User talk:Collect/archive8

~ hooray for progress! ~

As I said at the outset, mediation is about compromise. Collect (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Never knew you were a fan of flagged revisions

Learn something new every day. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically the BLP issues on WP have major legal consequences, which is a main reason why Jimbo and the foundation want them. This is not an inclusionist issue -- it has major implications for the future of WP. Maybe you can change your position as a result? Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm always willing to consider other opinions. I also concur this isn't an inclusionist issue; I think it's an accessibility issue. If there is a legal issue and this is the solution, they should just enact it. They don't need Wikipedians (laymen by any stretch of the imagination...including myself) to tell them what to do. Their edicts override any consensus and policy. Accordingly, if enacted, I certainly would support it as it their authority is the basis for which I would be granted a mop. To ignore their guidance would be like dumping mud on the floor others mop so well. My concerns stem from a lack of accessibility (it quickly becomes the encyclopedia that anyone can (largely) edit, to one that anyone can edit as long as you aren't talking about a living person. Like I said, if it is a legal issue, then they should just declare it to be so and enact it. I would have no concerns there. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot

Thanks for the heads-up. That fellow is really amazing. I thought the page was edging towards reality and now...?Capitalismojo (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

False accusations

[15] 23:53 8 May [16] 01:38 9 May [17] 18:19 [18] 23:15

Look debating the issues is fine, but I won't tolerate false accusations. I have not once violated the 3rr on the Business PLot article. The first edit you cited occured at 20:53, not 23:53. If your going to make accusations like that, don't lie about the dates. annoynmous 01:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In which case you hit 4RR in the prior 24 hours? Seems an odd complaint to make. Collect (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not an odd complaint because it's isn't true. I never made more than 3 edits in a 24 hour period and you have yet to show one concrete example where I did. annoynmous 01:53, 10 May 200 (UTC)

And now I see it has been reverted again. Sigh.Capitalismojo (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He got a block and a topic ban -- seems he should quiet down now. Collect (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: 207.237.33.36

• 207.237.33.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That IP was his first account, and it has been blocked for a year, along with three other accounts, soon to be four, as I alerted an admin which was involved in the matter. I got him blocked because he was harassing and stalking me off-wiki. The ban isn't formal per WP:DENY, but he is banned.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and his claims won't get far, even if he does get on here long enough to file a CU, they'll see we aren't the same. I don't edit that much in the mainspace, because I have no one single interest.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Ireland relations

I saw your comment on this AfD debate - following is the notice I sent. You can see from my contribution log who got it. Yes, I agree, I should have been more neutral and less selective on the distribution. I got concerned when I saw how close to closure the debate was on a subject I thought was interesting and relevant, but which was just a stub this morning. Still learning Wikipedia etiquette... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the title was chosen first, then every Google possible connection is inserted into the article. It is not in parallel with other articles -- and using the same criteria of inclusion, we could have a US-Ireland "relations" page with thousands of entries about famous Irishmen in the US. Unfortunately, that is not then about internation "relations" but about "Any Americans noted in Ireland or any Irishmen noted in the US" which is rather a broad and unencyslopedic topic. Collect (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascism article

I noticed that you reversed a deletion I made to Fascism#Political spectrum without commenting on Talk:Fascism#Political spectrum. As you are aware the references you cited do not support the statement and it is unclearly written. It is important that articles do not contain inaccurate, ambiguous statements, and therefore request that you either delete or properly amend the sentence. I note that I mentioned this issue at your RfC where you had ample opportunity to explain your position. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly. Consensus found that the cites fully back the sentence you removed which is the sentence you suggested. Try to get a different consensus if you wish, but do not think that your sngle-minded deletion of sourced material is logical. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI I have posted notice about this dispute in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Collect. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Copperfield

Can we focus on the content not on the editors please? Amicaveritas (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Shall do so -- I had not intended any improper post to be sure. I am concerned just how he "knows" something he asserts without source. Collect (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't believe that to be the case. He's just an inclusionist. I do have concerns that current edits are not compliant with WP:NPV and are too long as to give WP:UNDUE. I don't think that the source can be denied as reliable given the New York Times cites it as being used by main stream media. Amicaveritas (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I saw your comment on the section about me at AN/I. Thank you for taking the time to examine Richard Arthur Norton's actions and summarize them for the folks there. I've been on the receiving end of his manipulative style since this began, including lies about me nominating articles I didn't nominate, like the Pilot episode, or his accusations that i'm now proceeding to nominating Season two episodes, when the only season two i nom'd was nom'd at the same time as a stack of Season One episodes. Instead, he continues to present alarmist statements, hoping to inflame the argument further. Thanks for looking at it calmly, and seeing what a few others have seen. ThuranX (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. And keep away from expletives. Collect (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What?

All I have been doing is changing the colors of the wikitables for the Australian Open and United States Open to the correct colors to match the navboxes and the articles. I am trying to make everything uniform. TennisAuthority 22:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to alarm you for sure and I apologize if you were upset by my post. Collect (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC Invitation

Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Query on my RfA

Collect, you and I have interacted on many articles/talk pages/etc. I think that, even though we sometimes disagree, we're both reasonable editors. My question for my RfA is whether or not I support or oppose flagged revisions, why would that have any bearing on what I could do as an administrator? Right now, it isn't policy. To gain consensus to implement, we would need the support of users. However, that support isn't contingent upon their status as an admin or not. If implemented, Admins would be bound to enforce it; if they actively refused to, they should be desysoped ASAP.

I guess my question is, how does this pertain to adminship? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is actually a matter of quite some importance to me ... BLPs are a horrid mess on WP right now, and I would like admins (whose voice does carry a bit more weight) who would say that we do need to make the policies more restrictive on them and not less restrictive. It is not the powers which matter (heck, the powers of an admin are not all that much to brag about) but the depth of voice which would be heard. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the "horrid mess" of the BLPs right now. Could you point me to somewhere that shows such an extent (because I obviously haven't seen it yet)?

I've seen a few isolated incidents, but, for the large part, once there is a problem with a BLP, Wikipedia deals with it swiftly and effectively, as with most issues. I concur that the "powers" (and that is really stretching it a bit) are minimal for an admin. My point is that the "depth of voice" is not increased in any appreciable way whether or not I'm an admin. Furthermore, apparently, Jimbo said "We're doing flagged revisions!" and then reversed himself shortly thereafter until the kinks are ironed out. In short, we haven't found a way to do this yet. I applaud the goal of making our articles (BLPs in particular) more reliable and less prone to vandalism/malfeasance, but I don't think a proper balance has been made between the goals of a complete encyclopedia and making one that anyone can edit and that is one reason Jimbo decided not to act upon it at this time. I don't think I can support a concept without knowing the details of implementation. If we can strike a balance, then I think it can be implemented. Otherwise the policy will be either ineffective and a waste of time or so effective it will become "the encyclopedia that anyone with a registered account and not a new user can edit.

There is another potential solution: allow only registered users to edit BLPs. I have no issue with that and it forces an extra step into the process of editing a BLP. If we put a notice at the top showing how easy it is to register for an account, it would be easy to tag and delete vandalism, but at the same time encourage legit editors into the Wikipedian community. A simple notice that we can no longer allow contributions by non-registered users because XYZ is fine by me.

Anyway, like I said, my primary problem is the vagueness of implementation. It seems this whole issue (and many others) could simply be decided by edict from the great and powerful Oz. I personally believe that is what is lacking in this encyclopedia. I'm not saying we need a heavy hand, but a simple, "We're going to do it this way" would go a long way to resolving many problems quickly and efficiently. I am of the firm belief that a concrete way to do something (i.e. we'll do dates in a certain format) would solve a LOT of the more contentious issues instead of waiting for the masses to decide something (this is not to say that the masses are wrong in any capacity, but true democracy where everyone gets one vote takes a long time to get done). In short, a little bit of editorial control with regards to protections and formatting would prevent a lot of the problems we see today. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

JW and the Foundation appeared to have said that "flagged revisions" would be tested, but they do not wih to impose them (if that is logical). Some of the worst BLP offenders are not IP vandals but editors who assert ownership of an article or who say (as a f'rinstance) "My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. But I welcome people like Karelin7, who are on the subject's payroll or close friends with the subject, as long as they add properly sourced puffery to the page. What puzzles me is that there seems to be some unspoken sentiment among a lot of wikipedia editors that no matter what the celeb does in real life, we need to hide it unless the facts were reported by Moses on the tablets brought down from Mount Sinai. Wake up, my fellow editors! We are not paid to shield these people from the consequences of their own misdeeds. Free your heads from the American celeb-worship cargo cult religion. " Which I consider as rather proving my point. Collect (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And what would flagged revisions do to pages edited by such individuals? If they are long-time users, then flagged revisions isn't going to do anything.

IMHO, the guts to test it, but not implement it shows a lack of leadership on their part. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The ones you mention have a lot vested in the idea that wikis will automatically ytend to produce better articles over time. Imposing this from above would be almost an admission that their ideals do not work. Collect (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That will only work within a given framework. We have admins, bureaucrats, etc. that handle issues where someone needs to make a decision. We work within the constraints given to us. Better defining where we are going and how we are going to get there is appropriate for a leader to do. Letting us fumble around when there is clear support for a concept, but not consensus. At some point, someone has to step up and say, "this is the best we can do when it comes to consensus" and implement it whether or not there is overwhelming consensus or not. Imagine if the U.S. were run this way? You think Congress is slow now... :-)

All I'm saying is that I don't support such a nebulous concept with no firm implementation, though the general idea to improve the quality and reliability of the encyclopedia is certainly appropriate and desirable. Can you at least understand that I oppose the concept as it is currently stated because implementation is too vague? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My statements in the discussion about the "test" are, in fact, explicit that it should be less vague. :) My statements there were a great deal stronger than JW's were, to be sure. Collect (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so we agree that they are vague. The other problem I see is that this seems to necessitate some additional user category (other than the existing "user" , "bot", "administrator", "bureaucrat", "oversight", and "checkuser" categories) be created and some sort of nomination/appointment process be obtained. There is no way that admins could handle these additional duties. If it is a legal problem or necessity, then Jimbo/the Wikimedia Foundation should just enact it (or expressly state that we should come up with a solution). Seeing as there isn't such a drive, I don't see this as an urgent issue/problem (there is also a severe lack of examples of any serious problems). I think the issue of copyrighted images is far more problematic (should we have a form of "flagged revisions" for images too?).

In summary,

1. flagged revisions isn't going to stop long-time, registered users, which you stated was the significant problem.
2. Semi-protection is acceptable as a readily accessible widespread solution that can already be enacted with community approval if this is a widespread problem. That would solve the problem of short-term registered users and IPs, but as you stated, they don't seem to be the primary problem.
3. any problems with an article about a living person are quickly dealt with, but we can't fix what we don't know to be a problem (perhaps a new reporting procedure at the top of every BLP that states where to go for such problems and make it a subset of WP:AIV? This would make it easy for a new user to report a problem).
4. The goal of improving Wikipedia's reliability is important.
5. I think the goal of Flagged Revisions simply doesn't have the consensus of users to enact within Wikipedia. To enact such a new, widespread system, you need the support of users and we don't have that support. Without such support enacting something this controversial will cause vastly more problems internally than it will solve externally. Example: [[1]]

I would love to hear your thoughts on the addressed points above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

break

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-05-25/News and notes: It looks like flagged revisions is coming one way or another and it is being directed from the top. This is the kind of leadership I expect. While I don't necessarily think it is a good idea nor necessary, its implementation appears inevitable. As such, standing in its way is pointless. As a user/should I become an admin, I will support its implementation when a final version is settled upon in accordance with its associated policies. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

At which point, you would have my support next time. As you can see, I consider it of substantial importance (and only a start on reforming how some people edit BLPs). Collect (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

GAN Robert C. Michelson

I left a message at Talk:Robert C. Michelson. Regards.Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

You should do a little research before making statements you can't back up - If I was a sockpuppet of Ratal, [it's unlikely that I'd get that account blocked. Next time do some basic research and you will not look so silly. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I made no accusation. I did say that those who disagreed with you and Ratel were called a number of names, which I would suggest is not disputable. And I suggest that my polite statement to you that your edit summary was a tad over the top was proper, even though you deleted it. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I made no accusation. yes you did, now you realise it was a mistake and you didn't do any basic research and now are beating a rapid retreat but it's easier to just say "I got it wrong" than try and weasel around your original statement in such a shameful manner. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I am just opposed to "instant sock allegations" when there is no basis for them -- usually if an editor has been blocked and a new one shows up, there is some evidence to work with. Karelin was not blocked, and so had no need of a sock AFAICT. Collect (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

John Kenney knows a lot more than I do on this - I recommend you turn to him for help, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am loath to canvass at all and you had been there -- the situation is fairly grave with material on the "political spectrum" which had been in for four years now excised. I also have a "friend" who appears to have deliberately followed me while he is pushing an RFAR on me so I really am trying to be as proper as possible. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I reversed your recent edit at Alan Harvey.[2] Alan Harvey actually supported apartheid. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can find claims that the Springbok Club had supporters of apartheid in it, but not that Alan Harvey as an individual supported it. Most of the sources are not RS alas. I found one pay cite from the (NY) Amsterdam News, but no direct connection is there either. [3] calls him "very antBoer" which is not indictive of much. He is also indicated as not having signed the "charter" which likely indicated he did not accept it. Bunch of other stuff (he opposed Mugabe's land seizures, and supports Israel) -- but no RS direct link to supporting apartheid. Did you find one? Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You defended the right-wing racist Alan Harvey by saying that he never supported apartheid. I do not want to get into another one of your discussions about racial theory. There is evidence that he supported apartheid, but I do not know why you claim that only supporters of apartheid were racist. I appreciate that you are concerned about the reputations of people accused of racism, but request that you submit them for discussion rather than just deleting them. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You stated specifically "Alan Harvey actually supported apartheid." WP, however, requires reliable sources for such claims. When a claim is made about a living person without a reliable source, BLP requires that the claim be deleted. BTW, I also do the ssme for articles on Communists, and others. My position is that we must carefully use BLP rules on everyone, whether we like them or not. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed your revert with the notation "Harvey supports racism". The entry is not about apartheid, it is about racism. The fact that Harvey is a racist is clearly mentioned and sourced in the article. Please do not remove sourced material and bring up orthogonal issues such as whether Harvey supported Apartheid. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You stressed "apartheid" several times. Now find a solid source indicating Harvey is a "racist." We must abide by WP:BLP entirely. At this point, it appears that he removed "race" from anything he is promoting. Again -- it was, in point of fact, you who insisted that he supported apartheid. "(cur) (prev) 22:28, 29 May 2009 The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) (10,906 bytes) (Reverse previous edit - Harvey supported apartheid) (undo) " - I only said it was unclear he was racist as it appeared he opposes apartheid. If you want a contentious claim in a BLP, it is up to you to provide a reliable source. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to Harvey's former publication South African Patriot in Exile that was founded by the White Rhino club and was dedicated to "British and European Imperialism" and "Separate Development" and opposed to "multi-cultural societies".[4] Notice that the English translation of apartheid is separateness. Regardless this is a clear statement of racism. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

IOW you have no cite for him specifically supporting apartheid, and as his current publications appear to not contain racism, your claim of him being a racist is very weak indeed. You need something a bit better IMHO. Collect (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You are stating that Apartheid is racism. Is that your view? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I made no such statement, nor do I see any reason why you wish to impute any such statement to me. You stated that he specifically supported apartheid, but under BLP without any cite for the claim, it does not belong in a WP article. You stated he is racist, but without any RS source for such a claim, it does not belong in a WP article. WP:BLP exists as policy, not just a bunch of words. Now do you have a reliable source making a statement of fact? If not, then the claim fails. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not attacking you as an editor, as you said at Talk:Alan Harvey#Racism, merely stating that I see things differently from you. And since you posted at BLP and only one other person has commented so far, the statements "on BLP/N I was told that this was the right thing to do" and "That no one at BLPNsupported your contentions appears to indicate that you are also alone in your interpretation" may not be the only way of seeing the matter. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you found an RS for the claims you wish made? Collect (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm the one who reported him. [5] I hope that you hadn't lost interest in discussion about section. -- Vision Thing -- 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Van Zandt/ Other Testimony

Hi, I think that this shouldn't be in "testimony". It wasn't testimony. He (Van Zandt) reportedly went on the radio to support Butler. He was not under oath. This was his public reaction to a reporter's questions.

Paul French was, however, testifying under oath before the committee.

It seems to me that the committee testimony (French) should be in the committee section, and the public reaction (Zandt) should not be improperly identified as testimony. You've been working on this longer than I have, if consensus is that Z's remarks should be characterized as testimony, I'm fine with that. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I did post on talk that I thought that these two "other testimony" items should be moved unless someone thought differently. No one posted anything so that is why I split them up. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Z was presented as though he spoke agaonst the reaction of the NYT. AFAICT, he was not reacting to the NYT. And, for dome reason, I had thought his words were to the committee -- at least it was presented that way for a long time in the article and I had not checked that one out, so if not testimony, it should be characterized properly for sure, and I apologize. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. No need to apologize. Its relatively minor.Capitalismojo (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just seen the result of the RfC. I am unclear on what that means...are you unable to post to "political" talk pages as well? I have found your comments on talk pages generally interesting and occasionally insightful. It would be a shame if you were unable to add your (sometimes acerbic) thoughts on all talk pages untill December. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No talk page restrictions :) ... and I am not about to "shut up" where I feel my opinions may help. Collect (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect.

• Given your behaviour following the unblock, I'm restricting you to 0rr (no reverts or undo edits any kind) on all political articles and political BLPs for 6 months: You are free only to revert the most straightforward kinds of vandalism. If you make a single revert to any political article or political BLP, I will block you from editing for at least two weeks. Other editors can report reverts either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite the RfC close.

• If you make any more legal threats, I will block you from editing indefinitely until you straightforwardly retract and disavow them. Editors can likewise report legal threats either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite the RfC close.

• If you edit tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block you for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite the RfC close.

• You or any other editor can appeal this close or any of these restrictions at WP:AN as they please, when they please and I'll be more than happy to abide by whatever other consensus which might follow.

• I'm open to further input from any editor, on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My requests are at your user talk page. Merci. Collect (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

HEHEHEHEHEHE

Seriously, pay attention. Do you not read your own sub pages? There's a huge list of articles and editors needing your contribution, so ignoring us in favor of the hehheehehhehee vandals trying to trick trip you up is just plain hurtful. Flowanda | Talk 06:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Shall do so. Still have Widney to work on. Thanks! Collect (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thanks!

No problem. Lord knows we've had our differences in the past, mainly around AfD, but you've always had a valid and logical reason for your views. That Request for Clusterfuck was half-valid and half "throw shit at a wall and see what sticks", and I'm not going to let a useful, good faith and logical editor be pulled under by crap like that. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Again thanks -- I was amazed that editors with a hundred edits, or even a thousand edits, become "experts" on WP process <g>. One, by the way, has already stated his desire to start another RFAR as soon as he has an argument with me -- showing you some of what was behind all the sutff (I think you missed out on the CUs on me, the SPIs on me, the ANIs, the ANs, and the WQAs all by the same people?) By the way, without disagreement, how can one ever trust opinions? Merci. Collect (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You should read R.I. Aaron's "knowing and the function of reason" - great book on epistemology, particularly when knowledge is an "opinion" and when it becomes a "fact". I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was 7of9 planning on stirring more shit? Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Mindreading applies I suggest. :) The surest sign an opinion is wrong is that everyone in the room agrees with it. (I think that is original, but if it is not, be sure to disagree). Collect (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

over

may you edit in peace! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Editem in Pacem? Sounds a bit fatal? Collect (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

David Stack

• Would you take another look at the David Stack article and possibly change your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Stack !vote? ty. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Other

I find that it's best to keep these kinds of things off-wiki, i.e. on my own PC where no one can touch it or complain about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So redacted now, no one will find it <g> Collect (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless they're already watching it. >:) If anyone claims that's an attack page, this one is a fair comparison [6] - keeping in mind that user was indef'd about 2 years ago. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

An attack has to have some sort of name or link to go on ... lacking any such, I think it would get laughed at as a claim. <g> Collect (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I only skimmed that one page but I don't recall seeing anyone being targeted. Maybe the ones who complained had a guilty conscience. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor might have a guilty conscience? Land sakes! Collect (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything is possible in this crazy internet world. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya think? Collect (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is another way this could be done, though. Supposing I wanted to maintain an "enemies list", as Tecmobowl was doing shortly before he Black Soxed himself (which is a fitting reference, if you know his history). Instead of calling it "Users who are out to get me", I would call it "My favorite users". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Thorns that will scratch me and nettles that sting/ These are a few of my favorite things"? Collect (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of The Great Escape

To Rodhullandemu, Blueboar, Collect, 173.72.140.146,

FYI, I just posted a messasge at WP:NORN in the discussion Factual accuracy of The Great Escape that you had participated in, and which has been inactive for a few weeks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Question re:WP:BIAS

Hi Collect,

I'm not sure if you're going to have an opinion on this or not, but here goes: What's up with WP:BIAS? I see this thrown around a lot in AfDs as if is was policy or guideline, but in fact it's not. It's not even an essay, it's a wikiproject. I am missing something? Is there a policy or guideline regarding non-English sources. I fully support the idea that non-English sources can fine for citations provided that the stuff around reliability is respected. But I'm not so on board with the idea that they can be used to establish notability. My feeling is that if English language media hasn't taken notice of topic, then it's unlikely anyone's going to come to en.wiki for info. And it seems like it would open the flood gates for myriad bios of Sri Lankan soap opera stars and stuff like that which no serious English reference would ever cover. But that's just me, and maybe there are very good counter arguments I'm not thinking of. So my question: what is the official wikipolicy on using non-English sources to establish notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

NPA

I did not make any personal attack on you and did not say that you "made" or "insinuated anything improperly here about anyone". I merely stated that you should "direct any such claims to the administrators" by which I was referring to the following exchange at Talk:Fascism:

BTW, a slew of SPA IP accounts with two or three edits who act like they know everything about the history of the article becomes suspicious. Collect (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to insinuate. If you suspect me of something, say what it is. I would rather concentrate on talking about the article.--89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your very first edit ever according to your contributuon history was at 22:57 on 13 June. In less than one half hour, you have made seven edits to the article and talk page. You had been here 4 minutes when your edit summary was "Restore lead para - Vision Thing: if you have objections should should explain them (not just state them) in talk.) " which rather implies you are not a new user at all. This is all fact. No need to "insinuate" anything at all. Do you have any questions? Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a dynamic IP address. I thought that was obvious. Nothing sinister. --89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Most such stay in a fairly narrow range -- which other ones have you edited under here? Collect (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You would have to look at accounts from that same ISP which have been blocked -- an interesting exercise, to be sure. Did you do a "WHOIS" on them perchance? Collect (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP address is assigned to Opal Telecom in the UK. I think that they provide a different IP address to their customers when they log in. So I don't see how you could determine whether the user had ever had an account and I don't think WP would block a dynamic IP. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Only the first step <g>. And WP has, indeed, issued range blocks in some cases. Did you read up on some of the cases? Collect (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RantMedia to stay in Wikipedia

As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author), I respectfully request your attendance to the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia. I believe there have been MANY productive responses to concerns on past AfD's, but some still don't seem to agree. If there is any way you can think of improving the article, or contributing to the current AfD, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "

Arthur Kemp

Why are you protecting Arthur Kemp who wrote on his own article that "world famous historians" agree with him ? - it is blatant violation of wiki rules to write such claims and you allow it ! Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am protecting the "biography of a living person" per WP policies. A person may be despicable, but that does not mean WP policies do not apply. Collect (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Scott

Thanks most kindly for showing your true colours. It is one of those things which shows the attitude of the sender beyond compare. Collect (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It surely does - when I received this barnstar, I moved it to pride of place on my userpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Following the RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Userspace index RFC

I note that your statement almost entirely overlaps with LtPowers... Wanted to let you know in case you missed that. Gigs (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to be as succinct as possible -- it also overlaps with a couple others <g>. Collect (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

your Macedonia endorsement

May I point out that in your endorsement you mentioned only what the name for the country should be. In your endorsement there seems to be no mention of disambiguation and no reason provided as to whether to chose proposal A over proposal C which also uses Macedonia as the name for the country (Macedonia (country)). The RfC is not only on the question about what name should be used to refer to the country but also about whether Macedonia should be the country article or should it return to being a disambiguation page as was the case prior to the page moves of April that have been locked in place since then. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I found only one specific view to endorse and did not wish at this time to enter into the other aspects of the issue involved. Macedonia is far from the only place (country, state) whose current borders are not the historic borders -- but it, for some reason, seems to get a lot more flak than the others. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Gone Baby Gone

They have wasted my entire article on Plastic deformation in solids. What recourse do I have, if any ? -- logger9 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail Edits?

I have just got a talk page full of accusations and threats from some editors claiming they will report me to administrators for deleting their edits and accusing me of deleting things I never did. All of the edits I reverted were fair and justified. Do you have any idea why they are making these accusations? Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

See User:Collect/z for one rationale sometimes used <g>. Keep the overt reverts to a minimum (ideally do only 1 or 2 reverts per day), and no admin should censure you. Ceej1979 is a classic SPA account -- and from his posts to you almost certainly a user who has been around a bit (under another name, in all likelihood). Collect (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Collect, I sent them warnings for their POV edits and they hit back claiming I am 'threatening' them and now they are making false accusations to the administrators saying I deleted their 'sourced material'. If you check the Daily Mail history you will find any reverts I made by their addresses were POV/vandalism. Christian1985 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"removing sources"

You seem to have repeatedly accused me of "deleting" or "removing" sources at the Fascism article. I have done nothing of this nature, nor have I ever said anything about Libertarianism in connection with the subject. I think you're confusing me with someone else. Just FYI. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I do seem to recall TFD making a huge deal about my adding "Sir" and claiming I should be blocked for it ... he also did a lot of edits on the article removing material and sources. [7] does show you removing a source.

I have checked the talk page, and found where I specifically referred to TFD removing sources, by the way, and asked him to restore the footnotes. The first of your comments on that page was that my pointing out how "reflist" works was a "personal attack" which you wanted me to delete <g>. "Prevailing view? Not according to the multiple cites given. Applicability of "political spectrum"? Not in current texts. It is SYN to assert "prevailing view" without using the cites to say "prevailing." The facts are simple -- WP uses a rule about "reliable sources" and it is those sources which have been sytematically removed from the article contrary to WP:PRESERVE, WP:NPOV etc. As for assertions that your view is "prevailing" -- that is not used as a rationale on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)" was my first comment to you and does not seem inaccurate at all.

"Repeatedly accused" seems grossly wrong on your part -- all the mentions I made on the talk page seem accurate and did not refer to you specifically removing material (unless you count one solitary reference to "you and your friends" as meaning you removed specific material?)

Now as to where the issue of "libertarian" appears on that page -- TFD first using in to state that libertarians consider themselves to be right wing (20 June). SlamDiego on 23 June referreed to the Nolan Chart, and john k called it "libertarian propaganda" and SD demurred. My first mention was 30 June where I stated Fascism opposed Libertarianism, which I though was reasonably clear. On 1 July, john k posted to you that multi-dimensional charts are "used by libertarians" and called my post "libertarian nonsense" (interesting since I am not a Libertarian.) Former IP than called libertarianism an "ally" of fascism. On 1 July I pointed out that non-linear spectruns were known by 1948 (in response to a claim that 1999 was a dividing line). As I ccan find absolutely no post to you from me concerning Libertarianism either (I reread every single post on the talk page, I fear you may be confusing me with someone else.

Next time you complain of being repeatedly attacked, try making sure that you were attacked. And when you accuse someone of thinking you wrote about Libertarianism, try making sure they made such a post first. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhmm... at the time you accused me of "removing sources", I had made zero edits to the article. My subsequent edit removed an assertion from the article, along with the source that did not substantiate the assertion.

And yes, it may surprise you to know that I 'do take the comment "all you and friends can do is delete every source you do not like" as an accusation that I had been deleting sources. Ditto for "Look at all the sources you deleted which referred to the problems of locating Fascism qua Fascism on a line, and the number of different proposals for multi-dimensional spectra (not just Nolan) which, IIRC, you dismissed as being Libertarian."

So, as I said, you complained that I had been deleting sources, and complained that I dismissed Nolan as a Libertarian. As I said, I did none of these things. As I said, I think you are confusing me with someone else. I am not the editor who deleted all of your sources, or whatever it is that was done. That is all I have to say on the subject.

Oh, and, saying that I said it was "personal attack" that you explained how reflist works is yet another utter distortion of reality. My exact words were "Unfounded accusations of personal attacks are, themselves, personal attacks", because you had just accused Four Deuces of making a personal attack when all he had done was say that your comments on the IP editor were irrelevant and should be addressed elsewhere. What he said was not a personal attack, but you responded by asking him to withdraw his personal attacks. As I said, saying someone is making a personal attack, when they're obviously not making a personal attack, is itself a personal attack. You never should have said it, and I was correct to object that you should never have said it.

Thank you most kindly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And I note you take "all you and your friends can do" as an accusation that you, specifically, did something as an attack is frankly untenable. And note that I stated that the non-linear forms were dismissed as libertarian -- I did not say you, or anyonem had called Nolan one. WRT the problem of following outdents and indents and trying to keep thread structure correct, I emended that post so that it is clear that I did not intend any personal accusation at you - but at those who made such deletions. I trust that is satisfactory. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't just say "all me and my friends can do" is delete sources. Later, when speaking directly to me, you referred to "all the sources which you deleted" and "multi-dimensional spectra... which, IIRC, you dismissed as being Libertarian".

If you are going to take the position that these statements did not constitute a claim that I was deleting sources or dismissing something is being Libertarian, I'll say to you, quite frankly, that that position is untenable. And, I didn't say it was an attack, but an accusation. This section was a two-sided exchange between you and me, so I don't see how confusion about indentation could be the cause.

Anyway, I don't see anything further to discuss, since you are clearly aware that it was not me. Cheers! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As WP does not really use threaded messages, but relies on a perverse system of indents, please accept that when I wish to refer to a specific individual editor, I am able to use names. Otherwise, "you" is just the "second person" as opposed to "I" in common English. And "sic patrol" does not really make much sense as typos are not penalized on WP talk pages <g>. Collect (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this all quite convincing – a familiar feeling. Thanks. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious

I'm serious when I say I'd support easing up in WP:U. My biggest concern is that both before and after any easing up, we communicate effectively with the taggers. They do 80% of the work, and it really frustrates them when whatever rules there are aren't consistently applied from one admin to another or one RfX discussion to another. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Thank you very much for the kind note. One of WP's greatest problems is that sometimes it works like a courthouse with a thousand judges <g>. Collect (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Are you aware of this: [8]? As a student of fascism 9and politics more generally) as well as a careful editor, I would think you would have important comments. Wikipedia now consists of so many small communities, I am not sure how many people are aware of this RfC - but it gets to the heart of how Wikipedia is "governed." Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Fascism The real issue there is whether a lead for a secion should reflect what is in the sectuion now, or what two editors want to change the section to. Please drop in. Thanks. And I definitely shall drop in on the RfC you cite. Collect (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Which section of the talk, specifically? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in - if you know others who do not know about this, let them know! RfC's are for all editors, and this one really gets at core issues that should concern everyone yet I fear many just do not know about it.

I understan the conflict on the Fascism talk page and want to comment but there are many talk sections and I am not sure which one would be the appropriate place for a comment. Please let me know. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Try "Useless Discussion?" as a start -- I am doing quite my best to be non-fractious, but it is getting hard after seeing multiple iterations of the same old stuff. Collect (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Concerning six solutions etcx. - this is the dark sid of Wikipedia, which someone once described as the biggest role-playing game on the internet. It is when people stop being interested in writing articles, and instead play prestige and power games. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

Can you help me make this work: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I just want to get thoughtful people involved ... if you know of any others, please encourage them. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Shall do! Collect (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)