User talk:Collect

Still on somewhat reduced Wiki presence.

Alice and proper procedure:

'That's very important,' the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: 'UNimportant, your Majesty means, of course,' he said in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.

'UNimportant, of course, I meant,' the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone,

'important--unimportant--unimportant--important--' as if he were trying which word sounded best. ...........

The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. 'Consider your verdict,' he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice. ..... 'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first--verdict afterwards.' .......

'Who cares for you?' said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) 'You're nothing but a pack of cards!'

Hi Collect!

I saw your note to Fcreid's page and decided to weigh in my opinion at WP:Areas for reform, since I've been thinking about some of this stuff for quite a while. (I must still have his page on my watchlist, I guess.)

I must be a collector too, I suppose. I'd never really thought of it before. I have plenty of swords of all kinds and not a practical use for a one of them, but would gladly accept ten more if someone'd give 'em to me. I don't know if I'll ever buy any more, as my Japanese katana cost more than my car ... but I'd like to.

I just wanted to say thanks for sticking around the Palin article when so many others seem to have left. Zaereth (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Letting others "win" by driving off good editors seems not in my nature. If anyone tries forcing me off again, I shall get everyone notified who really knows what is happening, for sure. Collect (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reform

Hey, thanks for the encouragement, and I want to thank you too for being the first one (after me) to "kick it off." I want to prove that a relatively unregulated community is cabable of addressing the major issues it faces.

I agree with you co9mpletely that Jimbo should not be an issue. Did you know anyway that there is another page on "governance" that is explicitly discussing Jimbo's role? We do not need to duplicate them.

I actually wrote in the general principles that sections that attract no discussion could be ended after a reasonable period. There are frankly three sections that I feel very strongly should stay up for a longer time: 5, 7, 8 and 9. 5 and 7 really get to the heart of the "Policy Council" which would have been a new committee and which may well have recommended more new committees to improve Wikipedia "governance." As you know from my comments at the Policy Council RfC, I am opposed to this. But I still believe that this area for reform has to stay up longer. Perhaps members of the policy council are avoiding this page because it is associated with me. But there clearly are people who believe we need more governance and more commitees and they ought to have a space to discuss it. For the same reason, I think we need to keep #6 and 7 up. These two would provide people with a space to discuss real reform of the power structure that currently exists (not Jimbo, I am talking about other offices and committees). I think people are shying away from this because, in the wake of the RfC, they fear stirring up more conflict and dissention. So I think with these three, we should give people more time. Please note that many people who were very vocal at the RfC have not commented here. So9me may do so out of antagonism to me, but if this page is really taking a life of its own, people may see it is not about me and may participate. It is important for the legitimacy of the page that people with whom I have disagreed in the past feel comfortable coming here, making arguments, proposing policies. Important for the health of Wikipedia too, I think.

My aim was to give people a space for talk that could lead to practical proposals either to alter existing policies (or guidelines) or to create new ones. Once proposals had been discussed, people could "leave" the reform project page and create a page to propose a new policy with room for people to vote, and the community could decide on whetehr it is a good idea or not. I think therefore that the page needs someone with the role of "shepherd," someone who can ask people "do you want to propose a policy?" and nudge them to the next section, or ask people to move the discussion along to the point where people are discussing practical implications. Since I created the page, I do not want to be the shepherd. If I take on any more roles people might think I have too much influence which I definitely do not want. I am not trying to get you to act as shepherd, although you might want to consider it. If you can know anyone else who, in different conflicts or on policy page discussions was good at getting people to focus on the practical (without being partisan) maybe you could encourage them to participate in the project page in that unofficial role?

I think one possibility I did not consider was to make each "area of reform" its own page, lined to an "areas for reform" category page. I guess I did not anticipate just how much discussion one question could attract. Or maybe I was hoping that little discussion would be needed before people came up with policy ideas. Your thoughts? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can get a lot more discussion going -- I just would not want this to be the "annual WP debate on reform" nor do I think the fact that the foundation is going to do something (which has also been true for a long time) should short-circuit this. I once had to oversee four thousand messages a day <g> so this is a piece of cake.

I definitely know about the other pages currently under discussion -- I have commented in most of them now. What I find interesting is that the vituperation found in some has so far managed not to find this page.

I wonder about the "committee" issue - with the belief that some admins' and some editors' memories are long, a lot may be loath to discuss it here. Or did you not feel that any future interactions may be shaped by words written now?

For a shepherd ... certainly not anyone who has baggage, and preferably one who has not weighed in with opinions. Someone who can ask questions -- which is how threads really take on a life. And someone who has no ill-will to anyone being perceived. Kirill Lokshin or Newyorkbrad definitely have credibility if either could be talked into the role. And Baseball Bugs could be counted on to ask serious questions - might be a good role for him.

As for dividing the page - I would suggest that the subsections be labelled more clearly -- on a Watchlist I have to search for the new posts. The page is certainly not long yet by talkpage standards -- time enough to worry about subpages later. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

reform

Thanks for taking the initiative. I really thoght others out there cared about eforming Wikipedia's govenance yet no one has really taken up questions 4-9. If you know others who care about governance here, specifically, do let thm know about the project! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Any opinion on my radical suggestions? Collect (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Asking for your thoughts

Hello, Collect. I replied to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soap Opera "supercouples". Taking into consideration what you stated about the Supercouple article, I was wondering if you would not mind lending some suggestions on the talk page of that article about what you feel it needs work on. I have been fixing up that article since 2007 now, with additional words of wisdom from AniMate, and currently cannot see any true original research (OR) in it. I have gathered and read up on more academic stuff which discusses what supercouples are and criticism of them, soap opera supercouples in particular, and am planning on adding that to the article. I would appreciate your thoughts on improvements about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my biggest problem is that no concrete definition is offered -- making it very difficult to figure out precisely whether any given couple is a "super couple." Given that the term is almost exclusively used oin soap opera fan stuff, I am unsure that it intrinsically is notable. Google books seems to show it used in a number of disparate ways indeed, but quite frequently in the sense of two-income couples, rather than in the sense used in soap operas. Can you give a cite for a specific simple definition possibly? Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The essay in this book goes into detail about soap opera supercouples, but in a way that is more criticism than anything (which I do intend to add part of to the Supercouple article soon). And then there is also one of the most used references in the Supercouple article - this one - from Soap Opera Digest. I have other articles and such which mention how the term expanded to prime time and other genres and that, regarding fictional couples, it simply means a popular couple who is very well-known/praised within their medium, and especially one that has extended beyond it.

I get what you mean about the term mainly applying to soap opera couples. That was one of my main problems in writing the other sections (I am going to trim the Criticism section of Video game really soon). But the term is now very much used for celebrity supercouples as well. It is almost like two different definitions apply for each. For soap opera supercouples, the term means very popular couples have either taken over the soap opera medium where they are recognized as supercouples by most fans and critics, or expanded beyond the soap opera medium due to popularity (such as non-soap opera press; getting recognized by Entertainment Weekly and such), or both. Celebrity supercouples? Yep, I am not sure how to define them, except to point to couples such as the ones named in the Celebrity section of the Supercouple article - TomKat, Brangelina, etc. Those two articles are likely to get deleted one day, by the way, LOL (as you can surely guess). I just go by whatever valid sources I can use describing celebrity supercouples. We know that regarding both fiction and real-life couples, a supercouple is a combination of being very popular and fans/media seemingly being obsessed with the couple. The term is notable, I must state, considering the academic essays/studies about it and how it all started with Luke Spencer and Laura Webber; I just have to go to a good library to get more about it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I will rewrite a little of the article, such as the Definition section, as best I can with the sources I have...and then come back and ask you what you think about the changes if you do not mind. If you feel that I am being a bother, just let me know that, too, of course, LOL. I know that we sometimes do not want to be bothered because we have other things to attend to or whatever the reason. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. The aim is to make a genuine encyclopedia, after all. Collect (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is my newest version of the article. The changes are more significant than they are little; I realize that what a supercouple is may still not be as clear cut as you would like, but that is more due to their being different elements for the term and applying the term being somewhat subjective. However, I feel that the supercouple concepts for fiction and celebrity comes across clear enough (and clearer than before). I cannot figure out how to cut down on the Criticism section of Video game without cutting out important detail. Instead, I will just add additional references to that section, since it is currently going on a single source, unlike its main section. And, of course...I will continue to improve this article as long as I am still here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking shape for sure ... the best cites would be ones which use the term "supercouple" for sure. Collect (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks. I had to edit the Definition section again due to having forgotten that supercouples are sometimes platonic (and had to further tweak other parts of the article, as seen in that link), but it has turned out okay. As said, I will continue to work on the article. Thank you for all your help. Any other advice or criticism you can add, feel free to do so (of course). Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted offending material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCabal Case

Hello! I have taken a mediation cabal case that has listed you as a party to a content dispute. Before we can proceed to a process of discussion and mediation, I need each party's confirmation that they are willing to proceed with the process to find a solution to end this problem.

Please indicate this approval, if given, on both my talk page and the case page that is linked above.

Cheers! -Reubzz (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PR

Hi Collect, you left a comment a few days ago at the Prem Rawat talk page, commenting on my and Will's proposals to add some information. Could you explain what you meant? I wasn't really sure how much you thought would be sensible to add. (I'd wanted to add more from a source, Will less from the same source, and we were trying to meet in the middle somewhere.) Cheers, --JN466 00:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gladio

So what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No relevance at all to the topic at hand. Collect (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

Your comment at NOR is constructive. I think it would be better if, instead of providing a link to it, you actually posted the full comment on the judaism talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am avoiding a person who appears to be trying to "out" me, who has said he is tracking every edit I make. Collect (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion/morozov

fyi two more sources credit Morozov as an "expert": Bloomberg [1] and Radio Free Europe [2]while The Economist called Morozov a "genius" [3]. I tried to point that out on the discussion page for the subject but since I don't have an account on Wikipedia it was deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.87 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It is out of my hands what happens now to be sure (and I am pretty sure I disagree with him on a lot of stuff -- but that should have no bearing on his notability). Collect (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Daily Heil/Daily Wail/Daily Fail/Daily Propaganda

I looked up the creators of these redirects per your suggestion. Two of the editors are inactive and the one who isn't created the redirect over a year ago and hasn't created anything questionable since. My check did reveal one other RFD-able redirect by one of the inactive editors - Paultard, which hits the daily double as offensive to both Ron Paul supporters and the mentally challenged. I nominated it. --NellieBly (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out - I never thought to check, and I should have. Thanks again! --NellieBly (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

invitation

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, Collect. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious...

I'd be curious to see what you think of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page. I must admit that I was surprised to see that you haven't commented on it yet, as I keep seeing you sig on most of the MfDs that I've seen lately! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd Mfd?

I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KPS4Parents and before I even had a chance to see what was on the page in question, it was deleted under CSD#G11. It seems suspicious that in under an hour the page was deleted, do you mind explaining what all was on the page and if this may warrant a deletion review? Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been a page describing a 401(c)3 non-profit group. It was not "spam" (which I interpret to mean multiple occurence of a blatant commercial message). WP:SPAM was clearly not applicable to this userspace example. One page, non-commercial, made it to MfD in precisely one minute, and closed by one who !voted delete as opposed to an uninvolved person. I suggested that the person be told the username was not acceptable, and that the content be move to his new userspace, but the delete was extremely quick. Collect (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in--I agree, that was a little too quick. Was it Triplestop's judgment that this was spam that sealed the deal? I think both the nominator and the closing administrator were much too quick on the draw. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed, there is no doubt his username was in violation of WP:UN but as I've been advocating for some time now, a work page is a work page even if it is not well sourced. It would have been better, if the user was warned first instead of blocked and have their page deleted simultaneously. I'm thinking deletion review? -Marcusmax(speak) 01:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol Drmies I run into you everywhere, this is very confusing to me as you know I am a very policy oriented person and this is the 3rd or 4th mfd to close quickly and under the wrong WP:CSD criteria. In this case it is time to get into contact Triplestop or go to DRV. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Deletion review is usually an exercise in futility -- as long as an admin quotes a g-number, the presumption is that the deletion was proper. The name is a clear problem, but it was not WP:SPAM by any stretch. And you will find me often saying that a few words with a new user are better than simply pointing fingers at them. WP is already losing editors at a great rate - keeping new ones from even starting is not wise. In my opinion, of course. Collect (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile the user is now blocked -- meaning this is a clear case of not only biting a new user, but doing our best to pour salt in the wound. Collect (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I understand your viewpoint but I never even had a chance to read the userpage and I know something is up, and Drmies also shared this view, it is quite possible many will also at DRV. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this deletion was in violation of WP:DPR#NAC I quote, "Non-administrators should not close "delete" decisions at all, as they lack the technical ability to actually delete pages." and in this case because one did they must, "where an administrator has deleted a page but forgotten to close the discussion, his or her name and deletion summary should be included in the closing rationale." -Marcusmax(speak) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, the definition of spam includes "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." Given the username, it was pretty clear that the intent was to "tell readers how great something is." Probably the block message should have been, rather than spam-only, a username block. The horse may be out, but the barn door is fixed now—the block message has been changed (the block was soft all along).

Second, in my comment at the MfD, I indicated that the speedy delete was in process at that point. To that end, the non-admin close was just the clerical result of the action I had already taken. I had not forgotten to close the deletion; it was closed before I looped back to close it.

If I had it to do over again, I might have tagged the article {{db-spam}} and seen how the user replied. Based on experience, they usually just remove the tag and keep on editing the page. I do think the end result would be the same: page deleted, user soft blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Areas for Reform states that treatment of new editors is a major issue. As for "promoting" a non-profit organization on a user page -- if that is WP:SPAM, I am amazed. There are actual articles on non-profits which should be deleted then. And, of course, all personal c.v.s in userspace are then spam. As I choose to use the logical position -- that spam refers to commercial exploitation of WP, this userpage can not be spam. Moree than five hundred userpages promote the "Red Cross." More than two thousand refer to a "non-profit." More than four hundred refer to "my company" or "our company." And this non-profit was essentially told "go away and never come back" with a total of eight minutes. A new record. Collect (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT lists that definition as an "example" not policy although I never saw the content myself so I could not say if it was or was not. I see issues with WP:BITE, only a few minutes after creating the page they had it deleted and were blocked simultaneously with limited warning, advice or guidance. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

<--Every time I consider placing a speedy template somewhere, I think of WP:NEWT. Reading those adventures actually made me much more aware of how bitey we sometimes are, and I would have liked to have seen this particular process handled more slowly. No one else, for instance, got the opportunity to help this user out. BTW Marcus, in regards to your earlier remark, I'm just stalking you. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have posed a question on Wikipedia Talk:SPAM (the guideline talk page) concerning non-profits and spam. Collect (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have requested the page be userfied: User:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents or emailed to me so I can see the page myself. Interesting case. Ikip (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel that a non-profit userpage which makes no "commercial" statements, qualifies as "spam"? Anyone feel that way? Collect (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How can a non-profit organization be "commercial" as CSD#G12 focuses on, there obviously was a COI but a new user doesn't know any better. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On the WP:SPAM talk page, the argument is made that anything which in any way "promotes" an organization is automatically spam. Unless and until the view on that page is altered, this is a non-win case. Near as I can tell, though, every single mention of an organization on WP may be deletable speedily as spam <g>. And WP is losing new editors at an amazing rate. Collect (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's sad we are losing editors at such an alarming rate, and things like give you a hint as to why. I hope Ikip gets a copy of that page because I definitely want to see what is on it, as long as the person is not like this example example, "KPS4Parents is my organization in Camarillo, California and we are good at what we do, visit us at KPS4Parents.com for more info" then I don't see how it is promoting an organization. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am prepared to go to DRV right now if you guys think we should? We can sit here and chat all day but if we don't make a stand then this opportunity will quickly slip away. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I requested the page here: User_talk:Bigtimepeace#Hi_Big

Gentlemen, it often doesn't matter what the policy says, it matters who has the largest network of friends. In addition, DRV tends to attract a much higher ratio of editors who support deletion than regular pages. Ikip (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't then, I trust your opinion 100% Ikip. Hopefully the page gets userfied! -Marcusmax(speak) 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've userfied the material per Ikip's request, see User:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents. Based on a quick Google News search I highly doubt this group is notable enough for an article, but it won't do any harm to work on it userspace if someone wants to. The person who nominated the user page for MfD and the admin who deleted were far, far too quick to bite a new editor in my view. When this kind of thing happens, leave a note for the user first and discuss the issue with them. It doesn't waste the time of other editors like an MfD does, and maybe you will be able to explain how editing on Wikipedia works such that they contribute positively. Given the rapid succession of unfriendly warning, deletion of user page, block of account, additional unfriendly warning, one would not be surprised if the person who created User:KPS4Parents is now done with Wikipedia. Maybe they were just here to promote a non-notable org, but then again maybe the did want to contribute and were starting with what they knew. It genuinely pains me to see the operator of a brand new account treated in this fashion, regardless of the viability of the material they are trying to include. We need to be encouraging new editors, not showing them the door five minutes after their first edit and leaving it there simply because the don't understand our policies. The extra time it takes to try to explain how things work to a new editor, even if it ends up with no results because they are not here in good faith, is well worth it in the end. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with bigtimepeace, this organization needs more sources to avoid deletion:

User_talk:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents

This is all I found.

I would suggest emailing the organization asking for news articles. They would know better than anyone.

if you guys would like this article in your user space, you are welcome to move it. [simply move it to User:Collect/User:KPS4Parents, for example] Otherwise I will eventually delete it.

Thanks bigtimepeace! Ikip (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Collect, if you object to cases like this then please see Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention where hundreds of these cases are processed rountinely. See also Category:Wikipedians_who_are_indefinitely_blocked_for_promotional_user_names, which is populated by much the same cases like this. Triplestop x3 23:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am quite concerned by some of the latest newspaper articles on WP, and the fact that we can make some of the iffiest cases be handled differently, to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that many people think that they can add a page for themselves by posting it under a userpage using an account that represents the company, which is problematic for many reasons. Most of these people don't bother to read the stuff we have written for them nor do they pay attention to that orange bar at the top of the screen. I dare say that some of them are also probably spam bots. There isn't much we can do about this, however all messages used clearly tell the user what they can do next. Triplestop x3 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that new users are not really given sufficiently clear instructions that they should not use anything other than a vanilla username. No idea if many bots are used -- there are so many "alternate personas" on WP it is not funny. I think we should be careful that we do not simply toss the baby out with the bathwater. WP needs as many new editors as it can get. And you should note that I generally feel templates are not as good as personal messages <g>. Collect (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

You created sections on the talk page to facilitate discussion. I ask you to remove them. In the section above, I provide my general views on the situation including why I don't think what you did was helpful. Collect, I know that what you did was in good faith, and under other circumstances would in fact be very constructive. Right now I think people on the talk page are wrangling with two specific conflicts, and they are already in separate sections, and we should just give people time - in both sections - to work out what they want. In these cases, i think conflict perdures because only two people care, if more people who watch the article weighed in i bet a consensu sone way or another would emerge. Unless more people get involved I personally woulod say that there is not enough weight to support a change. Anyway, i explained my reasoning in the section above the subsections you created. Do whatever you think best. read what I wrote there and if you agree, remove the subsections you created, if you think I am wrong, leave the subsections you created. All i can ask you is to consider my reasoning and then act as you see best. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid formal mediation as much as possible by making sure we know precisely where the disagreements are first. The usual course is, indeed, to try separating things out. At this point, it looks like the sections are working for their intended purpose. If we can iron out one issue at a time this way, we will be well ahead of the game. If it does not work, we are no worse off than we were with the free-form discussions which have gne on. Will you bear with me for a couple of days, please? Collect (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I added a number of third party RS refs today to the Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis) article (the subject of the AfD that you've participated in). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of Interest?

Check out my new subpage, User:Marcusmax/Newbie Treatment at mfd and feel free to add information at anytime. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

William Timmons addition reverted

I took undid your addition, as I didn't understand how to fix it; please note that in English grammar, "which" always refers to the immediately preceding noun phrase, so I'm pretty sure you left it not meaning what you intended. Maybe you can point out what the source says about resolutions and we can find a better way to phrase it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please undo your undoing. My mom was a Latin teacher, and the usage was correct. The source makes clear that there was no attempt by Timmons to evade the resolutions. If you prefer your own grammar "I took undid" then use it, but restore the meaning of the addition. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All scientists are sceptics

Well said! Being a sceptic to scientist is a bit like being called a "fitness freak" to a footballer or a "fashion conscious" to a model. It is the very nature of a scientist to be a sceptic, and it just shows how little those who decry the sceptics know of science that they think it is a label any real scientists would not wear with pride! 88.109.63.241 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was trained as a scientist (Physics) and the whole idea is that where no one is a sceptic, no one will ever discover anything new. Collect (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD

I think the comment you left here indicates you think I made a bad faith nomination. This conversation shows the lengths I went to in order to avoid having to do an MfD. I ask you to reconsider your words in light of this information, and assume good faith on my part. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a good faith nom, but one which is a "no win" nom. Collect (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

All I want is for the user to slightly alter the statement so that it doesn't disparage fellow editors. An MfD process, however doomed to failure, will at least attract a few more eyeballs from editors who might be able to persuade the user to tweak that text. If the text is changed, I'd be happy to support a snowball close as keep. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note the change made. I do feel that this userpage is better left untouched than given notoriety. Collect (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifying comment. Totally respect your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

BIAW

Please see the article's talk section.  kgrr ^talk 01:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. (P.S. Your edit to WT:3RR, which was merged into this page, was months ago, but we haven't had much participation in the survey so far this week.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pompeia

It does sometimes feel like one is casting pearls before swine. We have such a great treasure-house of phrases and allusions in English, I do regret that so few people seem to know or care about them. DuncanHill (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Rather than greeting-spam everyone (humbug!)

May each and everyone reading this have a Joyous and Merry Christmas!

May faith guide you and comfort you throughout the year, and may this next year be one of prosperity, health and happiness for all!

Collect (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for being such an awesome User! Here is a little holiday "present" for you. Also, in the spirit of the season, would you be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights? --AFriedman (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed! Collect (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The lede of Judaism

Hi, I've finally gotten around to editing the lede. I'm trying to incorporate the ideas you proposed some time ago, about Jewish denominations. Would you like to come around and look at it? --AFriedman (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not til next year <g>. Collect (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused about your recent RFA decision

I was surprised to see you support in this recent RFA, since you seem like such a strong supporter of editors contributions.

Please consider the oppose views. Thanks. Ikip 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I supported Ironholds in his RfA -- he valued comments I made in an MfD about reasonable procedures, and has, to my knowledge, abided by them. I think that making reasoned comments works better than viewing anyone as a foe. In some cases I think folks you once regarded as allies have, in fact, been far from allies in maintaining reasoned and consistent approaches to valid deletion and keep discussions. So I would take it as a favor if you considered my support of Ironholds, and consider supporting his RfA. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of WP:NOR/N item for discussion of Mass killings under Communist regimes

You may be particularly interested in WP:NOR/N#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes to discuss article SYNTH issues with uninvolved editor experts. There's space for a summary argument to claim that the article isn't SYNTH which you might like to provide, and to ensure we get uninvolved editor contributions I separated involved and uninvolved editor comment sections. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

David Copperfield discussion redact

I'll ask Ratel to redact his comments, but will you do the same...and first? Or, if you both agree, let me ask an uninvolved admin to remove anything unrelated to the discussion. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 21:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Struckout last comment on DC page. Someday I would love to see Ratel redact his charges about my sanity <g> which he has made a few dozen times now. Collect (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I getting this confused with refactoring? And I think striking through some comments isn't going to remove the distraction. You both have valid points that aren't based on your ongoing disagreements, but other editors may not see that and discount or ignore both arguments. Flowanda | Talk 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion coming -- but many editors seem to think that deletion is wrong on AT pages. In any event, if I delete, I would like to see all of Ratel's attacks deleted as well. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also note recalcitrance per [4]. I think your good offices may need to be a tad more forceful there. Collect (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, what's it going to take to stop you stalking me? I have ample evidence of it, and you know you're doing it. Why not stop this harassment campaign and stay off the handful of pages I habitually edit? These clashes occur in identical fashion every few months. What are you achieving by it? ► RATEL ◄ 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I not only am not stalking you, I have never stalked you, and I am rather tired of your making the same charge on every page you can. I have edited well over fifteen hundred different articles. Our intersection is eight articles. Or about .5% overlap. My intersection with Wikidemon is twelve articles. About .8% overlap. Might that convince you of anything? Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, please, I have never knowingly started editing a page on which you are an habitual and established regular editor (AFAIK). But you have done that to me on many pages, always directly editing sections in which I am involved in a dispute, and always to take the opposing side, no matter what the merits. Now I only edit about 40 pages. How about we agree not to edit pages on which the other editor is active? Can you do that? Show goodwill here and your protestations of innocence will carry more weight. ► RATEL ◄ 14:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that coincidence is possible when the overlap is 8 articles out of SIXTEEN HUNDRED articles I have edited? Your edit history shows about EIGHT HUNDRED articles. The percentage overlap is trivial. My overlap with THF is 25, or more than three times the overlap with you. I have, in fact, a smaller overlap with you than with most other active editors. Collect (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What was I thinking, asking you for a good faith undertaking? I may as well get used to the fact that you will poke your obnoxious nose into every argument I get into on WP, forever. ► RATEL ◄ 04:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL please. A one half of one percent overlap is pretty trivial, but you seem intent on making comments about me which are inapt and uncivil in many places, whereas I make no attempt at all to find you. Perhaps that should indicate the truth of the matter, indeed. Meanwhile, I ask that you make no further posts to this usertalk page whatever. Collect (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA

I've never closed an AfD—I was an admin for 2.5 years and never closed a single one. I'm simply not interested in doing it. In any case, I'm not going to act contrary to policy under any circumstances. Everyking (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My position must, perforce, be based on what you wrote about XfDs -- and since we are determining who can do something, the requirement for any prudent person is to examine how potential acts might be affected. Clearly we have no personal conflicts at all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Congratulations your proposal against BLP changes is the most popular. You may want to add:

'''Addendum:''' [[Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse|Wikipedia:Petition against Ignore all rules abuse]]

As I just did too my section. Ikip 00:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

I hope that we can someday become friends. As you have said many times before, it seems like we have more in common than not. When I scrambled my password I note that your comment that if I were to leave, to paraphrase: I would come back and "target you". I am sorry you feel that way, it simply is not the case. I later found a loop hole by emailing myself a new password, so I am back.

What happened last year, happened last year. Although you may feel I have a lot of animosity toward you, I don't. In fact I see our disagreement on Business Plot as a positive experience which led to several epiphanies. One was to see articles three dimensionally. Although many of the edits I added are gone from the main page, they still exist, and always will exist in the page history and the talk page. I will never have a 3rr violation on an article again, and I have you and Ted to thank for this.

Your RFC was unfortunate. The RFC was minor to me, in that I have had so many more traumatic experiences here. Looking back on my four years here, your RFC isn't even in the top 50. So I would never come back and "target you". But I do understand as the subject of the RFC, it was major for you.

I just want to clear the air a bit, so we can hopefully move forward on saving articles together. I respect so much that you do.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		"The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes." This barnstar is awarded to Collect for his inspiring words at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Thank you for defending the principles we all hold dear. Ikip 02:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Et tu?" - please clarify what you mean

Collect, your comment "Et tu?" at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes seems to indicate that I am myself guilty of the same error that I am accusing Termer of. Since this is in effect an accusation of disruptive editing a personal accusation, I would like you to clarify how I am obstructing constructive discussion - or if that was not what you meant, please clarify what you did mean. Please answer me there. Thanks. --Anderssl (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

edit count list of editors on a page?

I'm interested in doing more research on your recentl comment on the BLP RFC - the one where you bracket editors to the rfc by list of edits. How did you pull down that list? Hipocrite (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at every name I had never run across, and did the edit count <g>. It takes a while, to be sure. When I found a single-edit account, I suspected it was not a real newbie. Indeed, it is very rare for new users to opine at this sort of page when they have fewer than a thousand edits, but that would make the numbers too high! (And if you delete minor edits, which may sometimes be used to boost edit counts, I suspect that the number of "alternate personas" may be well over 40 on the one page!) If we also look at suddenly returning editors, who number over a dozen, I fear the CANVASS may extend to well over fifty of the participants. Collect (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Shit, I was suspecting that was how you did it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a list of interesting accounts? I am failing at this dramatically, and I would like to get to the bottom of the problem. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To prevent any possible claim of NPA, I would prefer not. Look, however, at names not usually found at any BLP discussions in the past. Collect (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that we are on diametricaly opposite sides of this issue I don't see any possible personal attack in listing a users who you believe do not typically edit BLP discussions - one might argue not being on the list is a personal attack, but I'll try to slog through it again. I assume the suspects to which you refer are in the support area of the most popular option. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, I would not leap to that conclusion. I suspect that appreciable CANVASS occurred and/or interesting newbies appeared. BTW, I doubt we are diametrically opposed -- I am a firm believer in enforcing rigorously procedures to protect BLPs from having any controversial or contentious material. I am also a believer that it is the community here which establishes the procedures. Collect (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Figgered it out - almost all of the questionable editors appear to be in one or more wikiprojects that was ikiped. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you have been making some friends too

Thanks for the heads up.

It is called Diving (football) or WP:Mock,

"When people are involved in disputes there is a tendency to take offense, sometimes called "mock outrage", at statements that are either not intended as slights, or that transgress the norms of discussion only in a technical sense but are not in fact hurtful to the target of the comment."

Ikip 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I told you long ago that temporary allies do not make for long-term friends. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

When I said "friends" I was being facetious, I think you realized that. :)

But you point struck home regardless.

My comments to Durova I think really sum it all up.[5]

If you need assistance with an article, or you need someone to help mediate a discussion, let me know.

I was sincere with my comments to Gwen, and would be happy to put a nice word in for you again. Okip ^{BLP Contest} 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am always available as a genuine friend, but I think you knew that. I think you understand that you used to rush to judgement far too quickly about folks <g>. Collect (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal

Hi, Collect. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavan McDonell

refs do not appear to show up properly argh - It wasn't obvious, but I eventually found the cause. Comments are <!-- xxx -->. You had <!-- xxx ->. So, ALL of the rest of the refs were included in the hidden comment. ("Interesting"!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Collect (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir King

[6] Is actually correct, he was knighted and his title is Sir :) do you want to put it back in? I`m not really fussed but we should we the guys title i suppose :) --mark nutley (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Usually the "Sir" would be used with his first name - thus "Sir David Frost" is "Sir David" and not "Sir Frost". The title is given in the first use which has his first name in it. MOS definitely frowns on "Sir King" <g>. Really. Collect (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn, your right, i had forgotten that. In my defence i have been very ill recently and all my royal friends have run orf :) --mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking genealogies -- I have more English royal blood that does Queen Elizabeth <g>. And you must admit "Sir King" looks really funny! IIRC, you can not name a child with a title as his first name in the UK. Collect (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A request

Please see User talk:Collect/personas. --Buster7 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No one is identified in any way on that page. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it is me. Its a simple request. Be a gentleman and honor it.--Buster7 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No one else can. I have edited it down further to assuage you. Collect (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And you could also remove stuff about me from your Userspace as well -- including your user talk page <g>. Collect (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not enough. Please find some other example. Having made a gentlemanly request, I would rather not involve others. Is it that important to you that you can not see your way clear to edit me completely out of the picture you are painting? Again...it is a simple personal request. (You first)--Buster7 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll emend more. But seriously - there is no connection made to you on the page. Meanwhile, have you removed the stuff related to me from your userspace? Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am in the process.--Buster7 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Adjectives and NPOV

I know you're interested in the use of political adjectives on Wikipedia. Can you take a look at Special:Contributions/Loonymonkey? He says he is, in good faith, removing all references to organizations being "liberal" or "progressive", which is possible, but he seems to be doing so indiscriminately, and not doing anything of the sort to references to conservative organizations, which seems like POV-pushing to me. Case in point is his edits to ProgressNow, where the editor removed all references to "liberal" organizations, but kept the phrase "conservative Independence Institute" in the article. I don't have time to flyspeck his edits, but he's disregarded my talk-page comments asking him to wait until there's consensus for his point of view (being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_22#Category:American_progressive_organizations and WP:MULTI-discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_1#Category:American_liberal_organizations, and every edit of his I've double-checked so far has been inaccurate. But your mileage may vary; I'm withdrawing from the dispute because I don't have time for Wikidrama. THF (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Phoenixof9

Sry couldn't help but notice this little gem. I would srsly consider taking him to AN/I for hounding. Your RFC was months ago, the terms placed on you long since expired. The fact that he's dragging it all up now only proves he simply has an ax to grind. Soxwon (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One of his friends kept sending me emails. I told Gwen about all this. See also WP:False consensus for my opinion. Collect (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A/E

Hi. I noticed your comment here and wondered if you could show me a link to one (or more) of the "multiple ArbCom findings in the past" in which you state that it was ruled that it is "quite improper to assert "tag team"" when filing an A/E request? I don't mind refactoring my report if necessary but as you will understand I would like to see the evidence first. Thanks in advance for your trouble. --John (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind explaining what you meant by "...fails to demonstrate that THF engaged in any edit wat (sic)..."? The diffs showing that the editor added the tag four times over a short period would seem like pretty good evidence of edit-warring to me, or am I missing something? --John (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear John. There is no need to (sic) typos anywhere on WP, that I know of. Collect (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. And the other stuff I was asking you? --John (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A simple intermediate act is not considered "tag team." See all WP:Tag teams. It is wrong to improperly assert tag team - c;early where you can prove it, it is proper. I just happen to think it is highly unlikely that you can prove such. To show such, by the way, it helps to show a pattern of some sort. Were you able to document any sort of pattern? Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

An addition of a tag then three reversions of it from one user, three reversions from another user, against what seems to be a solid consensus that has stood for several years and already been the subject of arbitration - what would you call it? Thanks for linking me to the essay, but it falls short of what I asked for, and of what you said. If you can show me those "multiple ArbCom findings in the past" you mentioned, or if an arbitrator or one of the people I mentioned asks me to, I will certainly refactor. For now I think I will leave it as it is. It may be slightly non-NPOV, but it also describes perfectly what happened, in my opinion. Thank you for sharing your opinion though. Let me know if you come up with any of the other evidence I asked you about. As far as a pattern goes, take a look here; what would you say? Best, --John (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Last year I made it a practice to read about two dozen cases completely - from Request through to results <g>. Quite informative, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather you than me, but à chacun son goût. I don't suppose you can remember any of the cases where you got the idea that calling tag teaming tag teaming was forbidden? Don't worry if you can't, in which case I'll take it that this was hyperbole on your part. I've struck the comment anyway; on further reflection it wasn't helpful to resolving the situation. --John (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually about three cases for sure where the use of "insufficient evidence" was decried. Making accusations of tt requires more than a single instance of two editors making the same revert. ArbCom basically in the past did not look ypon it favorably. I did a bit of research, mainly to find example where the committee made specific findings about the evils of vote-stacking and canvassing (see WP:False consensus for some of their findings) and ran across the tt material as well. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Ian Plimer, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 17:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lego and Halsam

If you are still interested in Lego, please look at my remark under Lego/discussion/Halsam. Salix2 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RPA

There's nothing wrong with RPA. It is a policy I choose to follow when an uninvolved adversarial editor follows me from an unrelated page to post a personal attack out of spite. Your restoration of that spiteful attack reflects poorly on you. ► RATEL ◄ 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit did not appear to violate WP:NPA nor did I find any significant interactions between the two of you looking at article intersections. Lighten up. Collect (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

re: 81.38.219.5

Okay, I'm just starting off, so trying to keep things slow :). How long in general would you suggest for an IP account's first block for personal attacks? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Where the person makes edits which specifically run afoul of WP standards, try 48 hours <g>. Where it is likely ignorance, then 24 is good. Calling someone a "pedophile" is quite beyond any reason. The usual suspicion, by the way, is that the person is not a "newbie" at all. You likely should watchlist the articles which the IP vandalized, as they tend to show up rapidly with another IP address (do a WHOIS to see if they might be from the same location) doing similar quality edits. Block as needed. While I am not an admin, I was in charge of over 200 sysops on CompuServe for a good many years <g>. Collect (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe 48 hours would have been a better choice, although there's little difference between that and 31 hours tbh. Anyway, I've replied on my talk page :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- you might want to look at the various actions concerning the use of the P-word, and the fact that some editors have been permanently blocked (site-banned) for various offenses relating thereto. Lots of ArbCom stuff on it as well (including a famous "wheel war" case relating to it). It is also one of the few accusations which WMF has weighed in on. I just wanted to let you know it falls into a "special case" part of the rules, and one which is not, for some reason, written out clearly for folks to know about. You might wish to look ay Guy's comments on it (User talk:JzG in various ANI discussions. Collect (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur A. Goldberg

Do you still wish to delete this article? THF (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are satisfied that it meets WP notability and sourcing, I am not averse. Collect (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Twain's Georgism and Reliable Sources

American Studies scholar, Jim Zwick, who specializes in Mark Twain wrote the article "Mark Twain and the Single Tax Movement." The Georgist Journal No. 87 (Summer 1997): 5-10. Observing that Twain was "Prodigally Endowed With Sympathy for the Cause". http://www.bochynski.com/twainweb/jimzwick.html

I'd like to add Twain to the Categority of Georgists. But as a Wikipedia newbie, I don't know exactly how to do this, and don't want to annoy experienced Wikipedians like yourself by screwing it up again. What do I need to do to make this change OK? Sorry for being a nuisance!

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andronico (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The key problem is that Twain nowhere said he was a "Georgist" and sources which are from the "Georgist" movement are singularly poor choices to prove that he was one. Being "sympathetic" to (say) Roman Catholicism does not make one a Roman Catholic, for example. And the "Twark Main" claim is very weak indeed -- when writing on serious topics, Twain used his real name or Mark Twain - "funny names" were generally reserved for non-serious topics. See the Ament controversy, for example. Collect (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Charles G. Koch

Hi there Collect. I actually have no experience with page protection, and since this doesn't look like a clear-cut case of heavy blatant vandalism, I'd suggest you use WP:RFPP. Sorry for the long time to reply. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight (2nd nomination)

You don't think this is axe-grinding? Saying that an AFD should be "fought," especially one like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanny Grace where Weber disrupted to make a point with his usual "speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters" nonsense and got a few sheeple to follow him? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I tend to be quite lenient in userspace, especially since I have seen so many noms at MfD brought for perceived dislike of other editors, that I am willing to draw the line a tad further out than you are <g>. Collect (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Even on Kurt? Even Job would've long since said "forget it" on that guy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I survived worse <g> so Kurt is not a problem. Collect (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Biased Arabic Wikipedia Template

Hello! I am requesting a re-evaluation of the unfounded deletion of my personal space page about Arabic Wikipedia template. The request for re-evaluation can be found here. I would greatly appreciate your input in this matter. Thank you in advance. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 00:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Kmweber's editing restriction

Since you commented in the sub-thread WP:ANI#Specific question growing out of User:Kmweber's recent edits to an AfD page and his subsequent block and unblock, i wish to draw your attention to WP:ANI#Proposed modification of restriction of Kmweber where I have proposed that his restriction be modified as discussed the the "specific question" sub thread. Your views would be welcome. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Democrat vs Democratic

Hi. Please read Democrat Party (phrase). "The word "Democrat" is not at all controversial, except when it is used as an adjective (as in "Democrat Party" or "Democrat Senator" or "Democrat idea"). In that case some Democratic Party leaders and non-partisan commentators have objected to the use as adjective." We do not use the word "Democrat" as an adjective. It is a noun. Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As an additional note, your first edit ("ranking Democratic senator" -> "ranking Democrat") was fine, it was only the second ("Democratic Governor Gary Locke" -> "Democrat Governor Gary Locke") that was in error. Perhaps it was an oversight? Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

NYT is itself not fully consistent there. There is always a problem in deciding whether an adjective is a noun, etc. Hence removal of the useless "senator" (members of a senate committee generally are senators <g>) Collect (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Just a query, what does AFAICT mean? :) Thanks —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am showing my age <g>. It is old online shorthand for "as far as I can tell." When we had 300 baud modems, we started with such abbreviations (now reincarnated for "texting.") If you read the talk page archives on the nicknames, you will readily see why they reached a consensus not to have "every possible name the guy was called" in it. I have now been online for nearly three decades. Collect (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, ok! :) I had read that, I don't disagree. Was just curious as I had never seen that abbreviation before. Thank! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Koch Industries

Hi there Collect, I know you've been active on the Koch Industries article recently, so I wanted to run past you a proposed a new section to replace the hideous (and plagiarized) list of acquisitions; it can be found on a page in my user space. I've also left a detailed note on the Koch Industries Talk page. As I've said there, Koch is a client of my employer, so I want to be careful with my potential conflict of interest. Please take a look if you get the chance. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, Collect. You seem to be occupied with other subjects right now, so I've taken this same request over to the Help Desk. Your input is still desired, if you wish to comment. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that -- a number of things conspired against me this week <g>. Collect (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, not a problem. Thanks for the note, and congrats on the upgrade! Unfortunately my request at the Help Desk seems to have been bypassed in favor of simpler questions, so I have not made any further progress. What's more, WikiProject Companies has been silent for weeks, so I am having trouble finding consensus. Under other circumstances I would make the edit anyway, but as Koch is very much in the news, I want to be extra careful. If you would review my suggested revision and offer an opinion or edit, I'd be very grateful, but no hard feelings if you don't. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The COI rules prevent you making puff additions - but corrections of facts and figures are ok. Collect (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. It's just that Koch Industries is much talked about, especially of late, so I want to be certain that my proposal has consensus ahead of time. It seems you don't object, which I appreciate. If the Help Desk has no opinion, I'll probably go ahead and make the change directly. Thanks for your response. NMS Bill (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Collect. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

name inclusion

Hi, I was just wondering, do you support the inclusion od the name? It is unclear, you said only if the quote from her not wanting her name known, this would seem to read that you don't support the inclusion of the name, could you clarify for me please. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The source appears to be RS by WP rules AFAICT -- if she disputes it, then add her dispute as well. No real reason not to do both, is there? I really do not consider most names to be "contentious" by a long shot! Collect (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So you think to add...Her name is Dorothy S Whatever, she is most well known under her pen name and she has said that doesn't want people to know her first name is Dorothy. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xeno^talk 15:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

except

Except if you follow my diffs. Which include goading and victimisation of WMC by Lar. This is a case for going deeper and not having immediate reactions based on preconceptions. Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I followed many edits on this - including those made on Lar's user page, all the CC dispute pages etc. Collect (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Back and forth in endorsements at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar

To Collect, Hipocrite, and Marknutley: I thought back and forth in endorsements was discouraged. You may want to move your comments to the talk. I could be wrong though. Since I left this note at several pages you may want to discuss it at my talk, dunno. Your call. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I sought (I thought) in any of my endorsements to note only where my endosement was not total -- few people actually read the talk page to ascertain limitations on agreeents - especially where the limit can be worded tersely <g>. I did move a copy of the colloquy as to what is meant by a qualified endorsement to the talk page. Collect (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Posting of my talkpage comments on the RfC talkpage

Please do not post my user talkpage comments on the RfC talkpage. If you were expecting to provoke me you haven't. It just appears to be rather desperate. Polargeo (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly. You need not post on my talk page. Collect (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible lossage?

This edit appears to have been inadvertantly removed. You may want to restore it, I think it's useful. If this notice is in error my apologies. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor came by and elided it all to the fact that WP has an article on the non-esistent term <g>. Collect (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Judaism talk archives.

OK. I did some digging and I have posted extensively on what I found. Your response and further input would be appreciated. I'm also wondering how I might be able to get wider community input on this. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RFC which is a tad confusing <g>. Be sure to specify "religion" as a category, I would think. Collect (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will try to figure that out, but I'd love to start by getting some input from those who are regulars first. Thanks again.Griswaldo (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User page protection

Done. Let me know when/if you want it lifted. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Decency

If you are going to impugn my behavior on a highly trafficed talk page like Lar's, at least have the decency to tell me what I've done wrong. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No impugning done. Unless, of course, you wish to claim such occurred on the RFC/U for Lar where the tool was discussed. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully uninvolved

Hi Collect, Perhaps I am mistaken but it appears you just signed as "fully uninvolved" in the RFC on CC probation. You appear to have a degree of involvement [7] etc and perhaps should move your comment?--BozMo talk 15:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope./ You will find exceedingly little involvement with any CC articles (I do have WP:BLP concerns on Ian Plimer, but no edits regarding CC at all that I can recall dealing with being pro- or anti- AGW etc.). I am uninvolved editorially on the matter. Collect (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC) BTW, it is odd to think that using "asserts" instead of "asserting" or the like as a word choice makes me "involved" <g>. (the diff you give is a great example of what proves non-involvement!) Perhaps a change of a comma is also a sign of "involvement"? Collect (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You are fully involved in the debate. No question about that whatsoever. Polargeo (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary read "rm WTA, weasel words and POV adverbs etc.". It is hard to make an edit with that summary and claim no involvement. I suggest you reconsider for the sake of good form --BozMo talk 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The word choice was made neutral. I assert strenuously that the word choice does not show "involvement" with CC. Thanks! BTW, did you read the prior wording? Collect (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For context I have been called "involved" for adding a single possible reference to an article talk page. "Fully uninvolved" with CC probation is a strong statement which I think you should not claim. --BozMo talk 16:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And you find me "involved" for changing ""asserting" to "asserts" and "has described as" to "called" and "among Australian independent bookstores " to "In Australia" etc.? Astounding leap that one is! Collect (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps in a spirit of empathy, you'd be willing to go through the laundry list of articles you dumped on Lar's talkpage as evidence of my "involvement", and prune those where my contributions are negligble or uncontroversial, as yours are here? I've already done some of the work for you. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

1. [8] appears substantive indeed. 2. CRU you only protected 3. [9] is a relatively minor, but definite, edit. 4. At least you removed the category "AIDS denialism" from an article. [10] 5. Many edits including [11] among others. 6. Many edits including [12] 7. [13] relatoively minor edit - but still substantive. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you made substantial contributions in 4 out of the 7 -- so figure that you substantially edited a dozen or more CC articles in common with WMC. I think you likely would be better off if I did not post this on Lar's page as a matter of fact. Would you actually like all this posted showing that you were active in a number of CC articles? Collect (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to post whatever you think will honestly and accurately represent my contributions to climate-change articles. I think your previous effort fell somewhat short on that score, so any improvement is welcome. I disagree with the spin you've attached to some of my edits (for example, this seems like routine cleanup of an obviously inappropriate link rather than any sort of participation in a climate-change dispute). But rather than counter that spin I'm happy to let the diffs speak for themselves. My activity on climate-change articles has been minor at best, and virtually nil in the past year or more, so I'm comfortable that any accurate representation will convey that. MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And your nearly two hundred edits on Steven Milloy are now officially chopped liver? You have a different definition of "minor at best" than I have ... Collect (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're correct to note I've edited that article heavily. In the interest of completeness, you might also want to note that I lasted edited its content more than 2 years ago. That sort of detail would probably be useful to an objective observer attempting to determine whether I was involved in a direct, current editing dispute on the subject of climate change. MastCell ^Talk 03:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Alas - you appear to have said that you had not edited in that area. Meanwhile, some of the other edits you made were more recent than "more than 2 years ago" . [14] os under a year old. [15] under a year. [16] under a year. And many more. You last edited Steven Milloy in April 2010, which is an eensy bit less than 2 years ago. Collect (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think I said that. I said that my edits on the subject of climate change were "minor at best, and virtually nil in thepast year or more." I think that's a reasonable representation, and I'm not sure why you've embellished it. I find your presentation of my editing history to be misleading, at best, and I'm disheartened by your unwillingness to address obvious flaws or inaccuracies in your claims. Instead, you keep trying different lines of attack.

But even there I don't think you're being completely forthright. For instance, you note I've edited Steven Milloy in April 2010, but (uniquely) you don't provide a diff for that edit. Here it is - the removal of a drive-by tag. For that matter, I reverted an obvious WP:BLP violation on the article here in April 2010. I'm comfortable that anyone objectively reviewing those contributions will not view them as participation in an editorial dispute related to climate change, nor did either of them materially affect the article's content, as I said above.

It's probably best if we let this go. You are, of course, free to make whatever representations you like about my editing history. I'm increasingly convinced that you are not guided by the actual record, but by a desire to adjust the context of my edits in an effort to prove your belief that I'm involved. Perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but in any case it makes it hard to find common ground going forward. So on my end I'll drop it, with a request (which are free to ignore) that you make an effort to scrupulously represent the content and nature of my editing. MastCell ^Talk 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved

I have moved your comment from the fully uninvolved line to the involved line, as you have had substantial participation in the enforcement of the sanctions, though not the editing of the topic space. Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Point out my "substantial participation." Thank you most kindly. BTW, move Fences and Windows also - he edited on Monbiot, etc. Collect (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not discussing editorial involvement. However, you have multiple substantial edits to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Diffs on request. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Now pray tell which of those indicated in any way whatever an involvement with the CC debate? Or is my commenting at RFC/U for Lar also "involvement"? There comes a point at which joci causa is the only interpretation I can make for this sideplay. Collect (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The section that your comment should have gone in was quite clear it states - "Editors involved in ... the enforcement of this probation." You are involved in the enforcement of the probation. Hipocrite (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin - hence can have no ability at all to enforce the probation. I made one comment that the solution for POV is to add balancing views. This is WP policy, and shows no position otherwise. Next ealrier comment by me was a really POV edit <g> saying that WP:V is policy. Prior to that also WP:V staing that the NYT is RS even if it is "wrong." Also straight from WP policy. Prior to that - comments stating that WP rules and policies are rules and policies. If saying that WP has policies and rule makes one "involved" in CC disputes - then We are stuck on 1 April like Bill Murray on 2 Feb. How, by the way, does stating that WP has policies make one "involved in the enforcement of the probation"? I really wanna hear this one! Collect (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing that your position on the sanctioning of editors was right. I don't care. You were involved in the enforcement of the sanctions, thus, per the RFC section instructions, you are involved. Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to meet you, Mr. Dunninger, mindreader. My posts dealt precisely and accurately with stating WP policy, and only with precisely and accurately reflecting policy. Collect (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Practice

The practice is to discount indef blocked users if they are block evading. Not if they made a legitimate sock free contribution before they were blocked. Polargeo (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting dichotomy you seek to claim. Alas, not what I found in the past on WP process pages. Collect (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Please do not change comments already replied to without making that change very clear. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I noted it as an emendation and italicized it - how else should I have made it clearer? Collect (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've usually found it useful to use strikeout and a clear note what was changed and when, so that readers can understand what others replied to. Or, to make it simpler, just restate the modified proposal completely below. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Which would be true of any comments I made - but scarcely applicable to the proposal - especially when I took your concerns in account in the emendation. Indeed, I would have thought you would give approbation to the changes. Collect (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why there is a difference between the proposal or any other discussion. Any reader who does not check the history will get the impression that my comment refers to the current version. That is why such changes are not acceptable. As for the substance, that addresses one of my concerns, and is a clear improvement there. But it does nothing to address the others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You feel that your position that it would be misinterpreted is not aided by the emendation? Which concern is now the chief problem for you? Tha purpose is to make it right, not to engage in debate. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No. How is a reader supposed to know that your "claims that this is over-broad" refers to my comment that, according to what the page currently claims, happened 20 minutes after your text? My other concerns are listed on the BLP talk page, where we should discuss the content questions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All one would likely realize is that material in italics is new. Especially since I left a parenthetical note saying exactly that <g>. Collect (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

climate change RFC

You wrote:

Thus nothing which affects that rule can be established here, most especially any requirement in a belief that a "scientific point of view" exists, or ought to exist, or should be given any special status whatsoever.

Are you saying that WP editors should treat the concept of scientific consensus as invalid or improper? Thanks. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that WP:NPOV overrides anyone claiming that "scientists agree that thus and such is Truth." Scientific "consensus" is the same as consensus in any field - that is, it should be fairly and proportionately represented. It should not, however, be used as an argument to debar other points of view or opinions, nor should it be used as an excuse to place other views in a bad light, or to suggest any impropriety or venality on the part of those with differing views. Collect (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could give an example of an article that has had such a problem--thanks again. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What counts is that several editors stated that the "SPOV" should be regarded as privileged. I found that to be a disturbing POV in esse. Collect (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any statements in the RFC that the SPOV should be regarded as privileged, though maybe they exist in other venues. Anyway, you seem to be saying some unclear or mutually conflicting things: 1) WP should act as if there is no such thing as an SPOV; 2) there is an SPOV but it shouldn't be treated specially. So I'm having trouble seeing what you're getting at. In particular I'd like to know how you propose to assess the weight of authority for scientific vs other viewpoints on clearly scientific issues (e.g. the effect of carbon emissions on climate change), as opposed to non-scientific topics (e.g. whether person X took action Y for an improper or venal reason).

FWIW, I notice that your arbcom quote appears to be from Russavia-Biophys[17]. It would be helpful if you mentioned that in your statement, for ease of location if someone wants to examine the context. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Reread the CC discussions. You will find cases where the favoring of some "SPOV" is mentioned as a goal. The ArbCom quote is material found in many ArbCom cases - not just the Russavia case. I cited it as being the most recent iteration of the statement, not as the only one. And my point is that no POV should ever be regarded as privileged. BTW, my background is in Physics, where no POV is ever regarded s privileged. Case in point - the long held belief that matter and anti-matter are in balance. They aren't - and the latest papers indicate that perhaps they never were, and that the "dark matter" theories may just be wrong. As for the claims of venality, read some of the histories of the BLPs of some of the "septics" as one editor calls them. Collect (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you are the one making claims, I think it falls on you to supply examples of what you are claiming. I do see a suggestion of SPOV by Count Iblis[18] but I wouldn't attach much significance to that. I've had interaction with Count Iblis in the past; IMO he is well-meaning but pretty naive about how WP works. I don't think he's been editing CC articles but I might be mistaken about this. You still haven't answered my question about how to determine weight of authority about a scientific question, when scientific sources have a clear consensus but differing viewpoints exist in other types of venues. Example: geologists say there was an ice age 20,000 years ago; young-earth creationists say that couldn't have happened since the Earth is only 6000 years old. Should WP report these two viewpoints as having equal credibility? 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

my view in the election

My view is similar to yours. The difference is that when there is a shortage, one has to be less wasteful. Some of the SPI requests do not need CUers. The behavior is clearly bad and CU searching is just wasting the limited manpower available that could be adjudicated based on bad behavior alone. It is like gasoline. When there is a shortage, you stop wasteful use and conserve it for emergency uses. I'm not saying not to elect people but to manage a limited resource well. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And agree on what needs a full Checkuser and what only needs confirmation that two accounts are basically from the same area and show other traits in common. Meanwhile, I think most editors do not see the need for additional titles for anyone at all ... Collect (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Another observation is that the CU workload is high because WP culture is way too tolerant of socking. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See User:Collect/personas Collect (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Who?

ATren (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ratel. Hipocrite (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how I missed that. ATren (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

While the New York Times is a relible source, it does not mean that every article they publish may be cited in every article. Surely you would agree that today's story about the U.S. oil spill his no place in this article. The text I removed said nothing about mass killings under Communist regimes but was about a trial. The findings of the tribunal are not a reliable source about mass killings either. TFD (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is RS. It covers the specific claim made. It therefore ought not be deleted. You are insserting what you "know" when that is specifically against WP policy. Collect (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please reverse your recent edits on this article, which is subject to a IRR restriction. While the material may be new, it is clear from the discussion page that there is opposition to continued reference to trials when no reliable sources have been presented to substantiate the underlying charges. (Also, I have replied to your concerns on the article's talk page.) TFD (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I added new material. This is not in any way a revert of any material in the article, and, as such, is perfectly proper. Thank you. Collect (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough i added new material [19] which was promptly reverted out and like the stuff you just added is reliably sourced any ideas Collect as to why these three editors seem intent on removing the deaths of all those people form the article? mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, check out the past AfDs on the article, and on related topics. Also check out any AfDs nominated by any of the editors on the page. This is general advice for any area - including Scientology, Climate Change, Prem Rawat, Eastern Europe or any other areas on WP. In the case at hand, you might note [20]. Collect (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone would think these guys are commies :) There reasons for removing material are spurious at best i think, and when asked for these new scholarly works which show C did not kill all those people i am told by paul siebert, I do not have to provide any sources is it not against policy to remove material which is reliably sourced saying there is new evidence which discounts the old, and then actually refuse to show it? mark nutley (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WP has procedures in place to solicit additional editors to view the article. Alas, there are many areas where a group can prevent reliably sourced material from being added to articles. Collect (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reported != blocked

To avoid over-complicating the ArbCom page: You missed the first part of my question. How many of those 20 have actually been blocked? Have, indeed, any of those been blocked? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Several appear to have been blocked for some period of time. Meanwhile "the usual" is not "evidence." How many would you regard as acceptable if you had been one of them, by the way? Collect (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Several << 20. I've looked over the cases again - as far as I can see, only two accounts not confirmed as socks have been blocked based on this suspicion. One of them after mistaken positive CU, for 4 hours (the account was infdef'ed a week later for disruptive editing), and one with an unclear CU result - the block still stands. Of course, several have been blocked for other reasons (disruptive editing and 3RR), but that has nothing to do with the integrity of the SPI process. And "the usual", combined with a link to the contribution history, is evidence. If I had been reported to SPI (I may have been once, but I'm not sure), I would be unconcerned. If I had been blocked, I would have used an unblock template like user:WavePart and been unblocked. No big deal. Few things on Wikipedia are irreversible. Your current contribution at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sock_Puppet_Standards_of_Evidence gives the impression that "one out of seven" reported accounts are "forced off Wikipedia" as a result of a faulty SPI report. That is clearly wrong. Will you restate this or should I add a note explaining this to my statement? BTW, you quote "only one out of seven" as if that's something I had said. Maybe you interpret quotes differently, but I find that a problematic use. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As the "one in seven" was from the "85%" figure, you might try yelling at that editor <g>. What figure is closer to the 85% figure? Do you know who cited the 85% figure by any chance? Collect (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you paraphrase you do not quote. I don't quite understand what you mean about the figures - do you want to point out that 1/7 is roughly 15%? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it is closer to 14 1/2 %. Did you find the person who gave the 85% figure by ny chance? Collect (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is going anywhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All I did was point out where the "one in seven" came from. I wonder just where you thought it would lead? Collect (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All you did was showing either bad research or an inability to express the results cogently, and an appalling misuse of quote marks. I was hoping that you would correct your obvious misrepresentations. It seems as if I was wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I added material to show that 6/7 is not' the same as 85% as you seem to wish me to do. Collect (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. I want you to avoid the use of quote marks unless you are actually quoting, and I want you to retract what appears to be the wrong claim that 20 innocent new editors were "forced of" Wikipedia. I thought I was clear that I'm not concerned about 3rd significant digit rounding effects in your arithmetic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I used the quotation marks as is proper journalistic practice to indicate that a phrase is being used which might not otherwise be clear. If you read the general manuals of style, you will note that this is normal practice. As I never said that the 20 were forced off of WP, that part is a teensy bit irrelevant. Retracting what I did not say is a neat idea, I suppose. Collect (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect (2nd nomination). A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit to Union busting

Hi--with this edit [21] to the union busting article you added some CN tags and deleted about half the lede. I've tried to follow up with some of the CN issues. However, the lede was the result of an extremely long discussion last year between a number of editors (myself included). I returned the lede to what was the consensus last year; of course there's no reason it should be set in stone, but would appreciate some discussion on the talk page if you think it should be edited further as your edit note only mentioned RS issues (did that apply to the lede, too?). Thanks. --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was never really a consensus...but it was the result of a long debate between 2 people and myself. I would appreciate a pair of eyes on this that are less interested than theirs.LedRush (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for much of the "Article" as written. Consensus can not allow use of any non RS sources. Collect (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Plumber ref

Hi

I noticed you added a ref for the text claiming that plumber comes from Roman roofers rather than people that merely worked with lead - although the book is obviously a good one from 1897 I think that the ref does not really back up the claim. All the ref does is link to the book and without quoting page number it is not really a valid ref is it ?

If you have a copy can you paste the quote into the Quote box for the ref so it will be displayed for all to see?

At present I cannot find a single sentence in that book which ties roof with lead or plumbum

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found many refs -- the fact is that Romans had a lot more roofs than indoor toilets <g>. 16th century England had a large number of roofs with lead - and no toilets. See page 321 of this work to see the cite about using lead for drain-pipes from roofs, noting the use of lead in Pompeii as an example. Consider further [22] which makes the specific statement "Lead sheet was used for roofing ..." All of the older English churches (pre-7th century) had lead roofs, as apparently did the Pantheon. Collect (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

add also [23] showing clearly an English of "plumber" to refer to working on roofs. Collect (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Plumber talk page to free up your user page Chaosdruid (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: GoRight

Have you considered that all of the coincidences between the two editors, from the obsession with Al Gore, to the CamelCase user name, to the shared grammar and vocabulary and style of argumentation, are best explained as the singular usage of one editor avoiding a community ban, rather than the remarkable and unusual identical and matching contributions from two different users? What makes you think that it is more likely a new user than a returning user? I'm not following you. There is no good evidence pointing to the existence of anything more than one user editing from multiple accounts. As I have said before, it is possible that someone is deliberately pretending to be GoRight, but unlikely. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I examined the edit summaries - which are of zilch value as they are basically all common words. I did not examine talk page edits. Nor did I make any comment at all about "new" v. "returning" user, so I think you may be confusing my post with others. You might also look at my essay on alternate personas at User:Collect/personas. Collect (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell me then, what significant differences did you find when you compared edit summaries?Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As there were no really noteworthy wording usages, I would say a few thousand editors would fall into the same word usage category. Sort of like finding two people in a supermarket who buy some ground beef - enough other people also buy ground beef that one does not need to say that the two people bought distinct ground beef, but more that so many buy it, that it is a meaningless distinction. When looking for socks over the decades, I found such clues as specific alliterative phrases, and misspellings, were genuine clues. Use of common words was never a good clue. Look, for example, for people who write "comprimize" on WP - and the odds are greater that they are related than finding two people using common words being related<g>. Collect (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting many important aspects of sock puppetry, such as the psychology of socking. Some users want to be caught, and others may just give themselves away with certain "tells", providing sock hunters with needed clues. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have dealt with users with "alternate personas" online for about two decades. I daresay I am experienced enough to spot solid evidence (such as statistically improbably coincidences etc.). Common words, alas, do not fit that level, even if users are alternate personas. Perhaps you have been around as long, or not. I had to handle forums with cumulative userbases of several hundred thousand <g>. And manage the relative handful of genuine problem users. Collect (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Another proposed revision to Koch Industries

Hello Collect, I'm sure you'll remember giving input on my work involving the Koch Industries article earlier this year, with which I need to be careful for COI reasons. I've recently proposed another not-insignificant update to the article, cleaning up a particularly messy section about its environmental and safety record, although the article has been very quiet and I haven't received any comment on my suggestions. The section in question is this one, my proposed replacement is right here, and my explanation is on the talk page. Please let me know what you think, and meantime I've also sought input from one other previously-involved editor. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reduced it a bit, and used. Collect (talk)

Re

Thank you, but I can not comment on the AfD because of my topic ban.Biophys (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

NP. Notified only to avoid any claims that I did not do the canvassing in a non-neutral manner at all. Collect (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. But please do not do it again. I left a disclaimer at my talk page [24] to clarify this.Biophys (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am highly unlikely to seek any discomfort for you! Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As about "canvasing", one of proofs of my misconduct was this diff: [25] (taken from FoF about me).Biophys (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A little defence

A little defence of me at arbcom along these lines would help for consistancy. Polargeo (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Polargeo (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Collect (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing

All those user talk page posts you made as to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings_under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)#Mass killings under Communist regimes were outside the bounds of Wikipedia:Canvassing. First, it was not a limited posting (it was a spamming with dozens of posts). Second, you posted to user talk pages and third, saying something is "neutral" doesn't make it neutral, many editors may still think you're in some way not being neutral, whatever you may have in mind yourself. There would also be worries as to how you selected the users to whose talk pages you posted, but that's the least of them. The only mass posts I know of that are put up with on en.WP are fluffy "feel-good" things like season's greetings and RfA thank-you notes (which are called "RfA spam"): Dozens of posts to user talk pages (or anywhere else) about editorial or policy discussions aren't ever allowed and these are always seen as spam.

If you wan't to draw lots of eyes to something, do so on a project noticeboard or other page, never spam user talk pages.

I think you must have made a mistake and didn't mean to breach the policy. Now you know. It was way beyond the pale. If you do something like this again, you could easily get yourself blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The posts were in response to a specific biassed CANVASS by another poster, and were specifically mentioned on the AfD page - they were not a "spamming" and respresented a specific allowed use of CANVASSing using an extraordinarily neurtral post. The posts were s[ecofoca;y tp "interested [ep[;e", were neutral, and in no way violated the CANVASS guidelines. The posts were made to those who !voted in all ways - no selection of any sort was made on the basis of anyone's opinions. In short "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" was not violated. "Posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions " was not violated. "Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example" was not violated. " Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion " was not violated. "Soliciting support other than by posting messages, such as custom signatures that automatically append some promotional message to every signed post" was not violated. The only cavil anyone could have is whether posting to those who had previously been involved is, ipso factp, ecessive. The problem is that posting to those who were involved in proor AfDs has been done on a fairly routine basis by others, and I saw no reason why prior practice would be regared by any admin as "excessive" in itself. Specifically "it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters." where CANVASS anticipates that contacting people involved in prior AFDs is proper as long as no selection is done! Pray tell, if I notified a handful, how would no selection have been done? And also specifically Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. is also specifically mentioned as allowable! Now your only possible rational objection is that the notice was in any way not "neutral." I would gladly have you bring this up to ANI isf you really think you can claim with a straight face that the notice was not neutral! The posts were made in absolute conformity with WP policy, and that is that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why you're responding to this in two threads, I don't know. As I said on my talk page, your posts were not within policy, you sent out way too many. Please don't do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy requires "everyone" (that is the word used) - it is hard to limit "everyone" without selecting them - which is precisely against the specific policy <g>. You might note that where I asked about this, that a very experienced user said that I behaved fully properly here. Now will I do it again? Not likely. Was I wrong to do it here? Nope. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, the policy also says Do not send notices to too many users. There is a table in on the policy page which straightforwardly shows that postings which aren't "limited" are too many. Dozens of posts are not limited, dozens of posts wlinking to a content discussion are too many. As I also said earlier, I think you made a mistake and didn't mean to breach the policy, this has aught to do with "wrong."

As for the other account, having had some time to come back later and look into it, I agree that it's a sock up to something unhelpful and I've blocked it. I might have done sooner had you given me a diff instead of quoting them by copy pasting onto my talk page (I thought you were talking about yourself at first) and noted the odd contribution history.

I'm happy to help out, but please don't be coy about telling me what you want me to do and why (no, I don't think you were "wrong" for posting about all this in ways I took to be "coy"). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please amend your evidence

"Reverted in rapid succession by WMC, Verbal and Schulz -- who found that using such a clearly biassed word such as "stated" was sufficient to label a person a Scibaby sock whose edits can be reverted on sight without regard to any 3RR (or 1RR) limits at all. Evidence? Changing "found" to "stated" is clearly egregious POV pushing on the part of Wealths Wealth. A clear case of sufficient proof of being Scibaby?" I have never claimed that anyone was a SciBaby sock. I know nothing about SciBaby. Please clarify or remove this untrue statement which may mislead arbiters. Also, if you refer to someone in an ArbCom case it is the minimum you can do to inform them. Verbal chat 16:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that you find "found" to be POV as compared to "stated." And that you were one of the reverters of the basic edit. My statement (foundment?) was that the person was reverted by three specific editors - which is a matter of fact. Are you here "state"ing that you do not believe the person to be a Scibaby sock? I wopuld be delighted to emend the comment to state that you do not believe the person to be a sock of any ilk. No problem. Collect (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Scibaby either way. The reason I reverted was because "found" or "concluded" was a correct statement, whereas "stated" weakened the text, reducing the sourced informational content of the article. I did not revert on sight because of any socking issues, but because it was a bad edit in my opinion - and I stated why on the talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat

And thank you for being reasonable about this. Verbal chat 19:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Collect (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

<g>

Superspeed!~

Are you still living in the BBS era? <g> –xeno^talk 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL = 300 baud - remember? And I had to manage up to ten simultaneous private chats on the old CompuServe CB software! This is now my 28th year or so online. Collect (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My first modem was a 2400 baud. I used to run a Renegade BBS (tricked out with the full screen logon and all the bells and whistles). =) Those were the days... –xeno^talk 21:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Speed demon! My dad was used to the old Friden FlexoWriter at 110 baud. I did have the very first "laptop" - a TRS-80 Model 100. I also wrote in TinyBasic (one neat one was a "Star Trek" game in under 4K total memory). Collect (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I remember when I got the US Robotics 14.4k... I felt like the king of the world. –xeno^talk 21:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah - but did you have a "flippy" drive for your computer? (Where you had to cut the extra notch?) Collect (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh??? Probably not. I did have a true "floppy" (5.25) ... Kings Quest IV - they don't make 'em like they used to. –xeno^talk 22:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeking suggestions for new title for WP:AMORAL

You have previously commented regarding the essay WP:Wikipedia is amoral; I am soliciting suggestions for a better title for the essay. If you have any, please list them at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_amoral#Suggestions_for_new_title.3F. Thanks, --Cybercobra (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please review

Hi, you cast a vote of oppose on a proposed content guideline; I and a few other editors have made significant changes to the proposed guideline to try and resolve the issues of the opposers. I initially opposed the guideline but now support it due to the changes made recently. Would you mind reviewing the changes and commenting on this section. Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science-related_articles)#Towards_consensus_acceptance_of_the_guideline.2C_lets_discuss Thank you very much.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Skull and Bones comment

Hi, just wanted to thank you for that comment on the talk page at the S&B piece. That piece gets an awful lot of vandalism, and one grows weary of reverting it, especially with the inevitable backlash. I appreciate your comment. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Note on MFD discussion

Hi,

I hope my tone reads appropriately regards the MFD debate, and I appreciate your comment - I always find it a relief when people disagree with me. Obviously it is a judgement call (hence UCS) with heavy reliance on souces - unusual for a MFD discussion. I think I'm right and it's a very cut-and-dried issue, but then again I'm not the boss of wikipedia so we'll see what the consensus is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The aim is to, if possible, make the relative weight of the arguments pro and con easily assessed - the worst XfD discussions are where folks simply line up in a queue without actually giving much for the closer to work with <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've either conveyed an air-tight, compelling case, or I've hopelessly muddied the waters. Those poor closing admins, they'll get blamed no matter what. I just hope they use common sense and agree with me :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Never underestimate the ability of another person to completely misunderstand everything entirely <g>. Collect (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please could I make use of your skills?

I wonder if you might be inclined to create a graph or other chart in respect of my "suggested exercise" here. I want to evidence, further, that at least the perception of factionalisation is convincing. I suggest that the 10 cases, the 8 edit wars noted at the PD plus the Bishop Hill (blog) and Fred Singer articles, would suffice. I would wish that no names were exampled in any graph, just X% editors edited Y% of articles to the same effect (top end), the same for the medium percentages, and the lowest meaningful percentages, plus any examples of an account edit to differing effects. I suggest using WMC and Marknutley as the data points of the perceived idealogical split, so that any editor aping their actions being placed within that grouping (for the sake of neutrality, please do not include WMC and Mn in the data), and capable of being checked as acting against the other editor. If you are willing to do this I will want to announce it on the PD talkpage. I should be grateful if you would let me know soonest if you can. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you will do this, are you able to do a top, medium and least ratio's for both "sides" - hopefully without indicating whose is whose - so it can be shown that such practices were not endemic to any one viewpoint? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The very selction of your prefered article to do the examination on negates any objectivity of the exercise right from the start. you appear to be asking Collect to do an analysis on an article you have made controversial admin decisions on in order that it might back up your arguments. Whilst Collect may come up with some stats that back this up I would treat them with a very healthy pinch of salt. Polargeo (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it will only be a tool open to examination. However, until Collect agrees they will or will not do this I would be grateful if my request here is not used in the ongoing debate. If Collect is unable to do this, for any reason, then you are at liberty to point out my actions here for whatever purpose you feel appropriate (and if they are willing, then all aspects of this request are open to comment, of course). LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But collect would be likely to simply do a wikistalk that any of us can do and you know this then maybe even add some statistical obscurity to the answer. What is the point? You think you have been wronged and you are trying to pin this on factionalism by your own selection of the article. The fact that this article was noted on the CC enforcement pages pretty much guarantees that all interested editors would turn up, the fact that someone then started an RfC goes even further. If you then want to use this stick to beat editors with that is simply poor. Polargeo (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Collect is more able than just present bare facts from a wikistalk, which is why I asked with the specific criteria. As for Bishop Hill (blog), if you can suggest an alternative CC related article where there was a recent (2010) edit war then please do so - it is just so much easier to review percentages from 10 and multiples datapoints. If no alternative, then I am willing to drop that article if Collect can do an analysis over 9 cases. I would note that the article was not brought up on the enforcement page, until by me when I sanctioned some of the editors and noted my request for review at AN (thus the edit war had already happened). Anyhoo, this is moot until Collect responds. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, and the purpose is to provide the evidence that there is or was "factionalisation" within CC related space, or at the very least the appearence of same, that some commentators at the PD takpage say is lacking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I just think that the whole issue of stats is worthless. We are not looking at random articles anymore but articles that have been the focus of CC enforcement. All any analysis will prove is that those editors who watch CC enforcement will turn up at similar articles. This is hardly surprising and is proof of nothing. Polargeo (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All these are articles where there has been edit warring, and my intent is to indicate there were two large groups of editors whose actions in supporting each other and deprecating other editors were a major factor in these issues. Turning up en masse and resolving issues is good, turning up en masse and sustaining an edit war is not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Suppose I simply look at a sample of n editwarred articles of my choosing (random from the set where more than 3 edit wars have occurred in less than, say, 6 months? and see if similar patterns occurred in any subset thereof? A bit of a project in any case. And Polar - you should trust me to make reasonable choices - you have a knack for trying to upset applecarts <g>. Unless, of course, you are stating that editors with similar CC interests specifically choose to act in concert? I think that would be substantially "against interest" for you. Collect (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a test on CC edit wars, and then a random set of edit wars to compare it against - but you are the expert here. Would there be a major time factor? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am almost done medical treatments for a minor cancer - which rather sap energy. Last group of WP work was about 100 hours - but I imagine I can get something done this week - sound ok? Collect (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are knocking shit out of some cancer, you take as much time as you like (I have two younger cousins both in remission, and a third who has just had an elective hysterectomy). This is only a fucking website. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP and companies

Hi, I just happened to notice your latest edit on Koch Industries, taking out a link to a Frank Rich piece and justifying the removal as violating BLP. The link may not need to be there for other reasons, but BLP doesn't apply here because it expressly does not apply to companies. Quoting: The policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must comply with the other content policies. I thought you should know. — e. ripley\^talk 01:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Rich ecditorial was about the Koch brpthers and thus is under BLP. WP:BLP applies to all articles referring to living people, and sources making claims about living people. Did you read the Rich screed? Collect (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't. I'm not following the articles at all, I just happened upon your edit summary and thought I'd point out that section of the policy to you. I'm glad you were already aware of it. — e. ripley\^talk 12:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP certainly applies to the articles about David and Charles Koch, and to references to those individuals as individuals in the company article, but not to the company per se. Your objection to Frank Rich, a highly respected journalist who has probably one of the world's most prime pieces of journalistic real estate in the world as op-ed columnist for the Sunday NY Times, is quite curious indeed. While some of the rhetorical language he uses may sometimes not be appropriate for an article, that he is a reliable source is nearly incontestable. Finally, please note that you are at 2RR for the David Koch article. Best, Arjuna (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The "flourishes" make up the bulk of his screed. and he has been found non-RS for such in the past. His article, as you phrase it, entirely aims at the Koch's as people. Collect (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WRT "2RR" - where WP:BLP is clearly involved, reverts are not counted - the policy requires removal of such material. Collect (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you might want to post diffs or links to those previous discussions. You don't seem to be garnering a whole lot of sympathy here--probably time to regroup and reconsider the approach to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually BLP/N got response - and one who decidedly agrees with me from that area. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You assert that you are enforcing BLP, but that is not yet clear if this is in fact the case or whether you are being tendentious. If the material is not in contradiction to BLP - and I have asked Admins to weigh in on the BLP page - please be aware that you could be in violation if you hit 3RR. You assert that Rich has been found non-RS in the past - can you please provide examples or a statement of policy on this? It can be argued that Rich refers to the Kochs as individuals, but you reverted whole sections of material with multiple citations, so this doesn't seem a reasonable way to go about fixing a possible BLP violation - if so you should have removed just the Rich citation. Finally, since you refer to the Rich op-ed as a "screed", this suggests to me that you may find the material objectionable from an ideological POV, in which case I urge you to exercise some caution. Best, Arjuna (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I also refer to Dr. Laura's stuff as "screed" I am an equal-opportunity opponent of using editorial comments in BLPs. Note also that I posted on BLP/N a while back - as soon as it appeared this was a problem. Did you miss my post? Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

If you want to discuss the page, then join the discussion. I don't need someone to revert me and then contact me on my talk page to tell me that they reverted me.--Screwball23 talk 16:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI enforcement request notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Note: this involves Screwball23 and the ruckus over at Linda McMahon. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Your AE Filing

You need to use this form to submit a new issue. I closed the old one but you are free to copy and paste from it to start a new one. --WGFinley (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried - kept getting nowhere. Thanks - please try to restart it, as I do not have the patience to get the template to work. The instructions state that as long as the information is there, that it was valid. Collect (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't provide all the information such as that he was notified, what remedy you were looking for etc. Using the template is a rather easy cut and paste affair, if you don't use it it's impossible for admins to review your request. As the instructions state "Your request may be declined without further action if you provide insufficient or unclear information." Which is what I did. So please, either use the template (easy) or submit all the information that is in the template so that your request can be evaluated. And please don't add on to something that's been closed again. --WGFinley (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The notification was on his page (multiple times) as well as on the article page itself - which is noted in the filing. The Digwuren sanctions are what I am seeking - as it states. The Diffs are provided. What more can I do? I spent a good half an hour trying to make the template work and failed. Sorry about that - but ignoring the problem as a result is a tad silly, no? Collect (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I will create a new entry for you so that it's there you will need to fill it out. --WGFinley (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please include as much from my initial filing as possible - I do not want TFD to find a comma missing <g>. Collect (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually started a new one for you, you can cut and paste from your original to that one. --WGFinley (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have filed the request, it is very much like the CC probation one mark nutley (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Now co-signed, and diffs given as requested. Collect (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

white out

Hi Collect, tiresome indeed. I had a white out (major comp failure) up and running again now. I see the issue and actually it is annoying but there is only policy and guidelines that will be effective in creating a balanced article. Against strongly opinionated contributors with a single purpose those guidelines and policies are weak and ineffectual, drawing the attention of uninvolved NPOV editors is helpful. Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I had Windows XP a while back and sympathize <g>. Seems that the ones who make fifty edits in a row on any article are an order of magnitude more likely to engage in such behavior <g>. It does boost their "edit count" though. Collect (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Crist

ec.I don't know if you are still following the BLPN discussion but I have (boldly) added a concise version of the content, here . I felt less would be close to censorship and felt a simple neutral uninvolved comment was the way to go, if you have any objections feel free to remove it and discuss, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much in line with my proposal earlier. (heck - the original edit I made was just to replace "homosexuality" with "sexual orientation" ! which got reverted) Thanks. Collect (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Boldness

I'd like to believe I'm as bold as the next guy, but even I'd think twice before making 18k of changes to a mature topic.[26] Bold is good, cautious may be even better. Conservative best?   Will Beback  talk  11:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a lot of duplicated material in Crist - and an article is not really "mature" when much is less than three months old to be sure. And a lot was actual simple copyediting as well. Thanks. (Um -- in another aticle, one person deleted 55% of the article (60k+) in one swoop which I did feel was a bit much). Collect (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was started in 2004, though I'm sure it's had major changes since then. I'm not complaining about anything you did - just surprised to see such a sweeping revision in a single edit.   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem - some stuff was iterated several times. Last straw was folks confusing "Independent" with "unaffiliated" for ballot lines <g>. Collect (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Carl Paladino

This was sourced. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The claims were not founded in the cite. WP:BLP is not a joke -[ and saying that a man posted a picture of a woman having sex with a horse when a RELIABLE SOURCE does not make that claim is quite a major violation of WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept that, as I didn't check the source, but there are reliable sources out there which make the same claims. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See this version of the article, which got deleted despite being reliably sourced. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Look back to my edit where I stated "improper emails" which is all the reliable sources actually claim. I am also quite unsure that bringing a child into the BLP is proper under [WP:BLP]] but I don;t recall who added it. Collect (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying, that the sources are not reliable, or that they don't spell out what the emails were? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and WP:BLP paying close attention to "contentious or poorly sourced material." Collect (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what RS and BLP say. What I am saying, and which you seem to be dancing around, is that the material is not poorly sourced. Why do you keep contending that it is? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only one pointing out that"sex with a horse" is a "contentious claim" at best. Beyond contentious. The source is grossly insufficient for the claim. WP:BLP requires removal of such stuff. Collect (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to claim that CBS News is not a reliable source? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

CBS uses "reportedly" which is not a strong enough commitment that CBS backs the claim at all. In fact, it is used to cover "rumor" which is also not permitted in BLPs. Sorry - this is something which has now been discussed more than enough. Please cease posting on this page. Collect (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Animal sex and your concealing it

Why are you trying to conceal Paladino's interest in Animal sex? --Nydied (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)