the distant future with such argumentation sans basis. Collect (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. You are engaging in the same behavior that led to the current arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics. When the consensus was pointed out to you on the talk page, a SPA showed up at that very moment to agree with you, an account recently created to do nothing but edit war on this article. Furthermore, NPOV, BLP, and other policies have been violated. When the aforementioned case closes, I'll make sure the article is tagged under discretionary sanctions and that your little friend is blocked. Have a nice day. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool essay. I'm curious, what's the bad ArbCom decision that you're referring to in the note atop your user page? ... I just noticed more detail at the top of this page. Something to do with "discretionary sanctions", and the evidence (or lack thereof, or lack of "discussability" thereof) needed to implement them, I'd guess. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 23:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The committee in its infinite wisdom decided I was being "uncivil" for telling a person that his hypothetical statement to me was "bosh and twaddle" which aroused great umbrage at the committee, which decided that such incivility called f9r a six month topic ban from the Tea Party Movement, where my biggest editorial effort had been to make the article actually readable <g>. (One editor had actually proposed a lengthy section with a readability index under zero!) Yet editors who say "fuck off!" are clearly paragons of civility. The real issue, frankly, was that I opposed a preliminary decision to ban a slew of editors sans any evidence about them, adding them after the case had already been closed and refusing them the courtesy of demurral. The question is whether "cutting the Gordian knot" by ignoring process is a proper concept for an "arbitration committee" which I find to be an abhorrent "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" type of decision at best, and an easily abused system at worst. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CU can not show much - the data is guaranteed stale. More to the point - if no one has made any SPI charges on the articles most edited by the editor, the odds are high that the editor has actually abided by the ban. 4 years is a very long time in Internet space - and a 1RR restriction for the first six months is quite likely more than sufficient.
I have filed a few SPI reports (with about 85% positive results), and thus have seen what the CUs routinely write there. I worked for a major ISP for a very long time and knew what the "state of the art" at the time was for identifying specific users as required under my contract at the time, and I have also been a volunteer on a website where they routinely block people who try to fool the system into thinking they are two separate people. Was there an actual reason for your post here, by the way? Collect (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is a reason needed to give you a compliment? Just a random act of kindness and senseless act of beauty. :). Which brings me to another topic altogether. IIRC, you have some familiarity with Southern California politics and culture, yes? If so, I have a question to ask you about an article. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. In any case, the same question applies to other parts of the country. BTW, do you do GA reviews? Let me know if you do, I've got one that could use your feedback. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only have 2 GAs under my belt - what I find interesting is that the oldest GAs tend to be written quite floridly, while coming from a science background I tend to favour terse and clear language. If you check up on readability [27] you will find many such articles to be nicely unreadable <g>. That said, I would be honoured to give feedback as much as I can. Which article would you like fresh eyes (albeit one with a cataract - argh!) to look at? Collect (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a GA nomination on Paul Conrad awaiting a reviewer. If you're interested, you can follow the link on the talk page header to start a new review. I had you mind as a reviewer because I think you could provide some solid feedback on the topic. If you choose not to review the article, that's OK too, so please don't feel like you have to do it. I'm curious, what are you doing about your cataract? Have you found any relief? Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A year and a half after you opposed my RfA
I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ratel/Jabbsworth
It is a long time ago (2011) that the Ratel/TickleMeister/Jabbsworth-case was in full focus. Today, I came across some edits on Philip Nitschke, which set of the alarm bells. There were several edits made by a user "Jabba the Hot". I can't really pinpoint it, but the tone of his edits is what worries me. And gave me the idea of a relation with Ratel. Older edits on Nitschke and on YourLastRight.com fuel the worries.
OTOH you may not be wrong -- one problem is that Ratel's data is "old" meaning you need to show similar edits on similar topics violating those precepts which Ratel generally violated -- that is - is the added material specifically weakly sourced scurrilous material about living persons? - which was his forte. Also look at article intersections with Ratel etc. using [28]. Cheers -- I am certain Ratel is still socking somewhere on WP for sure. Collect (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS
"'editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions' ... Seems clear. I urge you to self-revert as otherwise you may be viewed as engaging in a deliberate edit war. Cheers."
Yes, it is perfectly clear. There was a consensus and you continue to ignore it and the talk page discussion and edit as you want to. So congratulations, you've bullied an editor away from editing a Wikipedia article with your insulting tone and threats. I do not know or care anything about Donald Trump or the Tea Party but merely work to make the entire encyclopedia better. What I am not going to do is engage in edit wars with editors who appear to be experienced and yet are either ignorant of Wikipedia policy concerning consensus or choose to ignore it in order to get their way with articles. Do with the article as you will, I want nothing to do with you or your approach to dealing with Wikipedia and your fellow editors. SQGibbon (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there was no consensus and two editors agreeing is rarely considered any sort of consensus. Your personal attacks,moreover, are contrary to Wikipedia policy, and I suggest you redact them as being violative of the basic tenets of Wikipedia. If you continue to use personal attacks instead of following policy, you are likely to find very tough sledding on the project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was achieved. The two editors still involved in the discussion reached a consensus based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. That other people added to the discussion weeks afterward does not negate the fact that a consensus was achieved. If there are only two editors discussing an edit then any agreement they reach that is within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia is always considered a consensus. I've asked you once before to point out where this is contradicted in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. It isn't.
There is not a single personal attack coming from me. You used an insulting tone and threatened me so I bowed out of the discussion because I no longer wish to be subject to your bullying efforts in an article I care absolutely nothing about. These are facts. You edit warred against consensus, were insulting, and threatened me. Therefore there is absolutely nothing for me to redact. You continually telling me to redact comments and/or edits however is of concern and is part of the exact same pattern of discourse you've used throughout this incident. Since I have not once personally attacked you, your comment at the end was yet another snide comment coming from you directed at me. SQGibbon (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal attacks are noted above by anyone who reads your posts. That you do not see them is not my problem. I regret that you seem to think the tenor of your posts is proper here or on any page on Wikipedia. I note that there was no formal consensus of any type and that your insistence on "my way or the highway" is not conducive to collegial editing. Cheers. Please refrain from any further posts on this user talk page. Collect (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen McNeil
Hi there,
I noticed that after I undid potential vandalism that you reversed my edit. I am hoping you can explain why.
This is the original paragraph I wrote.
"The second controversial legislation was the Financial Measures Act, which eliminated the Graduate Retention Rebate - a tax rebate given to graduates who stayed in the province to work. The government said the program was not working and that student groups wanted it cut. But student advocates said they had asked the Liberal to redirect the funds into student assistance, which did not happen, and graduates said the program helped them financially."
The information was sourced, and told both sides of the story.
See WP:WTA. The "but" sentence appears to have Wikipedia's voice state that the prior claim is wrong. Argumentation using Wikipedia's voice is not acceptable. The most you might add if properly sourced would be "some students disagreed with the changes". Claims or inferences that one person can change or alter what appears to be law is simply grandstanding at that point and can not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. And saying people who got money were happy that got money is rather a Homer Simpson fact <g>. Collect (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree with this alternative?
"The second controversial legislation was the Financial Measures Act, which eliminated the Graduate Retention Rebate - a tax rebate given to graduates who stayed in the province to work." CameronCamera (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closer - but one might add "with the stated reason being that it was not successful at retaining graduates in the province" without implying this was correct or incorrect. Collect (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.[reply]
question
Collect can you collapse your comment at AE? Apparently, the Admins are reading your comment as mine. This is causing problems for me. I'd appreciate it, thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, I appreciate you making that statement at the top, but unfortunately that is probably not going to be effective. You've written so much, and especially the last paragraphs seem to be what is getting latched onto. Your comment completely obliterates mine. I realized this was happening last night when Ed Johnston commented. I quickly contacted him on his talk page. Please collapse your comment, especially as this is not your case, you're not the one at risk here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows those IMDB links are not ideal (see the talk page there), you are invited to add better sourcing to improve the article. It is not an article I'd prefer editing either, but these drive-by "improvements" are ridiculous. So turn on your Norton Antivirus and try to reference just two of them, it would be a big help. Thanks.--Milowent • hasspoken14:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to actually work on articles, but I'll chime in. My point is that if you want to improve the article, stop screwing around on talk pages, and improve it. The AFD showed this 10 year old article is not going to be deleted.--Milowent • hasspoken15:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Removing improper refs is improving the article. You may note that I do have a significant number of article edits, although I only have had two "good articles" at this point. As for your comment about "screwing around on talk pages" I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TPM cat
Please stop. You are deleting the category from articles on grounds that it is "unsourced" -- but you are doing it so quickly that it's obvious you aren't actually checking. This is disruptive & tendentious editing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the problem is that not a single mention of them being "associated with" the Tea Party was in the BLPs in the first place other than the category would be a clue? Wikipedia does not provide for refs for categories where no ref of any kind within the article remotely supports the categorization in the first place. Collect (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Farage in Single Street
You reverted my edit saying that Nigel Farage lives in Single Street saying it represented a BLP violation. You perhaps missed my edit summary that made it clear that Single Street is a hamlet. It's quite common in Kent to find villages named after "Streets" - they're not streets in the common sense, in Kent it refers to Roman roads. See eg Collier Street, Oad Street, Hamstreet, Reading Street etc etc. I think there is value in being precise about Farage's location partly because there's a widespread meme that he comes from Herne rather than Downe thanks to a previous Wiki edit, but even now I've seen him described as Downe, Westerham (Single Street's postal address) and Single Street. My edit made it explicit, and hopefully explained why people might see other versions. Le Deluge (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the "Democratic Party" but when referring to Democrats as a group - the proper noun is "Democrats" as "democrats" does not refer to a party affiliation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits at [29], [30] etc. may qualify as reverts -- I only stated that two should be warned, and the other three would not absolutely be considered reverts even though they were in the same sections as where other editors worked. I personally think making "hundreds of edits" in a few days usually indicates that a cup of tea is quite in order. Collect (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Brown Article
Thanks for catching that. I didn't realize those edits were carried by me.
I was just deleting the refs and there was an edit conflict when I submitted. I should have been more attentitve.
Thanks. My belief is that readable articles are better than unreadable ones, short articles are more likely to get read than longer ones, and articles which present "the truth" generally don't. Collect (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to oppose the proposed mutual interaction ban between Carol and Sitush? I understand your oppose to a one-way interaction ban, but your oppose on the mutual interaction ban does not seem clear.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.16:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like "interaction bans" as a rule - and would suggest a specific time limit on any such ban would be wise - both editors have been around a bit, and keeping away from each other for a month or two makes far more sense as an informal "suggestion" than any formal Iban makes. Collect (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And again -- we use the full phrase in the body of the article where it belongs, but to be in the lead it pretty much has to be "many sources" for such a strong comment. BTW, I have, indeed, seen uglier buildings <g>. Collect (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got many sources. And that building of yours--pff, it's got nothing on the Maupoleum in terms of ugliness. I can still see it, looming over you all grey and dead when you're cycling by. And for the sake of contrast, it was across the street from the Rembrandt House Museum. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? I rather suspect the one I gave is quite ugly <g>. And one of your sources only made it in the top fifty in a city -- which is not that impressive, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonono, not at all. Your building, well, first of all I need to see some sourcing. Second, I think it looks kinda funny, kinda whimsical, in that style that was once fashionable (in the 70s and 80s). Your building has a sense of humor, which makes a lot of ugly reasonably pretty--mine is like a tomb. And top 50? Honourable mention--spelled in British English, so it has to be valid. Don't get into an ugly pissing contest with me, Collect, because you can't win this one. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK (it is far more recent than that <g>) -- how about for an example of the "1960s concrete fortress" architecture in the same flavour as the "Maupoleum"? Collect (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revision of Gary Oldman
Hello Collect. I just wanted to thank you for your revision of my edit to Gary Oldman. Could you explain what you find unacceptable about my edit summary? Also could you please explain any issues you have with the content of the edit, if any. If your issue was with the summary rather than the content I would like your blessing to restore the clarification of the ADL's reaction. Thanks again. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We use what reliable secondary sources state. We do not use our personal opinions - and your clear opinion in your edit summary that Oldman is a "disgusting antisemite" does not qualify as a NPOV claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was previously unaware that the NPOV policy applied to things like edit summaries and talk pages. This is a revelation to me. Could you please link me to the section of the relevant policies which state that edit summaries must be NPOV, so that I might learn more about this rule?
Anyway, it is now clear to me that your issue was with the summary rather than with the contents, so I consider you as having given your blessing to revert to my previous edit. Thank you.
As for the actual content of the change, which consisted of mentioning the ADL "saying that Oldman was reiterating the antisemitic canard that Jews control Hollywood", that was a paraphrase of the statement in the cited article saying "Foxman said that Oldman’s decision to mention the impact that Jewish artists and business people have had on the film industry in terms of their religious affiliation perpetrates the deleterious stereotype that they control the media business." So you will see that this uses a "reliable secondary source," so there is no problem there as per your comment.
Personally I think that individuals who believe in the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews run Hollywood are disgusting antisemites and are justly shut out of the film industry, but I will keep such opinions to myself in order to ensure that edit summaries and talk pages remain NPOV as policy dictates. Thanks again. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Collect. Thanks for your recent reversion. In the edit summary you wrote "Foxman quote is used - if you wish to add what he "meant", then you need to remove his quote which does not say what your interpolation states". This seems like a false dilemma to me. It seems that we would be perfectly capable of both paraphrasing a source as well as directly quoting from a source. Could you please point me to the relevant policy stating that it is forbidden to do both?
Also could you please point out the exact ways "saying that Oldman was reiterating the antisemitic canard that Jews control Hollywood" fails to paraphrase "Foxman said that Oldman’s decision to mention the impact that Jewish artists and business people have had on the film industry in terms of their religious affiliation perpetrates the deleterious stereotype that they control the media business." How would you better phrase it?
Thanks again. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not a "false dilemma." We can include reaction from a person - but unless it achieved widespread coverage, using four lines for a single reaction is UNDUE. Now we can either use what the person is quoted as saying, or we can use what a secondary reliable source says the person meant, but using both may well violate WP:BLP. Please read the prior disucussions on the BLP talk page to see what has been said in the past. Collect (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand more of your reasoning with each exchange. It is a joy to have such fresh insights as this conversation develops. Please have patience with me as I am unaware of many of the policies of this site. Could you please be more specific in your reference to the BLP talk page? There are 38 pages of archives and I have no idea where to begin looking. If length of the passage is such an issue, then it is my opinion that we should summarize the gist of the source rather than merely present a quote that is not representative of the whole. The source is titled "ADL Head Says Gary Oldman’s Apology Reinforces Anti-Semitism" so we should focus on the ways the ADL says his apology reinforces antisemitism, which I think is covered well by the paraphrase "saying that Oldman was reiterating the antisemitic canard that Jews control Hollywood." I think if we replace the quote with this paraphrase then we will have a nice, short summary that should address your concern about length. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One significant problem is that the ADL did not call Oldman an anti-Semite, and the term "anti-Semite" is sufficiently negative that WP:BLP pretty much says you would need strong reliable secondary sources making such a contentious claim. Second, the archives for the talk page include discussions about how to handle the incident in the article, and, absent an RfC for a new consensus, we pretty much continue with what we already have. Third is the issue of "weight" attached to (in this case) remarks from a single person regarding the incident. Generally, comments from a single person are not given extensive coverage in a BLP in any event. I think this covers some of the main issues inherent in your desired edit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As this conversation goes on, your reasoning is like a beautiful flower that opens up in the sunlight. Firstly, the line I added to the article in no way stated that Gary Oldman was an antisemite, only that the ADL said that he said something antisemitic (which they did, which is a fact). Secondly, I'd be perfectly happy with a RfC now that you mention it. Thirdly, you'll notice that the paraphrase I want in the article is actually shorter than the direct quotation currently used, so weight shouldn't be an issue. I think this resolves the concerns you've voiced and I'm eager to hear any others. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just recall that we ought rely on what secondary sources state, and not make any contentious claims about living people which are not strongly supported by them. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Belle Knox AFD #2
The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)
I've been told repeatedly that you don't want me to post here, and you typically remove my posts with rather combative edit summaries. I left you the required notification and will otherwise continue to avoid your talkpage. MastCellTalk19:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where a policy requires a warning, it is reasonable to follow policy. My last post to you was:
Bullshit. You complained that "Santorum opposes euthanasia'" was unreferenced
I simply pointed out that the "Santorum is strongly against euthanasia" is precisely and exactly just as unreferenced. If one needs a "citation needed" than so does the other, and any other position is pure unadulterated manure. Cheers -- and stay the hell off this page. Collect (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which per policy does not apply to required notices. The repeated posts you claim I removed amounts to one [31] which was a proper removal of a template from you. I did not remove your later post at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the policy which requires a warning. WP:EW explicitly states that a warning is not required before a noticeboard report, so either you're misremembering or just making things up at this point. I have made a personal policy of asking experienced editors to self-revert rather than reporting them, as a courtesy (not a requirement). I applied this policy to you in the past, and asked you to self-revert one of your recent 3RR violations. You responded in a way I found incredibly petty and vexatious. You also commanded me in abusive terms to stay off your talkpage. Based on your actions and your previous conduct, you can expect that I will place required warnings here, but otherwise will make no comments or requests here. MastCellTalk20:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it encourages a warning, and you are absolutely right that you are under no obligation to give a damn. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
October 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Joni Ernst. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Had I been given a warning, I would have specifically self-reverted as I explained at the report. I feel that where an edit has ben deemed to be a BLP issue during an RfC, that my relying on such an RfC result was proper. I further regret that the blocking admin seems to have interpreted my remarks as being against them personally, and suggest that using that to make the block longer for that reason is weak. Again - I am out of here, barring an unblock. Cheers to all, and best of luck ever using WP:BLP as it is intended. As far as "discussing controversial changes" at the article talk page, I most certainly did do that, and, in fact, the complainant opposed those discussions. Collect (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I find it a bit disingenuous to claim lack of warning. Your block log demonstrates you are amply aware of our edit warring policies. Also on several occasions you removed warnings for edit warring often with remarks to the effect that such warnings are not welcome[32][33][34].
You cannot remove warnings and tell people not to come back and then later complain that you did not get a warning. You have made it very clear that such warnings are not wanted or needed. I am declining your unblock request. Chillum23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Adieu. Usually removing a warning is simply taken as evidence the warning was, indeed, seen, and is an absolutely proper action taken in userspace per The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed. It is not reasonable to interpret such removals of templates as an indication that warnings are not proper, rather it would reinforce the propriety of giving proper warnings. When no warning is even given, the presumption should be that such a warning was not seen. We do not penalize anyone for removing warning templates (indeed, I do not template people as a rule) Collect (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being penalized for removing warnings. It simply means you are very much aware of our edit warring rules and have on multiple occasions acknowledged those warnings. Chillum23:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You specified Also on several occasions you removed warnings for edit warring often with remarks to the effect that such warnings are not welcome[32][33][34]. I take it that this sentence was accidental? I would point out the nature of the complaints, and the nature of the edits involved in those cases, which frequently were egregious BLP violations.
The oft-noted Tea Party case made no findings at all against me excepting one which said calling a hypothetical claim "bosh and twaddle" (phrase made famous by Teddy Roosevelt) somehow was of importance.
@Chillum: I think it is worth considering that Collect argued at the 3RR page that his edits were upholding WP:BLP. Thus, his statement in his request here, that he would have self-reverted had he received the warning, seems to imply that he would have reinstated what he thought was a BLP violation. I'm finding it difficult to see how one can have it both ways. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Joseph Heller. Where possible, I try to avoid confrontation. Thus self-revert. But I still believe that one should "do right, even where others do not do it." Cheers - but what is the precise intent of your post here? Collect (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My precise intent is, seriously (as opposed to being risible), to make clear to the reviewing administrator information that I feel is relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I find your commentary on this to be less than relevant. I keep and have kept no "enemies lists" of any sort whatsoever. I find I often demur with those who do keep such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nikki Haley may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
up |title=Tea partiers ascend in many states |publisher=Salon.com |date= |accessdate=2011-07-25}}</ref>
for failing to report the addresses of eight donors during her 2010 campaign for governor. <ref>{cite web|url=http://www.Newsmax.com/Politics/haley-fine-ethics-warning/2013/07/17/id/515577/#
The major real sources do NOT use the word, but the usual editors seem intent on adding it in as many places as possible -- frankly, where the major sources do not use a word, neither ought we. This is a real problem, with some of the same actors repeatedly involved. Collect (talk) 12
46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
My very own stalker once again appears on the horizon
[37] as he seems to be attacking me on his own talk page once again, but here is an example of his thinking:
For example: suppose user A comments at the talk page of a BLP on Dick Head, a notable member of the polygamous Church of MoreYoni, that Dick, his current wife and his ex-wife all appear to reside at the same address; and suppose user A comments further that "MoreYonis have such cosy domestic arrangements."
User B, who cannot see a wikiteacup without trying to stir a storm in it, deletes the comments and harrumphs about "blatant religious bigotry" in the edit summary. It's clearly a fatuous accusation, so why make it? Groundless accusations are often projections. If other users now check B's edit history and see that his contributions routinely convey an "obstinate or intolerant devotion to his own opinions and prejudices"--the very stuff of bigotry--the full extent of the irony will be evident to all.
FWIW, I consider calling a Mormon person a "MoreYoni", "polygamous", "Dick Head" to be blatantly a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that to make sexual comments as "cosy living arrangements" to be improper on any Wikipedia page whatsoever. Dissents welcome.
The original post which the OP transmogrified into "MoreYoni" on his own userpage is at [38]
Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements.
:*Let me break it down for anyone who isn't paying attention: Wikipedia article creation and content is being manipulated by external lobby groups. These groups have combined forces to promote climate change denial, creationism, and conservative beliefs. Ideologically, they are an amalgam of free market fundamentalists and the Taliban. Tyson dared to defend climate change science, which threatens their fossil fuel monopoly, and he defends evolution which threatens their religion racket.
Is simply one of many examples of where Wikipedia's real problems are - and this sort of attitude of "us v. them" is found all too often on discussion pages. Instead of seeking conservatively written encyclopedic articles, some wish to make all articles a battleground to promote their own knowledge of the "absolute truth." The answer is, alas, not "42" but is to recognize the skillful use of their own ad hoc co-operation in order to negate the principles of NPOV and to make sure the "truth" is what Wikipedia shall promulgate, especially in political, religious, economic, and philosophical articles, and to demean, attack and castigate anyone who actually is trying to follow the principles of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about missing the point. External lobby groups have been actively attacking scientists for defending climate change and criticizing creationism. Instead of directly addressing the issue, you've ignored it and launched into your own rant. Has it occurred to you that Wikipedia should not be advocating and promoting the fringe opinions of external lobby groups or is that concept too complex for you to handle? Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fear I am in the group which thinks those who see conspiracies behind every corner tend to be conspiracy theorists. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, this is not a conspiracy, this is a real collaboration.[39] Your dismissal of reality is extremely troubling. They've been deliberately going after Tyson because Tyson dared to promote evolution and climate change science and criticize creationism.[40][41][42] This is a fact, Collect. You can deny until the cows come home, but you will only look silly and uninformed. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, this isn't a conspiracy theory.[43][44][45] The same people attacking Tyson over climate change and creationism are the same people (and publications) attacking him over alleged "fabrications". This is how they work. When they can't address the science, they find a very small error, perhaps a misquote that is meaningless, and then inflate it into something it isn't to argue ad hominem: "You can't trust Tyson on climate change and evolution, after all, he misquoted George Bush!" Heartland has done the same thing and is closely associated with the Federalist authors/website. Are you still claiming that this is a conspiracy? Because there are entire books written about how Heartland and Discovery attack scientists like this. Please don't argue from ignorance. Are you aware that Heartland and Discovery have a long history of this kind of behavior? Heartland was the group responsible for attacking and waging a campaign against Rachel Carson. It would take some time to list the number of climate scientists they have waged campaigns against. This isn't conspiracy, this is a documented, historical fact recorded in the finest, most reliable sources. The Discovery Institute is driven to replace the teaching of evolution in the schools and has expressed their primary goal of attacking "scientific materialism". I've already given you links to key people from Discovery attacking Tyson for promoting evolution. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have proven the vast right wing extremist conspiracy controls Wikipedia, and every article is under the cabal's secret control. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I wish you wouldn't conflate climate change and creationism, they have so little in common. I have seen creationist supporter unhappy with Tyson - hardly surprising. However, the linkage between Tyson and climate change is almost always by the left trying to gin up a controversy. The conservative sites have gone out of their way to say that Tyson's blunder regarding the Bush quote has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's views on climate change. I can't do much about the misinformation in the mainstream press, but I can try to keep that misinformation from being cited as if it were fact in here.--S Philbrick(Talk)14:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick: I appreciate and respect your civil comments, but I'm afraid I strongly disagree with your position. The "left" (whomever that is, since we currently have no "left" in the U.S.) is an invisible, non-existent entity that the right uses as a scapegoat. The linkage between petrochemical lobbies like Heartland, who are the leading climate deniers in the world, and the anti-evolution and anti-secularism lobby like Discovery, are clear and unambiguous. I have documented a very small sample of their collaboration on the attacks on Tyson here. Please note, this represents less than half of the attacks against Tyson. If you look closely, you will find creationists attacking Tyson on his climate change position and climate deniers attacking him on his position regarding religion. This is not a coincidence. The petrochemical lobby in the guise of Heartland has combined efforts with the creation lobby represented by Discovery, and they are publishing each other's attacks on Tyson on their respective websites to maximize the echo chamber of the right wing noise machine. This has also been documented by numerous reliable sources. Your continuing claim that this is "misinformation" is the real misinformation. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to the New Jersey copyright discussion - that was one that I had missed when I was off playing with orphaned free files. Kellyhi!06:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are one of our experts on BLP policy, so I have a question.
The background is that there is a bit of a tussle regarding the inclusion of an incident involving a statement made by Neil DeGrasse Tyson about Bush. To the best of my knowledge, there is no debate about the factual nature of the incident.
Wikipedia generally eschews edit warring, to the point that editors can be blocked for the removal or addition of material even though the removal or addition may be warranted. Editors are expected to handle disputes about content in a particular way, and that way does not include brute force, with one exception. BLP acts as a trump card, so that the removal of material, which might otherwise be edit warring, gets a pass.
I agree with this position. However, while I support the notion of a trump card, it isn't, to abuse the metaphor, a wild card, to be used whenever you chose for whatever purpose. The edit must comply with BLP policy in order to earn the exemption.
A key sentence in the BLP is:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
However, it is my opinion that some editors are acting as if the policy says:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
As an aside, I think the policy should be strengthened; I think it should apply in some cases where sourcing is not poor, but that's a discussion for another time.
At the moment, I'm interested in your views on whether the phrase missing in the second formation—that is unsourced or poorly sourced—is an unimportant aside, or a key part of the policy. I'm also interested in knowing whether this debate has occurred in the past.
As a related point, while Wp:WEIGHT hasn't played an important part of the Federalist debate, it has in the Tyson article. It is my belief that weight issues must be debated and a consensus reached, but a dispute over weight does not rise to the level that permits the trump card of BLP Policy to be used. While a contentious argument over the factual nature of a claim means that the claim should be removed until an editor consensus is reached, I do not think the same holds true for a weight claim - one should not be able to invoke BLP to remove something when one disagrees with the weight, if only for the reason that this would truly be a wild card, and permit anyone at anytime to removed well-sourced material simply by claiming there are questions about weight and the material should be removed until resolved. Do you know if this point has been debated in the past, and do you have an opinion?--S Philbrick(Talk)22:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Tyson issue is interesting. When the issue was first raised at RS/N, my opinion was that the editorial opinions of people saying that Tyson misused quotes should be ascribed as opinion, but that the claim that quotes were misused is not a "contentious claim" in itself. At that point in time, before Tyson acknowledged the misuse of quotes, there was a marginal case that it was akin to a criminal claim (although I tend to regard it as far different from, say, a claim of child molestation etc. seen in the BBC presenter BLPs and BDPs.
You are, of course, correct that the policy refers to "unsourced or poorly sourced" - which is an important part of the policy as worded - and which generally means that we need a strong reliable source making a claim of fact. Where the claim is an opinion properly cited as opinion, this is often misused with a claim that the person holding the opinion can not be a strong source for the fact that they hold the opinion - which is pushing the envelope a bit. Rather, I suggest that a source for the fact that someone holds an opinion need only be clearly something reflecting what that person actually stated (as in an editorial column) and that "reliable source" does not mean "unimpeachable as to fact" as no source meets that wondrous standard in my experience.
In the Tyson affair, there was, at first, demurral as to whether any misquote had occurred. Tyson's statements now make clear that such misquotes did occur, and that demurral seems now to be useless as a reason for omitting a brief mention of the affair, just as the opposition based on the initial claims being opinion now seem moot.
There is also the position that since the initial source has a partisan POV, that therefore its opinions should be elided, however I find that argument weak as Wikipedia frequently uses such sources in articles without dismissing them as being partisan. Some time ago I considered that issue in WP:Source pH wherein I suggested that sources which are outliers from neutral positions should be used more sparingly than ones which are closer to neutral, which might provide a way forward in the distant future. In the case at hand, several of the sources appear to be fairly close to being centrist, making that argument in the Tyson case a tad weak.
I also find the "weight" position to have problems. Wikipedia seeks to represent scientific positions with the weight accorded them in scholarly literature, but it is often used in arguments that unless every source mentioning the person also mentions the controversies, that the controversies lack the "weight" in the literature to be presented in articles, which is a pretty clear misreading of the policies involved. Conversely, we also have had "6 day wonders" of controversies which get major articles in Wikipedia (vide the famed Romney dog affair, the Bush drug allegations, etc.) which rapidly get overblown on Wikipedia.
I am a believer in terse mentions of whatever is not remotely a criminal allegation <g>, and feel that we should look at entire articles (WP:PIECE which suggests that we truly adhere to NPOV as applied to an entire article and not argue the weight of each sentence) and their actual utility to readers in two decades, rather than to what editors find "important" during the political silly seasons. In the Tyson affair, I proposed short and "sticking to the facts" text, without much success.
Your comment here is an egregious violation of WP:BLP. Specifically, you disparage a living person—essentially accusing him of fraud—and cite in support unreliable personal blogs and online forum posts. That you would violate BLP so casually while trumpeting your commitment to upholding it is... ironic. In the short term, could you please take steps to remedy this BLP violation? In the longer term, it might be helpful to re-think your approach to WP:BLP. Based on your actions here, you seem to grasp its potential as a weapon but not its actual meaning or import. MastCellTalk22:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um - I cited the sources online. The noticeboard is not a BLP and the issue was using a claim that a living person sold his autographs, which is a BLP violation which you seem to condone here. and one should note that the discussion there is exactly in conformance with WP:BLP. I suggest you re-examine your approach to WP:BLP as you seem to apply it in a very POV maner in articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) What!? BLP policy doesn't apply to content on noticeboards? And it's okay to repeat potentially problematic content (in this case an allegation of fraudulent behaviour) so long as it's sourced somewhere (in this case, to a blog)? I'm no WP:BLP expert but that doesn't sound right to me. Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI05:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My post on the BLP/N board was to point out that some editors were trying to violate BLP in the case at hand in a specific biography of a living person. I pointed out that most sports autographs are, indeed, fakes, and that this was one of the reasons that reporting a "reported" investigation was a BLP violation. To that end, pointing out the problems in the field of sports autographs is not a BLP violation, nor did I make any surmise other than that found in online sources. Including a TV station report etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: something everyone dislikes
Collect, would you consider supporting the "alternative text" that begins "In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding . . ." I'm not in love with it, either, but it may be the best chance to achieve a consensus compromise for inclusion. Please consider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Collect. In my estimation, recognizing that Tyson quoted Bush out of context, and that Tyson apologized for it, is at least half a loaf. Forcing a compromise at NDGT will also break the logjam at The Federalist article where a somewhat different turn of phrase may be expected. I also have a WP policy concern: 12 months from now, no one is going to remember the exact wording of NDGT article, but everyone will remember the precedent of the BLP veto-overstretch on the flimsiest of pretexts by the "no way, no how" crowd. And for me, that's a far bigger issue than the exact phrasing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the only issue were "this is what the right wing says to discredit people" then that is not a really good basis for any entry in an encyclopedia article. I prefer to stick with facts and not with opinions or conspiracy theories in BLPs. Collect (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised by the edit you made to Paul LePage on 9/20, regarding his meetings with members of the Sovereign Citizens Movementdiff. Some of your changes strike me as reasonable - I agree with your change to the section title as there seems to be some dispute about whether or not these men were members of the movement. However, I think you cut so much out of the section that the reader who isn't familiar with the term "Sovereign Citizens movement" wouldn't know why such meetings would be newsworthy. The newspaper articles about this incident all mention that these sovereign citizens alluded to executing leaders of the state legislature - in fact, that's in the headline of the cited Bangor Daily News article. However, your version of the text only mentions the execution claim in order to say that the participants deny it: all your version of the text says about the matter is: "Two of the men who had met with LePage rejected the claims of ties to the "sovereign citizen movement" and denied any discussions of executions took place." The reader has no context about who the men were supposed to have discussed executing or why, only that they say they didn't discuss it. You claimed that "the value to readers [of the content you removed] is nil", but I don't think that the sovereign citizens group or its ideology are familiar to readers, so the specific things that these men said in the meetings, as well as the actions that the governor took on their behalf, are relevant to readers. I'd like to reinsert at least some of the material into the article. GabrielF (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Collect, I noticed that you made this edit [46] and stated that the reason for the removal is that the sources are non WP:RS. I'm confused because you did not removed the sources in their entirety or any other associated content, just what pertained to TheRichest.com. Thanks, --SChotrod - Just your averagebanjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"therichest.com" is not a reliable source as far as I can tell for anything - see the WP:RS/N discussions thereon. I left some claims in place so that at some point someone might find actual sources, but I could have removed them instead. Collect (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a source, OK, I get that. But saying that she was awarded something (in this case a ranking) doesn't seem to make it unreliable. Plus it was correctly attributed to the publication versus something like, "Benz was ranked as the #1 porn star in 2013". It simply said that a media outlet had awarded her status. Plus a 3rd party reported the ranking. I also did some checking on TheRichest.com and its quoted by other news outlets like Fox News. Granted, not a bastion of journalistic excellence, but it seems like a minor thing to delete for WP:RS. --SChotrod - Just your averagebanjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Christian terrorism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 October 2014.
Do not threaten me in the fashion you just did here. Adding, improving and rephrasing material is not "edit warring." I responded to your request for sources with more sources, I expanded the text and I discussed at talk. You disagree with the content I added and kept reverting me wholesale, THAT is POV-pushing, I strongly suggest you not accuse me of reverting or of having some sort of agenda when you happen to lack Clean hands yourself - you have an obvious pro-right-wing bias in your editing patterns and spend most of your time on political articles (whereas I edit a wide range of topics). I have no interest in giving you further reason to be a pain in my butt for now but I will be adding more on Daines' endorsements later. I suggest that instead of threatening other long-time editors how about you add content instead of drama? If you expand the sectionon his endorsements, then I won't need to. Montanabw(talk)08:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "threaten" you, nor would I tell anyone to "go f- yourself" - your edits count as reverts under Wikipedia policy, and they are substantial reverts full covered by the WP:EW policy. And note, there is an ongoing RfC covering your apparent POV desires which does not appear to back the additions of claims that Daines is "tea stained" as you would insert. As for your claim that I am "pro-right-wing" - that is ludicrous - I use the exact same standards on all BLPs across the board (vide Alex Sink, etc.). Several thousand of them. Political BLPs make up a small fraction of my total edits, and I suggest you look at the fact I generally remove unsourced material or unsourced categorization of living persons. The article I worked on most is Joseph Widney which I pruned down in order to make it a "Good Article". Meanwhile, do not assert that editors who are nowhere near Montana are members of Daines' "staff" or the like. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Christian terrorism, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
Request for guidance/help on prison industrial topic
I both thank and apologize for my attempt at adding to this topic. I am new to writing in Wikipedia and regrettably i am not very knowledgeable in what is allowed and what is not. As part of a class assignment i was to add information to my chosen topic, Prison-industrial complex. If you can offer any suggestions for revision of what i had put up i would gladly accept and work on them to correct my errors. Thank you for any help you can provide. Shadowbolt7 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all -- brief sections get read more than long walls of text. Second, if you wish to cover a topic, use multiple reliable sources on the topic - simply rewording an article from another source is still against policy. Third - always remember that articles must be written from a neutral point of view - we can not editorialize in any articles. Find four or five independent sources, see what they basically agree upon, and write brief sentences comprising that material and use the markup tags to link the claims to the cites used for such claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Collect, i tried to follow your suggestions by shortening what i had written from before to just the main points, attempting to keep as much of a neutral tone (while still stating facts of the situation), and using two sources that state the same things( hence why i had two sources/citations listed after each one as i only wanted to add sections that i could find multiple sources to). I am a bit lost as to what to do to fix it. I honestly do think that this is relevant information to the topic, as far as the section on economics are concerned, but that perhaps i am inexperienced in wiki writing. At this point i would have no objections to having help from you or anyone on the rewording, if that is the problem, to fix this. Thank youShadowbolt7 (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The single short sentence covers what the sources state. I am unsure as to whether the sources make clear that this is a "prison-industrial complex" issue however, or whether they are dealing with a single issue not related to the topic of the article. Collect (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point that it could be put under it's own topic but if it relates to the prison industrial topic would it help if i explained the why or how it connects? I have in their partially why from an economic point but perhaps it is to weak of connection to the main topic of the page. Would that help to make it more appropriate? Or perhaps connecting that into other parts of the economics section where it describes methods of saving money or cutting costs?Shadowbolt7 (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the reliable sources do not make an explicit connection, it is a major problem in the article - we are not supposed to do original research on a topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's where i have my problem. I would love to do a research project just on that but i understand that the wiki has guidelines for what is allowed. Perhaps I'll keep looking and see if i can find any research that has already been done that more accurately connects the two(appropriate and wiki approved research). At the very least i thank you for your help with this and perhaps someone might be able to find more information and build on what little i have added.Shadowbolt7 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a new resource for United States square mile area from the U.S. Census, “State and other areas” which uses the MAF/TIGER database, shared by the USGS and Homeland Security. The first box on the first line reports 3,805,927 sq.mi. for the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”. I support the use of the chart total report based on sources to include islands which are a part of the United States "in a geographical sense."
The U.S. is a federal republic but it considers itself as a “sole person” in the international community. The U.S. territories should be reported as included in the nation just as in the France article. The French legislature allows territorial Deputies in its national legislature, the US. allows territorial Delegates, the British does not. The “unincorporated” status of the territories is for an internal tax regime, and is irrelevant to reporting the total area of the United States of America.
The three who opposed including islander U.S. citizens in the United States introduction in the Dispute Resolution of March of 2013 now propose to parse the sub-charts of the source to report only the states and DC, without sources to exclude the territories. I am now joined by RightCowLeftCoast, but TFD asserts the minority in the Dispute Resolution was a “consensus” to exclude U.S. citizen islanders. Any contributions you may choose to make at Talk:United States#Area in square miles would be welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hi Collect. Thank you for the work you've done to keep my Wikipedia article fair; I'm in your debt. But I was hoping I could ask you a question. User:Greenrd just went on my User_talk:Jartine page a few minutes ago and started accusing me of using sockpuppetry to edit my own Wikipedia page, when I did no such thing. Is this appropriate behavior for Wikipedia editor? I apologize, but I'm really not familiar with Wikipedia policy. Thank you in advance for your help. --Jartine (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly improper for any editor to make such accusations. There is a proper noticeboard at WP:SPI but that would require the person to actually find evidence of sock puppetry. If you need anything further, my email link works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
November 2014
Your recent editing history at Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The edits being inserted allege that specific living persons benefitted from a Genocide - which is a quite contentious claim about living persons. I also note that you were the first editor to revert the insertion -- the editor inserting the problematic material three times is the one who needs the warning -- unless you now wish to warn Drmies as well? <g> is the one who is breaching policy at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have asked for a 3rd opinion on our dispute about the article about J. T. The 3rd opinion page recommends I notify you that I have done this, so I am notifying you. Cheers.--greenrd (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And... BTW, Cathy is not a living person. The contributions against the LGBT community are not heresay, nor are they supposition or something that people just "know". It's been documented and reported by reliable sources. VertiumWhen all is saidand done14:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:BLP and note that it does apply to "recently deceased." The desire to label Southern Baptists as "anti-gay" or "homophobic" is a substantial problem in many articles. Collect (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Collect, please wait until the RfC is concluded to see if there is consensus for removing well-sourced content from the article. Your appeal to WP:BLP appears to be an attempt to game the system, since the content is abundantly sourced and the organizations' policies are not living people. With respect to edit warring, it would also be advisable to adhere to the same standards that you demand of others.- MrX14:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I restored your last version - I would have thought that would be enough. And amazingly enough, I regard WP:BLP as being extremely important, as do many other editors. The refrain "people who cite BLP are simply gaming the system" is an abhorrent canard. The clear intent of the "anti-gay" is to refer in some way to Cathy, and thus does fall under WP:BLP. Cheers. And kindly do not try using the "gaming" canard again. Collect (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I just uncovered your AIV report, a day and a half later, since it seems to have been inserted into the page instructions and was therefore not visible on the main AIV page. The vandal you reported was blocked, so no harm done. Just a heads-up for next time. Best, m.o.p06:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had moved it - and then it got stuck back in -- dunno how it happened, but sometimes I think Windows 8 is the "enemy" <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cosby
I want to avoid a potential revert war here so I thought I would explain my revert more explicitly than I could do in the summary the summary box. My concern is that the version you reverted to made no notice of the events of 2014. This, unfortunately, made the article look like it was hiding something. It also made the article incomplete as the work section now referenced to studios pulling projects within 2014 due to sexual abuse allegations without it ever being clear why exactly those claims became relevant in 2014. I, like you, am trying to avoid creating a slanderous article, however all these claims have been verified by trustworthy sources and I do not feel that any thing here is libel. --Deathawk
I agree with you that redistricted districts do not have successors as senators, governors, president, et. with fixed districts do. Rather than calling them "successors", implying the same group of voters voted them as those in the past district and the same boundaries i.e. same district, I prefer something along the lines of "meta-ccessors".(n/s)
Easier to simply say that if a person actually wins an election against a person that they "succeeded" the person, and if both win n different districts that neither is "successor" to the other. Collect (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
mediation
please stop rehashing issues in the mediation. please let the mediator guide the discussion and just respond simply and directly to questions the mediator asks. thank you.Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)(struck, apologies for the offense Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I posted short and proper material on the mediation page - if you make posts like this again, I shall withdraw from the mediation. I find your tone precisely and completely inapt if you sincerely wish to find common ground and consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Questions
Hey Collect. Just wanted to let you know that I answered the last of your questions. Thanks for asking them all :) → Call meHahc2113:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that that the succession box (at the bottom) is not an infobox (at the top). The succession box says "Member from the Xth district" Fact is that Grimm was the "Member from the 13th District" and now Rangel is the "Member from the 13th District", so there is a clear succession concerning this point. No consensus for succession boxes can be established at an "Infobox" discussion, because the existence and addition/non-addition/removal of such is contentious, has beeen subject to a full-fledged war, is subject to ArbCom sanctions, and many editors are barred from even commenting there. On the other side, succession boxes are used following this exact pattern at ten thousands of articles, not only all congress bios, but also a vast number of state legislators, and nobody ever questioned it. Succession boxes are meant to help navigation, not to discuss fine encyclopedic points. The very existence of them would be called in question, since redistricting every ten years os so, would make them utterly useless, having written "redistricted" on either side. Please revert yourself at Michael Grimm. Then start a discussion at Template:succession box, invite all who routinely work with them, and get some input. At the end, we should follow consensus, whatever that may be. Kraxler (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note there is now an RfC at the template which you seem to defend. I suggest further that you note the edit at Michael Grimm was in accord with the discussion at the talk page for that BLP - thus you seem to ask I unilaterally abrogate the consensus there. Sorry - I suggest that since that particular BLP had a discussion about whether Rangel "succeeded" him, that it is up to you to start a new discussion saying why that consensus is no longer valid. See [47] if you wish to see how the NYT handles it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Rangel just takes exception to be mentioned on one page with Grimm, then it's ok with me. I'll let it go as a unique BLP occurrence.
What you can't do are two things: First: claim that consensus for infoboxes is valid for succession boxes, it's not. They are two very distinct things with different purposes. And second: change well established long-time Wiki usage on a vast number of articles for any reason, without consulting the community. Could we agree on that?
The NYT article doesn't mention Rangel or any district number. Districts are not just renumbered, the geographical area changes also. Anytime the total number of districts changes, they have to cut up the area in a different way. Sometimes two incumbents run against each other, so one actually succeeds the other in half a district, and succeeds himself/stays in office in the other half. All that is obviously explainable in the text, but unexplainable in a succession box. For that reason, the boxes for district seats follow always exclusively the number. A question common sense, rather. If anybody comes up with something better, I certainly want to hear of it. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And note that no Congressional biography lists "district number" either, nor asserts "succession" based on "district number". Now if you wish to say that Wikipedia is a valid source for Wikipedia to state something not found in any reliable source then say it. I rely on what NYB has said: "It seems logical to me that the two templates would follow the same standards." And if reliable sources do not assert "succession" then we can not rationally use Wikipedia per se to make the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Succession: suc·ces·sion
səkˈseSHən
noun
2.the action or process of inheriting an office
District numbers have nothing to do with succession when they aren't kept the same, i.e. redistricted, because then it is not the same office representing the same area and people as the previous district of the same name. All they do is share a name. If districts are redistricted every 10 years, only during those 10 years after that and before the next redistricting can you consider it true succession like a US senator, president, or governor whom all have fixed districts (the states and nation). If you want to keep links for navigation that's fine but use a word that doesn't imply that (almost) everything about the district is the same as the past election prior to redistricting.Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Where the redistricting is minor, this is not a "big deal" but gaining/losing seats frequently makes for religious use of "district number" being absurd. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the RfC invitation, but I've been very peripheral to that discussion and won't weigh in. However you left a couple of comments on my talk page that I thought I would respond to, there. I'm copying them here as an afterthought, or you'll probably never see my response.
I wrongly assumed that the Infobox discussion might actually be moribund.
I note that Bill de Blasio is almost 6'6".
I was surprised when Weyhrauch was indicted. I'd always had the impression that he was quite clean. I was glad to see his felony conviction was set aside, though I hated to see Conrad Black and Jeff Skilling get off the hook at the same time.
Alas - it appears some people do not understand why the two templates well ought to be construed in parallel. What grade would a Civics teacher give a student who said Grimm was succeeded by Rangel in Congress? <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In Congress" is not the same as succession in the numbered district. Physical boundaries don't matter. This article clearly lists congressmen who served under that district number and it shows Rangel right under Grimm. TL565 (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congress does not use district numbers. Really. No reliable source makes the assertion that Rangel 'succeeded Grimm. None. Wikipedia is using Wikipedia as a source when it makes that assertion. The discussion at Infobox officeholder reached that clear conclusion. "Numbered districts" are only used for the purpose of holding elections, and for no other purpose, and where the orthogonality of people is sufficiently extreme, all we do is provide failing grades to readers who use that claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a reliable source that says Grimm succeeded Yvette Clarke. I assume there was one because you don't seem to have problem with that being displayed. The discussion at Infobox officeholder was just you making claims with no evidence of being fact at all. If your claims are true then it applies to every other representative past and present not just Charlie Rangel, which for some reason you only care about. If you can't be bothered to change the other articles, then your argument can't be taken seriously. TL565 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"If you can't be bothered to change the other articles, then your argument can't be taken seriously." This doesn't follow. Who has time to change so many articles on their own? If you can convince those opposed on one article you can join together to convince those doing others articles. I.e. Changing the tide. But just because one hasn't changed all the other articles is not a sufficient reason to not change one and move on to the others. Its strange that you add this stipulation to others yet you don't do that yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.33.59 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is strange is you seem to be following me and showing up in discussions I'm involved with. Are you still bitter about the past dispute we had or what? I am now 100% sure you are Dairyfarmer777, who vandalized my user page. TL565 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you. Don't flattering yourself. Those articles are fixed so no reason for me to be bitter. I'm following the discussion on "succession" of redistricted districts where collect has been posting. I'm 100% sure you're paranoid. Way to be off topic.
I do not like any box where the claim is made in Wikipedia's voice that someone preceded or succeeded someone where the claim is not sourced to a reliable source (indeed, cannot be sourced to a reliable source with a straight face) - the blatant example here is Rangel/Grimm but that does not mean I approve of any clearly errant claims. And where the district remains the same or substantially the same, there is no problem. Where there is no connection between the districts, there is, indeed, a problem. Or else I suggest you write to the NYT that Rangel was Grimm's successor and ask them to print that "fact." As for the claim that unless I do every single article that this is not a "serious" position, kindly note "Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor". Such an argument is fatuous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Your opinion not fact. I have yet to see any source that backs up your argument. Rangel/Grimm isn't any more blatant than the others. How many times must it be said, it is about the number of the district is why they are connected. This is the way it has been from the start. I find it strange you suddenly took issue to it this year. Where were you all those years before? Right now, I am tempted to change the articles back to the way they were before until a real decision is made. TL565 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is the one I found. It is a horrid thing to provide absolutely wrong information to readers. I am not All-Knowing about every problem on Wikipedia. Odin I am not, but when I do see a problem, I damn well try to emend it. That is what "Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor" means. And I suggest that you read WP:CONSENSUS before doing what you appear to threaten to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You lost any credibility you had. Your opinions are not facts. I am also trying to fix a problem on Wikipedia. I tried for a week to explain it to you, but you kept ignoring the obvious problem I was trying to point out. By the way, the de facto consensus which has been in place from the start of Wikipedia, is currently what 99% of representatives pages are following right now, not some dubious discussion earlier this year. If you really want to change something that has been in place since the start of the entire project and would effect thousands of articles, then there needs to be a Major discussion about it. This is not something that can be changed in a few days. TL565 (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- my opinions are the same as the apparent consensus at the RfCs - Wikipedia is governed by WP:CONSENSUS. Kindly note that the RfC process does notify a great many people, and the history of Wikipedia is that the results of RfCs are honoured. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I am trying to work with you. I don't want this to escalate into something worse, but you are not even trying find any middle ground. You keep mentioning the RfC as something that was clear and decided on, but it leads me to believe otherwise because it wasn't applied to 99% of articles it should have. Why only apply this new rule to Grimm and Rangel only? There are probably thousands of articles of congressmen on Wikipedia that have used the succession box in its current state for years. I think to change so many articles that have been the same since the start of Wikipedia, there would need to be a HUGE discussion with a lot of users being involved on why it should be changed. I don't think the RfC did that. I don't think people foresaw the problems arising after that discussion either. I think to have it only applied to two congressmen and have the rest unchanged is completely unacceptable and problematic. It is confusing to readers and inconsistent to have it that way. This kind of inconsistency I think, hurts Wikipedia more, not fixes it. Believe me, I am sincerely trying to help the project, but this is a much bigger problem than it seems and needs a much larger discussion and thought put in to it. Please hear me out for once. TL565 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only ground is Wikipedia should never make any explicit claim which is actually and palpably false. Period. I fix what I can, but decrying me because I was not the only person fixing the "unreferenced BLP issue" but have only worked on a few thousand BLPs so far is not precisely going to impress me at all. I have made more than twenty times the number of edits you have made. I suggest that saying I should have made 100 times as many for you to accept my opinion and the opinions of all those who did act on the RfC is not proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not going to read my earlier posts? Or are you going to continue to pound your chest saying "I'm right your wrong! I'm right your wrong!"? Please read my post again. I really want to work together to resolve this issue, but you need to try to understand the points I am making. TL565 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only going to say this one more time, please read my post above and respond to my points I have made. I am trying to find some common ground between us. I seriously want to work this out and don't want anymore problems, but please just answer what I have addressed above. TL565 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Last time: The purpose is to write useful encyclopedia articles. Encyclopedia articles which contain material which is palpably false in implication are not useful encyclopedia articles. This appears to be the very strong consensus at the RfC for officeholder infoboxes, and a likely consensus at the succession box RfC. Is this quite clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I see I'm talking to a brick wall here. I tried one last time to be nice and asked you to respond to specifically what I had said, but you were more interested in your own self righteousness to ever listen. You are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You obviously are not trying to resolve the issue. It's all about how you are right no matter what. I've asked you so many times, Do you not see the problem on how the articles stand now? I have provided many reasons for this and you ignored every single one of them and kept making other claims with no evidence instead of addressing them. I'm done with you. If you find somebody else who I can reasonably talk to, tell them to talk to me. TL565 (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not look at every single Wikipedia list - just this one. And Wikipedia requires entries to be sourced with reliable secondary sourcing, and to be about persons who are notable. Collect (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Collect, rather than create a new section on the same page, a motion has been proposed on the Tea Party movement request in which you were named as a party. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration amendment request
Hi Collect, I have closed and archived the amendment request regarding the Tea Party movement case in which you were named as a party. The Arbitration Committee resolved that:
Enforcement action taken pursuant to the foregoing may be appealed in the ordinary way to a consensus view of uninvolved administrators. If no such enforcement action is taken (or all such actions are taken and successfully appealed) by 01 January 2015, on that date the remedies will become formally vacated by this motion, and the case pages then amended by the clerks in the usual way. If an appeal of such enforcement action is pending on 01 January 2015, the remedies will become formally vacated only if the appeal is successful. If enforcement action is taken and an appeal is rejected, the remedies shall become unsuspended and a request for their amendment may not be re-submitted to the committee until six months have elapsed from the passage of this motion.
"In addition to supporting efforts to limit government spending in general, Koch's organizations Americans for Prosperity and the Cato Institute oppose public funding of public broadcasting, the arts, education, and scientific research." Please explain to me what you believe to be a "more modest edit," in your parlance. --The Cunctator (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"HuffPo" is editorial in nature. You use it to imply Koch opposes any public monies for the arts, education and research. The HuffPo "source" says absolutely nothing of the sort. Next is "canceradvocacy". It says nothing to support the claim that AFP and Cato "oppose funding for research" either. PBS? Nope either. AFP? At least it mentions AFP. Says absolutely noting about opposing all finding for art, education and research. In fact, not a single source I found supports the claims you tried making for them. "FierceGovernment" rails at the "Ryan Budget" but does not make any claim that it removed all funding for the arts, education and research at all. And it is not RS for anything in this case to begin with. Cato? At least it covers itself. Thought piece on the "militarization of science" it appears. Opposed to research funding? Not a bit. And not an "official position" of Cato either. How many more misused cited does one need to find before noting the claims are not supported by your laundry list of cites, many of which do not meet WP:RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 December 2014.
Sorry for the template. I noticed that you recently tried to {{ping}} someone as an addition or correction to a previous post you'd made. Thousands of editors think this works, but it doesn't. I'm on a quixotic quest to tell everyone I see doing this that pinging only works when you also add a new signature at the same time as the ping. See Wikipedia:Notifications if you're curious.
Argh -- for some reason a person told me it "pinged" me in the past -- but I had to turn on something in notifications. For some reason I had thought ATG had that turned on. That it requires a new sig was never brought to my attention before. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Card racist?
(Note: Per wp:CANVASSING I am "non-biasedly" advertising a topic for discussion by posting a notice on the ten most recent users who commented on the page in question's talkpage and also the ten most recent users who edited the article in question.)
Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?
An article last Sunday about the documentary maker Morgan Spurlock, who has a new film out on the boy band One Direction, misstated the subject of his 2012 movie “Mansome.” It is about male grooming, not Charles Manson. The article also misspelled the name of the production company of Simon Cowell, on whose “X Factor” talent competition show One Direction was created. The company is Syco, not Psycho.
The New York Times:
An obituary on Sept. 20 about Hiroshi Yamauchi, the longtime president of Nintendo, included a quotation from a 1988 New York Times article that inaccurately described the Nintendo video game Super Mario Bros. 2. The brothers Mario and Luigi, who appear in this and other Nintendo games, are plumbers, not janitors.
The New York Times:
An article on Monday about a recall election facing Colorado lawmakers who supported gun-control legislation referred incorrectly to one of the Republican challengers expected to face John Morse, the State Senate president, on the ballot. The candidate, Bernie Herpin, is a former city councilman, not an author of erotic novels. (Jaxine Bubis, a novelist turned politician, has dropped out of the race.)
The Huffington Post:
An earlier version of this story indicated that the Berlin Wall was built by Nazi Germany. In fact, it was built by the Communists during the Cold War.
Slate:
This review misspelled basically everyone’s name. It’s Hannah Horvath, not Hannah Hovrath; Marnie is played by Allison Williams, not Alison Williams; and Ray is played by Alex Karpovsky, not Zosia Mamet.
The Wall Street Journal:
A Bloody Mary recipe, which accompanied an Off Duty article in some editions on June 8 about the herb lovage, called for 12 ounces of vodka and 36 ounces of tomato juice. The recipe as printed incorrectly reversed the amounts, calling for 36 ounces of vodka and 12 ounces of tomato juice.(all from [48])
You previously voted here as a keep for an article [49]. It is up for AFD again [50]. I was wondering if you could look at the article again and vote in the New AFD here. The newer article has more information and better formats. Also if you could see any ways to improve the article it would be appreciated. Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. MastCell Talk 18:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nikki Haley may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Non-administrator_arbitrators. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48