User talk:Collect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Million award logo.svg This user won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Christian Science to Good Article status.

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

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

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

Had I known Collect was behind your request I may have declined. He has been sniffing my excrement for 4 years or more. I don't bother myself with him unless he shows up where I am working. Then I have to consider what is more important: dealing with Collect's dribble or continuing to talk and work with other editors. I detest him so much I usually just leave and go do something else in WikiLand
Sorry, But I'd rather have all of my fingernails pulled out than to get involved with those editors. Especially Collect, perhaps the most dangerous and dirtiest Wikipedia editor I've come across--only my opinion of course, which I feel I am free to offer on my own talk page? It is true that there are plenty of articles here that are more about numbers than about the truth, IOW, who ever has the most editors on their side can write the article.
I got here by looking at Collect contrbutions. (from a sock master)
This essay serves no purpose in mainspace other than to aggrandize its creator. I recall some quip about dressing a pig...I'll let those who want, finish the line.

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense


Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.


Quote of the day from an editor who seems to regard his own screeds as the epitome of "wit":

Twain is the perennial favorite of intellectual pygmies who believe a trite quote has the power to increase their stature.

I rather think his "wit" speaks for itself pretty clearly.

Some of my essays:

WP:False consensus

WP:KNOW

WP:Advocacy articles

WP:PIECE

WP:Defend to the Death

WP:Midden

WP:Baby and Bathwater

WP:Wikifurniture

WP:Contentious

WP:Sex, Religion and Politics

WP:Editorially involved

WP:Mutual admiration society

WP:Source pH

WP:Sledgehammer

WP:Variable RS

WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights

WP:Repetition in Argumentation

WP:The task of an editor


Some of the articles I created:

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

etc.

From WP:Plagiarism[edit]

N Copying from an unacknowledged source

  • Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes—from a source that is not acknowledged anywhere in the article, either in the body of the article, or in footnotes, the references section, or the external links section.
  • The above example is the most egregious form of plagiarism and the least likely to be accidental.


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

Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.

Poring over 40K+ edits ....[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

for lurkers:[edit]

Cinderella was a notorious crier - tears by the gallon.

Thus becoming the very first Grimm weaper.

On this day[edit]

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

I leave when the pub closes

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

De mortuis nil nisi bonum[edit]

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

Quotation of the day. 9 February 2016

Star Wars marketing run amok[edit]

ecigs at Darth Vaper

major stores at Darth Maul

Dating service at Luke Shywalker

Tanning salon at Obi Wan Kenobi

So far no suggestions for the female characters ...

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment: the Onion "incident" in the article of Congressman John Fleming[edit]

I would appreciate you weighing in again on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Fleming_(American_politician)#Request_for_Comment:_2017_discussion_on_The_Onion_.22incident..22. Thank you!Tomuchtalk (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom, having heed the evidence from some to which I was not allowed a rebuttal, decided that I can not mention the term "xxxx politics". In fact, I was chastised and punished for even thinking that calling zzzz a relative of a noted war criminal was wrong as a result. Collect (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Collecting things[edit]

This is for your interest in collecting. Since 2003, I've been trying to collect "covers" (stamped envelopes) from every one of the 20 years the USS Rankin was in commission. I've had automatic searches on eBay for all that time (there are a lot of cover collectors there). This helped me a lot in the early years, and I got covers from all but two years. Last week, after 14 years of automated eBay searching, I found a cover from 1947. It cost me $1.99, including postage. Looking for 70-year-old covers from a post office that has only 300 mailers -- a real needle in a haystack! I still have one year to go, 1958. The moral for collectors: Never Give Up! Lou Sander (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Lou Sander Congratulations! Are you mainly finding covers from "navy week" in major ports? All I can find is that in 1958 she was used in the Lebanon landings. You might find a usage from that, I hope. Collect (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
No, but thanks for the suggestion. They are covers cancelled by the Post Office aboard the ship. There seem to be people who like these things. I was an officer aboard the Rankin from 1961-1963. I do their website, Wikipedia article, etc. I'm thinking that the most likely place for me to find the 1958 cover is in the love letters from a shipmate at the time, or from one of these that worked its way into the world of collectors. Lou Sander (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
At one point I had a collection of ship covers from the 1940s - somewhere I still have photos of the USS Arizona before Pearl Harbor etc. A lot got thrown out by my helpful brother a long time ago. Ah well. At least I still know a bit about them and the "Universal Ship Cancel Society". https://www.uscs.org/ Collect (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, that USCS lead is the best lead I've ever gotten on this! Imagine finding an actual ship cover collector! I'm not really one of those, but when I was a kid, my father collected plate blocks for me, and I continued the collection for a few years. It became dormant and I lost it in my thirties, to a flooded basement. In the early days of The USS Rankin Association, we had very little in the way of ship's history, memorabilia, etc. It occurred to me that we might develop a collection of covers, without spending very much money. I started the collection, but nobody seems to care very much about it. Once I get my 1958 cover, maybe they'll take notice. In the meantime, collecting them is an interesting, but back-burner, activity. Lou Sander (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
For many years, I ran the CompuServe Collectibles Forums - not making millions the way some folks try, but learning as much as I could about just about every collectible under the sun. I suspect that others who served on the Rankin will smile as they see some of the covers you manage to track down. Collect (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
One that I found on eBay was from a letter I had sent myself to one of our members, 25 years after the ship had been sunk. Of course they billed it as authentic. Lou Sander (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
That "authenticity" no doubt brought you no end of reef. (ducking). Collect (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mark Levin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mark Levin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP issue re Kevin_Kiely_(poet)[edit]

I seek your guidance in a BLP issue. They came to my attention via an email to Wikimedia OTRS ticket:2017033010019413.

That email expressed two concerns — one, the placement of the word "Nazi" in the opening sentence, which may have been resolved (Talk page discussion) and two, an issue about the inclusion of some strongly worded comments which I'll explain here.

The subject wrote a review of a book of poetry published by President Michael D Higgins. That review was described as scathing and, presumably, triggered some backlash. The article includes the following:

The leading Irish poet Paul Durcan, as quoted by The Irish Central, defended Michael D. Higgins, who, in his view, "has an absolute commitment to the spirit of poetry." Durcan also said that "Kiely had no
competence to talk or write about poetry at any level. All of us in the poetic community know that. Since the 1980s he has been writing rubbish about poetry.”

The statement appears to be adequately sourced: Irish Central

The subject feels that the statement is defamatory. While I am not a lawyer, and my opinion on this matter counts for close to nothing, that claim doesn't seem obvious to me. However, it occurs to me that if that claim is valid, the proper response is to take it up with the newspaper who published it or the individual who said it, or both. If it is found to be defamatory, and that results in either an apology or retraction or some other response, we could then either include the reaction or determine that it should not be included at all.

However, even if not rising to the legal definition of defamatory, it is clearly negative. My understanding of BLP policy is that we should be exceedingly careful with negative comments even if properly sourced. We need to adhere to the neutral point of view and ensure that such comments do not fail our wp:weight policy. If there is any valid reason for removal (other than the unlikely event that the original publication withdraws the statement) I think it would be under this policy, and frankly I do not see this as a perfectly black-and-white case. I would like your opinion on how to proceed including the possibility that I should post this on the article talk page or some noticeboard and invite more responses.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I read a bit of the article and its sources - the bit where some editors link Kiely to Nazism for daring to write a book about a person who was labelled a Nazi is, of course, classic "guilt by association" type argumentation.
In the example you give here about Durcan, I am concerned that he is labeled the single "leading Irish poet" - as that is clearly an opinion issue at best. Opinions should only be used and cited as such. That would make our lives a great deal simpler. As far as I can tell, Durcan is not accorded such deity as a general rule, thus his opinion is not all that important, which would be my primary argument that it not be included. Clearly the opinions of others should get equal weight if we decide to include them in a biography.
I would suggest that the question be posed as to whether Durcan is so specifically preeminent in the field as to make his opinion of unique importance in a biography. The evidence I found indicates that he was rather upset at Kiely attacking Higgins as to make his opinion of moot value in the BLP on Kiely at most. Does this accord with your position? Collect (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I will remove it, although I expect some pushback.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

Well said [2]. I couldn't agree with you more. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaslighting[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gaslighting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Draft talk:US Presidents navbox[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Draft talk:US Presidents navbox. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charlie Chaplin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charlie Chaplin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Talk:Nigel Farage". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 May 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abraham[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abraham. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Talk:Nigel Farage, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Draft talk:Jonna Mannion[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Draft talk:Jonna Mannion. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laura Prepon[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Prepon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gisele Bündchen[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gisele Bündchen. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fabolous[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fabolous. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bob Stoops[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bob Stoops. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on[edit]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)