User talk:Collect

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Christian Science to Good Article status.

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

I have now reached the 244 "Thanks" level from "notifications" - getting an average of over 115 per year it appears. Thank you to all who have thought highly of my edits. Collect (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

From 2013 (and various unnamed editors): I have started to work on a composite of my history dealing with Collect at my talk page. It starts in late 2008 so it might take a while. I'll accept fellow editors deciding when they have more of the facts.

Had I known Collect was behind your request I may have declined. He has been sniffing my excrement for 4 years or more. I don't bother myself with him unless he shows up where I am working. Then I have to consider what is more important: dealing with Collect's dribble or continuing to talk and work with other editors. I detest him so much I usually just leave and go do something else in WikiLand

Sorry, But I'd rather have all of my fingernails pulled out than to get involved with those editors. Especially Collect, perhaps the most dangerous and dirtiest Wikipedia editor I've come across--only my opinion of course, which I feel I am free to offer on my own talk page? It is true that there are plenty of articles here that are more about numbers than about the truth, IOW, who ever has the most editors on their side can write the article.

I got here by looking at Collect contrbutions. (from a sock master)

This essay serves no purpose in mainspace other than to aggrandize its creator. I recall some quip about dressing a pig...I'll let those who want, finish the line.

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense

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. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.

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.

Some of my essays:

WP:False consensus

WP:KNOW

WP:Advocacy articles

WP:PIECE

WP:Defend to the Death

WP:Midden

WP:Baby and Bathwater

WP:Wikifurniture

WP:Contentious

WP:Sex, Religion and Politics

WP:Editorially involved

WP:Mutual admiration society

WP:Source pH

WP:Sledgehammer

WP:Variable RS

WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights

WP:Repetition in Argumentation

WP:The task of an editor

Some of the articles I created:

1. Samuel Arnold Greeley
2. Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography
3. Harlan Howard Thompson
4. Charles S. Strong (recommended)
5. John W. Curry
6. Gordon Grant (artist)
7. Éditions Gründ
8. Tech Engineering News
9. Boston Society of Civil Engineers
10. Frank P. Brown Medal
11. Thaddeus Seymour
12. Christopher Burnham

etc.

From WP:Plagiarism

N Copying from an unacknowledged source

• Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes—from a source that is not acknowledged anywhere in the article, either in the body of the article, or in footnotes, the references section, or the external links section.

• The above example is the most egregious form of plagiarism and the least likely to be accidental.

repeating for those who did not seem to read it the first time:

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. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.

Poring over 40K+ edits ....

On over 98% of articles where I have asserted BLP problems - there was no contest about it.

1. Sarah Palin is not a practitioner of Witchcraft,
2. Joe the Plumber is not a felon,
3. Prescott Bush was not a manager of Nazi slave labour camps whose living heirs live off of Nazi gold,
4. Johan Hari is not a worst journalist ever to live,
5. XXX is not "gay",
6. YYY (living person) is not "homophobia",
7. ZZZ (many) are not "Jews", etc.

as well as many hundreds of other articles, such as ones asserting groups of living persons support use of biological weapons to commit genocide, etc. Of those where an issue was raised and discussed, in about 80% of the cases it was determined that there was a BLP violation and my position was correct. My "poor BLP average" is 99+% in my favour. As for being biased on "US politics" issues, no evidence has been provided for that claim for one very good reason - I am not biased on US politics issues, and have edited articles on everyone from Communists to Fascists worldwide.

Clearly some editors have spent a great deal of time following my every edit, but did anyone note that it is the same editors each time?

I have now spent several full days on the preliminary stuff -- but so far not a single arbitrator has acknowledged the evidence I sent in months ago. Where no one reads anything, it is likely they will read anything in the future - or is it a matter of "our minds are made up ahead of time - don't bother us with facts"? ANEW complaints? In one case: My conclusion is thus that this is not a blockable offense, and Collect apparently acted in good faith, In another "both editors blocked" despite the fact the 3+RR was not on my part at all, and the BLP issue was later proven at AfD to be correctly raised, [1] notes that repeatedly removing fucking from a BLP where the problem had already been shown to be a BLP issue was not improper on my part, and so on. Collect (talk)

for lurkers:

Cinderella was a notorious crier - tears by the gallon.

Thus becoming the very first Grimm weaper.

On this day

As we hear Taps or The Last Post on this day, we should remember they descended from the same source - a call to innkeepers to "close the taps" so soldiers could return to their posts (taptoe in Dutch). What one does not hear though is Winston Churchill's comment about retirement and death:

I leave when the pub closes

When taptoe has sounded the last time, and the "last post" has been visited.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum

any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee John Donne

Quotation of the day. 9 February 2016

Star Wars marketing run amok

ecigs at Darth Vaper

major stores at Darth Maul

Dating service at Luke Shywalker

Tanning salon at Obi Wan Kenobi

So far no suggestions for the female characters ...

ArbCom Election Guide 2017

See User:Collect/ACE2017

Highly recommended candidates are Premeditated Chaos, The Rambling Man, SMcCandlish and BU Rob13.

The recommendations are based on answers to my questions only, and nothing else.

Please comment on Talk:James R. Fouts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James R. Fouts. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Matt Lauer content

Hi,

You previously participated in the inclusion of Harvey Weinstein content in the Noah Oppenheim article. There is an RfC on another matter about Matt Lauer's firing, with a vote, and I am notifying everyone who participated on the Talk page recently.

Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_inclusion_of_Matt_Lauer_content

As I have disclosed before, I am a paid consultant to NBC News so am not voting on the matter.

Thanks,BC1278 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Looking for a suggestion

Collect, I've got a question for you and I'm asking because I think this is an area where you don't edit so asking shouldn't be considered canvasing (I would ask that you not participate in what ever discussion comes up). If you want to read up on the dispute it's in my edit history. If you do I would ask that you not reply to the discussion since I'm looking for suggestions, not canvassing. So when you have a somewhat policy based question with just three editors and you would like to, neutrally, get more eyes on the article and/or find a forum to ask about the policies in question, where do you suggest going? Springee (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I fear you need to simply produce appropriate RfCs on problematic material in any article whatsoever on Wikipedia, and note their existence on active noticeboards. The big clear BLP violation was backed away from, at least. The appropriate policies for any organization article always include WP:NPOV and its noticeboard WP:NPOV/N. That noticeboard is clearly relevant for a wide range of articles, and would not reasonably be considered "canvassing". Sorry I can not really go into details. Collect (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Change on Noah Oppenheim article

Hi Collect,

I noticed you added a sentence about the Harvey Weinstein story on the Noah Oppenheim article. As you know, there was an RfC on whether to include the Weinstein matter in this article here: Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_decision_to_let_Weinstein_story_go

The vote expires in about 2 or 3 days (a full month), and so far, it is against the inclusion of this matter on the article because of COATRACK.

If you disagree and wish to make a change, can you open a discussion inside the Talk page RfC. In the meantime, I'd ask that you please abide by the process and remove this language until the discussion is complete.

Thank you,

EdBC1278 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please comment on Talk:Alina Zagitova

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alina Zagitova. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on Talk page

Hi Collect,

I just left this request on the Talk page of Noah Oppenheim, but I thought I'd repeat it here since that Talk page is now flooded:

Collect Since you made an edit that includes the denial of knowledge of complaints, if this is to be included, I'd request that for that part of the sentence, it hue more closely to the statement from NBC, since it's not precisely the same as what is written in Wikipedia: the exact statement from NBC, as quoted in the NY Times source says: "...prior to Monday night [November 27], current NBC News management was never made aware of any complaints about Matt Lauer’s conduct." This is narrower than what the language in Wikipedia now says.

Thanks! BC1278 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)BC1278

@Collect: Sorry to bug you on this, but the current language here overstates the NBC News position. NBC News has only said current NBC management was not made aware of complaints against Lauer. It didn't make a blanket denial as to what other managers during Lauer's 20+ years at NBC may or may not have known. And it just addresses complaints against Lauer at NBC, not, for example, old rumors from supermarket tabloids. I happen to think a criticism section is COATRACK as it specifically relates to Oppenheim, but as long as it's in the article, it should be accurate. Here's a slight rewording:

• The NBC News organization was criticized when news broke of the sexual harassment claims against Matt Lauer in November 2017; current management denied knowledge of complaints about Lauer's conduct prior to a complaint on November 27, 2017.

Instead of:

• The NBC News organization was criticized when news broke of the sexual harassment claims against Matt Lauer; it denied knowledge of any such actions by Lauer prior to the report made at the end of November 2017.

I posted a similar note on the Talk section, but as you're the editor who did re-phrasing of the sentences, you'd seem the logical candidate to correct this slight issue. The New York Times citation for the existing sentence would be the same for the new passage. BC1278 (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Yes. It is quite likely that someone knew something had occurred. Saying "no one knew anything at all" is saying something no source has claimed. When faced with an unsupported statement, or one which is valid either way, the looser wording is logical. Collect (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Threading

Hey there, re: this edit of mine, I didn't know where to put it, because I couldn't really tell which comment you were responding to, from lack of indentation. Anyway, I was responding to ContentEditman, if it wasn't obvious. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Your position is certainly clear, and I do not worry about colons and indents on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jorge I. Domínguez

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jorge I. Domínguez. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for youe helpful comment on this RfC. Can you point to a couple of Wikipedia articles where allegations of criminal behavior are handled properly? HouseOfChange (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jessica Chastain

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jessica Chastain. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Washington

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abiy Ahmed Ali

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abiy Ahmed Ali. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Thiel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Thiel. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeff Novitzky

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeff Novitzky. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

List of YouTubers

There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Unstrike

I opposed the RFA, but you would be within your rights and reasonable expectations to unstrike the oppose you made. Andrevan@ 17:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I can not morally unstrike - I gave in to the demands that appear now to be allowed in RfAs. And was specifically called "irrational" for saying that my reasons were well sufficient to justify my vote. Thank you, though. Collect (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you take whatever discussion or questioning your comment was met with, with a grain of salt. Opposition for deletionism is a valid basis and has long taken place at RFAs. Andrevan@ 20:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

And the folks who do not accept a valid reason to oppose and who then make personal attacks have won. They are likely smiling at their victory, which I hope will be Pyrrhic. I recall one case where the person I opposed was then removed only a few months later. Collect (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

BLPN

Hi Collect, As you commented on the last BLPN just letting you know the article's back at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kirsty_Gallacher for the exact same reason as before, Just thought I should let you know, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Noted. TY. Collect (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking for an outside POV

Collect, I'm looking for an uninvolved opinion. This is about what I perceive as possible campaigning by an editor whom I think is generally working in good faith. Thus if I'm correct then I think any violation is unintentional. A new firearms related project page, WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics, was created in the last month or so. Most of the current participants have a common POV with respect to what material should/shouldn't be included in gun related articles. The same editor was involved with a discussion at the M1911 pistol page [[2]]. That discussion was then listed as an open discussion on the project page[[3]]. This caused me a bit of concern. First, at the time the M1911 article was tagged as one the Gun Politics project was interested in. Second, the projects that were already associated with the topic were not notified. So at this point it raises the question why only one project was notified, not all associated projects. That alone wouldn't rise to what I view as canvasing. However, having participated in a number of recent firearms related RfCs, the editors in question have very similar views on what should and shouldn't be in firearms related articles. Thus we have what would appear to be a selective notification of sympathetic editors. I asked about this potential issue here [[4]]. So here are my questions for you. One, do you think my concern is unfounded? Two, if I wanted to raise this potential issue, where in the wide world of wikipedia would one ask such a question? Again, I don't think this was done with bad faith intent but when the Gun Politics project was created I was worried that it could end up being a way to coordinate a few editors with a common opinion across a number of articles. Ironically the Project Firearms editors have been accused of exactly the same thing. Springee (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Not campaigning. According to WP:APPNOTE notifying a single Wikiproject is within policy. And the notice is worded neutrally. And a Wikiproject can tag any article which interests them. That said, if you think the WikiProject is in practice is a "Partisan" audience per the table at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification you have two recourses per Wikipedia:Canvassing#How_to_respond_to_canvassing: (1) request that the user(s) responsible responsible stop, using Uw-canvass, then (2) report to ANI. And I would add (3) post a corresponding notice at WP:FIREARMS.– Lionel^(talk) 05:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nextdoor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nextdoor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia communities

I just read your [[5]] essay and feel that the "communities" aspect rings true for firearms-related articles. Many of the discussions in this area involve the same half-dozen or so editors repeatedly bringing up the same points with little hope for consensus. I can go into greater detail if you're interested. Do you have any ideas for getting more editors involved in this area without running endless RfCs? –dlthewave ☎ 18:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Gosh I wish there were an answer! You pretty much need to tailor the RfC to the WP noticeboard you are using - the noticeboards are imperfect, but give you a shot at hearing new voices. WP:NPOVN is the least used, but often the issue is spot on "neutral point of view". WP:BLPN sticks to what belongs and does not belong in an article mentioning a living person, not just biographies. WP:RSN is good for vetting sources - making sure that opinion sources are cited as such, and not used to make factual claims. All other boards are more drama than decision. "Getting other editors involved" is difficult if WP:CANVASS becomes an issue, of course. Hope this helps.Collect (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andrew Scheer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andrew Scheer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dana Loesch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dana Loesch. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

MKuCR

Collect, I have noticed you added this text [6]. Although it is properly sources, its neutrality is disputed by several reliable sources. In addition, this text is not supported by a talk page consensus. Since this text is relevant to the article's subject, you may move it to the article's body, where it will be placed to a proper context. Keeping in mind tha the article is under 1RR, I respectfully request you to self revert and move the text to the article's body by yourself. Please, keep in mind that (i) the text you added is not a consensus version, and (ii) you added a strongly non-neutral statement, and if you were not aware of that, I am informing you about that now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I added no text at all. I simply reverted your edit. Any text was therefore there at the time you made your edit. Collect (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Junípero Serra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Junípero Serra. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

MKuCR

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

You are repeatedly adding the text that violates WP:NPOV without properly explaining this addition on the talk page, citing a deliberately wrong reason (a consensus has been achieved that a long standing version of this article does not reflect any consensus). Please, self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)