User talk:Collect

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.

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

User:Collect/Collect's Law

Happy Collect's Day!

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

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

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

September 2013

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

For my Jewish friends: Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

I trust any arbitrators who proffered evidence in any prior case about me will recuse as is proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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 familiarise yourself with, and then follow, the arbitration policy § Recusal of arbitrators. Thank you, AGK [•] 14:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Lurkers kindly note:

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)

and [4] has

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)

[5] shows the "answers" and I invite lurkers to "grade" them as responses here. Thanks to all. Collect (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Lurkers: Iterating: Please grade the answers linked to. Collect (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I would ask you to remove this section, because it contravenes Wikipedia policy as at WP:POLEMIC. Thank you, AGK [•] 14:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Please comment on Talk:Tim Huelskamp

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tim Huelskamp. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

LvMI

Collapsing in the interest of helping Steeltrap avoid violating his topic ban any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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) And "alleged racial bigotry" is clearly a "contentious claim". I trust you notice that. Meanwhile, I depart. Collect (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 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) 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) "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) 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)

Hail and Farewell

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

([7],

[8],

[9],

[10]).

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)

and [13] has

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:

I would ask you to remove this section, because it contravenes Wikipedia policy as at WP:POLEMIC. Thank you, AGK [•] 14:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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.

And I note my agreement with User:KillerChihuahua and many others [18]

: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. KillerChihuahua 15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 :(.

[19] shows my iterated position:

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)

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.

Proverbially, a wise man will not drink from a poisoned well. Collect (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Collect,

  I've removed a large section of text at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Evidence#Hail_and_Farewell, for reasons I've laid out there. I don't plan to touch the copy above, although I can't guarantee others' actions. Let me know here if you have any questions; I've watchlisted this page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Um -- it looks far more like "the well is indeed poisoned, but we do not want anyone pointing it out. Collect (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

Seems even less gracious than most, I suggest. Expect similar gracelessness from others. Collect (talk) 20:49, 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)

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)

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?- MrX 21:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

Appropriate sources for WP:BLPs...again

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let's keep this hair-splitting in mind the next time someone gets lectured about Collect's personal extended version of BLP policy. — goethean 21:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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]

Stalking Accusation

The allegation that another editor is stalking your edits, when he is simply replying at a talk page which he has watchlisted, is a personal attack. Either refrain from the allegation, or open a user conduct Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

[23], [24], [25], [26] (note outcome of that accusation) etc. Collect (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing other peoples' posts

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. MastCell ^Talk 00:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

User:Redverton - Read Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder please - the support there is quite substantial. Cheers. I think you well ought to revert your changes. Collect (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

You are absolutely welcome! Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

Merci. That editor accused me of following them to the Rangel page to boot <g>. Thanks for dropping in. Collect (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush

This is news to me. Sorry, but if you leave the article as is, people are going to think he jumped on his own. People don't know what you know.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And something I just realized. All these years I didn't know he might have been attached to someone. Now I see the problem. Or maybe I don't.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

I didn't know how skydiving worked, though.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Chip Berlet

Check the talk page. There is consensus to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary did not conform to Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Amazing. Chip said he had no objection to the edit. Are you asserting Chip is irrelevant here? Have a nice day. Collect (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, my "little friend" is about 6" taller than your "little friend" I suspect. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Tiptibism

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)

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)

WikiProject Florida

Don't really know anyone else who is active in American project as much as you are. Please have a view here . Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Heh

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 had no idea you were an expert on sockpuppetry and CU.  :) Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have no such familiarity with Southern California politics and "culture", alas. Collect (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Perhaps I am wrong, so I like your opinion. The Banner talk 10:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Now, you have deleted the last line, agreeing with the editor who deleted numerous phrases that offered the counterpoint. CameronCamera (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Please comment on Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access

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.

WP:OUP access

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.

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)

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)

List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films

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 • ^hasspoken 14:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only are they "not ideal", they do not meet WP:RS in the first place. I removed nothing but the invalid refs. If you wish to demur, the discussion is at WP:RS/N. Collect (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• 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 • ^hasspoken 15:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

If a BLP has no source whatsoever for labeling a person as associated with the Tea Party movement thenWP:BLP requires its removal. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP doesn't require its removal, but you do have that option. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

We do not generally give specific personal addresses of living persons except where an "official residence" is stated. Collect (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Steve Stockman

Elections is over and you keep deleting the corrections on the total amount spent by the candidate and the PAC and the fact that Babin the nominee.

us-campaign-committees.findthebest.com/l/37259/Texans-For-A-Conservative-Majority

go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2014-01-09/texas-pro-cornyn-pac-spends-744000-attacking-stockman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36district (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You must read WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia's voice can not be used to make asides about persons which are clearly opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Texas Democrats

I was referring to the "Texas Democrat Party"...--v/r - TP 23:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Really?

Where is the evidence of your assertion? I made hundreds of edits over past days on that article, but I did not 5RR. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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.

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem:) Collect (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I like your edits to M Brown, keeping the Lede to the point. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Ooops

So sorry. I did not mean to say anything about socks. Quoted the wrong essay :( - Cwobeel (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It really pays to read what you write -- and you took a while to note my demurral, but thanks for this apology. Collect (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC - Please comment on Talk:Joni Ernst

As an editor who has recently edited Joni Ernst, you are invited to comment on this RFC. Your participation will be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jennings PD

You were right, I was reading too fast and was wrong. Sorry. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem - I tend to read the sources pretty thoroughly nowadays. <g>. Collect (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush-Carol interaction ban

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 Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

93.173.134.213

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:93.173.134.213

I've given him a caution (Level 2), and seeming as you were reverting his other unconstructive edits, I thought I might notify you.

Cheers

Luxure (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Merci. Collect (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Maupoleum

Collect, it wasn't considered "ugly" by some. Weasel words! It was widely considered incredibly ugly, like, amazingly ugly. Ugliest building in the city. A carbuncle, which "had grown to symbolize all that was ugly". Honorable mention on the list of the 50 ugliest buildings in the city. The ugliest building in the country. Again, a front runner for "ugliest building in the country". One notably ugly building is "not as ugly as the Maupoleum". Ugliest building in the country. Also ugliest building in the country. Ugliest building in the Netherlands. One of the most horrible buildings one could imagine. Prominent place on the list of ugliest buildings in Amsterdam. There's plenty of sourcing in the article for it (and elsewhere), but I'm tired of duking this out with you. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No warning? Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bishonen | talk 22:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see my WP:3RR post here for a more detailed block rationale. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Collect (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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. Chillum 23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am looking into this right now. Chillum 22:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Collect (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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)