User talk:Collect

Some of my essays:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Perry death penalty

A source in which the Board of Pardons simply outlines its legal responsibilities would probably be considered a primary source, but even if it passes muster as secondary, its use to explain, justify, or condemn the number of executions during Perry's term in office is pure synthesis. Of course, mentioning the number is, by itself, also synthesis; however, this is an issue upon which the media seem fixated, so the synthesis is on their part, not Wikipedia's.

Since the last time this issue came up, Hcobb has added a reference, in another section of the article, which makes the exact point raised by previous editors about Perry being essentially powerless to stop executions (or unable to claim credit for letting them proceed, as you prefer). That would be:

Sontag, Deborah (October 30, 2011). "Perry Displays Varied Stance Toward Crime". The New York Times.

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to format a proper addition to the death penalty section based on this secondary source (the presence of which should probably also allow references to the primary sources for additional detail). If you get around to it first, all the better. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Government sources are not "primary" (the "primary" source would be the statute!) Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jabbsworth

The agreement reached with Shell and the rest of us was that he would stick to a single account from now on--he picked Jabbsworth. Any alt account activity since late July is sanctionable. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware of his repeated blocks for WP:BLP violations on multiple accounts? And his multiple citations for incivility on multiple accounts? And the recent topic ban on Euthanasia-related articles? And the fact that he was likely to have been placed under Climate Change restrictions to boot? This is a "bad actor" and I suggest that the "agreement" was not well taken. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my opinion and complaint. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 04:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not commenting on any of his actions, merely the account issue. We just clarified that unblocks do not equal free passes. I'm not sure what relevance restricting him to a single account has to do with dealing with his current behavior--that's what ANI is for. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to see why you keep bringing this up. He is not under "parole", and I'm not his gaoler. If he is editing disruptively, that's a separate matter from unblocking to restrict him to a single account. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on WP:CLEANSTART appears to be what governs

Clean start accounts should not return to the same topic areas or editing patterns if there is a strong desire to separate from the initial account and It is intended for users who wish to move on to new areas having learned from the past, or who wish to set aside old disputes and poor conduct.

-- I am sorry that you do not see its direct and obvious applicability. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

You could break the outing and stalking rules if you attempt to link an editor to an identity of any sort outside this sandbox. Jabbsworth 01:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The linking was done by you when you appear to have asked us to use material which that editor "Scribe" wrote TODAY. "Scribes" FIRST edit was at 15:44 22 November 2011. You proposed using it at 23:08 on 22 November. Yet you seem to think that YOUR post outed someone? Amazing! And that YOUR post constituted "stalking"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheering

Was just skimming the Melanie Phillips talk page - is "Cheers." an automatic part of your signature? I don't know where you're writing from, but it comes across with a strong tone of "thanks for your help, end of conversation, I'm out of here" finality, to a British ear, which sits a little oddly when used in an ongoing conversation, and is maybe contributing to the "alarm" another editor is feeling at your tone on that talk page. Might just be me, though. Cheers! --McGeddon (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I long ago found that "cheers" tends to prevent others from taking umbrage at comments not intended at causing umbrage. It is commonly used on Wikipedia by many editors, and appears as such on well over a hundred thousand pages. I used to use "Thanks" and the like, and you would be rather amazed at how many tendentious editors took that sort of ending as insulting to them <g>. Cheers :) Collect (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it just reads the same as "thanks" would, from here, for what it's worth. It's more friendly, but can still be read as a pat-on-the-head conversation ender to someone who takes umbrage easily. Maybe it has more of a nuanced social-drinking connotation in the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if the British were entirely immune to it. --McGeddon (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that I've joined the conversation, telling me that something "seems to negate" my point is fine, but it's hard not to take a little umbrage when you follow that with a "cheers" as if the conversation is over and I needn't respond again. It's less patronising than a "thanks", but a "cheers" is definitely generating umbrage where there isn't any, rather than preventing it, at least to these eyes. I'm sure its mileage varies, but there are probably better cure-all umbrage killers out there. (For what it's worth, I find deadpan politeness and ending on a "what do you think?" question works pretty well, if a conversation looks like it's going to be hard going.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you sppear to be the first with umbrage <g>. (Yep - the <g> even gets some folks upset at me - as did "Thanks" and everything else). In fact, some folks even accused me of being uncivil for saying "thanks"! So "cheers" it remains for the nonce. Collect (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hilton

As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Hilton. Robofish (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

proposed changes in 1953 Iran coup article

Since there was little discussion and no resolution to my proposal to add a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ to the 1953 Iranian coup article, I'm doing a Request for Comment on the issue as well as polling editors active on the 1953 Iranian coup article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

userpage draft

- User:The Cunctator/Samuel Hook

Hi Collect as this page is closer to your topic field - what do you make of it? I added userpage draft and no index when I came across it tonight. Has it got any chance of ever being an article , it seems a bit like an attack stub, thoughts? Is there some kind of Indian connection to Demi Moore I am missing ? Youreallycan (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Got it - Dude,m I was like - what the f*** is going on here , why the heat? and the I started to look and there it was. - Youreallycan (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. I also wish to share that I have enjoyed your essays. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Santorum

Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Earhart?

Hello again! It's been a while.

Why did you re-add (un-comment) all the trivia back into the Earhart article? I've been working on that one as part of my (seemingly) never-ending campaign against the unsourced, the unexplained, and the unnecessary. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I tried removing the ad trivia - mea culpa if I messed your wise edits up. Sorry. Collect (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See talk, the challenge was made by another editor (above) that the section needed revisiting, and despite your claims that licensed images were used in advertising, that is simply not true and the two ads in question are the key to a modern appraisal of the Earhart image which is the subject of a new landmark book on Earhart and advertising the image by Kristen Lubben and Erin Barnett, where essays by these editors establish the prominence of the campaigns. See article talk. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The use of the images in the ad campaigns has naught to do with Earhart much at all. See [1] which specifically asserts licensing rights to her image. In short - the images are for commercial purposes,licensed commercially. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"this is now a short list and should be acceptable to everyone"

Oooh. You must be very special if the Wikipedia rules of discussion don't apply to you, and you can simply state what is and is not acceptable to everyone, including to our readers who rely on us for actual information and multiple points of view. Read this or ignore it, as you like. 75.59.206.69 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and a few others and add two aspirin as well. The use of such ELs has been disucced elsewhere in the past, and generally accepted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what - why don't you try following the Wikipedia rules over at Boris Berezovsky (businessman)? As opposed to quoting them? Starting with EL Guidelines regarding Official links. Not even Russavia had the nerve to delete the guy's own official site. I changed the format to one I've seen used in other articles. I did NOT add it for the first time. You seem to have been at Wikipedia long enough to know the rules, and various strings of initials which you claim support what you do. With no links of course, as you obviously are intent on trying to intimidate me. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit", eh? Just who are you working for? I'm not going to touch that article again, because I want it to be crystal clear just what the two of you are doing. Oh yes - "Cheers", as you seem to believe that's some magic word that casts a glow of "reasonableness" over the ridiculous claims you make. 75.60.16.116 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- my goal there was to answer Russavia's concerns and balance them with precedent per WP:RS/N for the external links. I am sorry that you consider policies and guidelines to be "bullshit." I trust you understand that most editors do not have that feeling. Collect (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

You getting as tired of all the insinuations, gross personal attacks, and bizarre policy readings as I am? 86.** IP (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, like the bizarre policy against recruiting support? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 28, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gretzky

Hello Collect,

First, I want to express my appreciation for your most appropriate edit re: the gambling controversy. Absolutely in keeping with the properly strict rules of BLP.

Second, I think you are right in commenting that there shouldn't be a whole new section about his opposition to fighting in hockey, even tho it is a hot topic in the sport. this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. But do you think it might fit as a subsection, under "Off the ice"?

I think that properly sourced it might appear in the Ice hockey article in the section on "Fighting". For a biography? Not really important, is it? Collect (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Which

Which prior comment about second mover dvantage? Please reply at your original statement. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 09:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AE request could use a comment by you

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Esoglou. This is a dispute between Roscelese and Esoglou. I saw your name in the BLPN discussion so I figured you might be aware of the issues. If you feel like adding your own comment at AE you would be welcome to do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CONSENSUS

Collect, several of us have complained about your big change to WP:Consensus, and have suggested an alternative path for your contributions there that will make it easier for others to follow, comment, and tweak. Another big change like that will be considered extreme edit-warring disruption. Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CONSENSUS please. Collect (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poached eggs

I like poached eggs.... and I like boiled eggs. But which do I like best? There's only one way to find out....Harry_Hill's_TV_Burp#Fights.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Leaky Caldron 23:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting You

I would like to ask you how I can contact you to talk about some things. Do you have any public means of contact over the Internet? Radical Mallard (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing to the New York Times

Please explain on the Talk page your reasons for deleting material cited to this article. None of your edit summaries identified a problem with this source yet you insisted on repeatedly deleting material cited to it. PS please be apprised of WP:EW. Cheers.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material from the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial is the main problem - as I noted to the person posting it repeatedly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So henceforth when you feel inclined to revert the work of others, you will limit your reversions to the material you consider a problem? On behalf of the editing community, I thank you in advance for this consideration.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When in a WP:BLP, an improper source is used, the policy requires removal of the source and claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you will encounter less conflict if you quote from policy to support your contention that something is "improper", instead of just declaring it to be improper. Obviously I didn't think it was improper or else I wouldn't have used it. But you don't seem to understand the far more important problem here, which was your the removal of the material cited to the New York Times. How is the New York Times "improper"? Most importantly, are you going to engage in this sort of indiscriminate, inappropriate reversion again in the future?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of an opinion column for a statement of fact is directly contrary to WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia has a blanket ban that precludes further consideration (even when attributed as "According to X"), you ought to be able to quote from a Wikipedia policy to support this view. You haven't. Which gets us to the bigger issue: a lack of consideration. Had you taken the time to look carefully at what you were reverting yesterday, you would not have deleted the material cited to the New York Times (I assume you'd concede the NYT's reliability for Wikipedia's purposes were it not for reasons of pride) in which case this edit war would have been, at a minimum, shorter. What I'm inviting you to do henceforth is apply more analysis before reverting other editor's contributions.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're done on Rick Santorum for a few hours at least. Given that you've made four reverts in less than 24 hours, I would advise self-reverting. I suspect it's not necessary -- someone will likely do it for you. But you might have some trouble at WP:3RRN at this point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alas - BDell has gone well past 4 <g> (6 if I have enough fingers) , making a self-revert on my part impossible entirely, and one of mine (insertion of titles) did not affect anyone's edits. Meanwhile, the editor appears to confuse opinion claims with statements of fact, making this a proper WP:BLP issue as I noted at the proper noticeboard. Cheers - I hope you gave him the same notice though. Collect (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have if there had been a need -- but you had already taken care of that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He asked for a suggested compromise wording - I would be amazed if he then complains that I did exactly what he asked. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on the edits. I just don't want the article to go on full protection. In any event, on second thought I've left a similar message on his talk page now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has removed most of the problematic stuff on his own now - no need to panic. (HHGTTG) Collect (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So after all this you do not have a problem after all? What is the point of edit warring when a very modest amount of inquiry would have made it clear that the end result is going to be a reading very similar to the reading you decide to go to war over? The New York Times and its use of "support" was there from square one such that it ought to have been obvious you would not to be able to eliminate that terminology (or something even stronger) without attacking the reliability of the NYT article (in addition to your painting of the Philly Inquirer writers as the inventors of a smear against the local US senator they've been reporting on for years). I understand that if the point is to intimidate other editors then how the article could be expected to end up in the event of editor persistence wouldn't matter, but in that case do you really think you can just bully people off this article? re "a revert that does not affect any of your words", may I point out re your count of my "reversions" that none of my edits to the K Street section yesterday affected your words, since you didn't add any!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I iterate - the Inquirer EDITORIAL is not citable for facts. Second -the "breakfasts" were not linked by either source. And lastly - WP:BLP is POLICY - even during political silly season. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd invite you again to look at that NYT article again, which says the breakfasts "began with... circulating a list... The jobs list was part of a carefully plotted effort... known as the 'K Street Project'." Show me a source that mentions the breakfasts without mentioning K Street in the same article and I'll stand corrected. And I reiterate: Wikipedia policy is what Wikipedia says it is, not what you say it is, such that continually repeating what you say it is does not prove or resolve anything.--Brian Dell (talk)

I read ENGLISH. The NYT does not say "the breakfasts were part of the K Street Project." Nor does it say Santorum organized the breakfasts "as part of the K Street Project." At most it implies that Santorum started the breakfasts before the K Street project formally existed at all. As for your desire to ignore WP:BLP I urrge you to reconsider such a position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility enforcement case

I thought we had buried the hatchet. Sad to see I was wrong. But I have grown since those early days. I have moved on...and glad of it.Buster Seven Talk 04:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not identify you by name - but the comments about civility are apt for the case no matter who uttered them. Would you have used your current attitudes about civility to apply to the editor whom you once were? Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. They have nothing to do with the word cunt. C_____t gets filled in with your name. COLLECT And if that it not the reason you bring this old rubbish out of the dustbin I can't imagine what is? But, I think its some of my best stuff: a newbie with the wisdom to look in the backrooms. But, I hate Greek Drama--where everything happens off stage. I would behave only slightly different now but with the same resulting attitude I have of you. I have not changed what I said about you at the conclusion of you RfC. Not one tiny bit.Buster Seven Talk 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You managed to find the MallFat word in the exact quotes I provided? And call it "false evidence"? Um -- "false evidence" is generally not used to describe exact and precise quotes - how do you manage to inflict that claim on the QUOTES? Cheers. And I trust you are not the same editor as before - but if you would accept your past behaviour as being "civil" than I fear I do not agree with such a position. Collect (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What?--Buster Seven Talk 07:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could use Bing to translate, I suppose, but I had not thought that quite necessary <g>. Collect (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just wondered

not that it's important, but was there a reason you removed my comment? link — Ched : ? 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pure accident - and I did not get the "edit conflict" error message when I did it. Ouch! Collect (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ahhh .. ok ... no problems. Thought maybe you thought it was to close to a wp:soap comment (which perhaps it was). cheers. — Ched : ? 22:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time I have seen this happen to others though - I think it may be due to interserver communication delays at Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just to let you know

I changed your comment from oppose to support as it seems more correct under that header. Youreallycan 19:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Becket?

I am wondering whether you mean "Thomas a Becket" or maybe Samuel Beckett? I guess it must be Thomas. I did not know he was considered to be a martyr. Anyway, I agree with you. My long comment is near yours on the page. And someone actually moved your comment?? Dratman (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, of course <g> Collect (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Collect,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It is next to impossible to convince AndyTheGrump that East Germany was a satellite state

AndyTheGrump by his mere user name and behaviour is unlikely to ever change his dug-in position on East Germany unless we have the most extremely absolute evidence from East Germans themselves or a recording of Honecker talking in his sleep about East Germany being a satellite state of the Soviet Union (lame joke by me). I imagine that there are only two possible ways that he would be convinced, one a realistic option, the other merely an insane and humourous option but in the circumstances of his staunch refusal to be unwilling to even accept the term "satellite state" maybe the only possibility that he would be convinced.

1) AndyTheGrump may be convinced by a scholarly reliable source on international relations politics that describes the term satellite state in detail as a technical term - demonstrating that it is used as a noun and that it is not an abstract allegorical metaphor. This seems to be what Andy is demanding, and the demand is reasonable, provided that he doesn't brush it off like he has with other sources. (the serious possible option)
2) AndyTheGrump may be convinced by a nationwide referendum in Germany on the topic of discerning whether East Germany was a satellite state - bearing in mind that Andy would likely only accept a supermajority result of 95% in favour of the term as representing a clear legitimate recognition by Germans of East Germany's satellite state status. (the humourous insane option).

We really need such a source for the satellite state article anyway. Or else we are going to have a precedent on Wikipedia for revisionism of the type by Andy that is going to challenge every article referring to satellite state status or related statuses of client state and puppet state all because of the allegation that they are allegorical "metaphors". I strongly suggest that any source that provides a definition of satellite state must be made by a scholar or scholars and that this source be produced by a university and preferably a post-Cold War source that is made by a state that formerly was regarded as a satellite state by scholars - such as post-Cold War united Germany or the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, or Albania; even better would be a source from Russia acknowledging this - if it is possible to find such a source - and if it is in English or if someone can translate it. Sources by these countries and in a post-Cold War period of authorship averts accusations of the term being "biased Western Cold War rhetoric".--R-41 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly enough, AtG and I agree on many things - but when the evidence is this clear I had thought he would acknowledge it with grace. Thanks. Collect (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I'm getting tired of the debate with Andy over the "satellite state is a metaphor thing" - I've presented a source from the International Court of Justice at the United Nations - but apparently - according to Andy the UN is just using an "opinionated" "metaphor" that apparently has no technical meaning. I'm honest, I am getting sick and tired of contributing to the article - to say that me and Andy are even haaving tense conversations is an understatement. TFD is fine - I think he just wants to be absolutely sure on this. But Andy and Mewulwe are out to lunch - I mean seriously if Andy or Mewulwe were to have a conversation with average citizens who witnessed the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the revolution of 1989 at the Berlin wall and they were to say to these people "there is no evidence that your country was a satellite state of the Soviet Union", other than diehard communists - very many of those citizens who witnessed these things would laugh in their face at such a suggestion and think they are extremely naive. If you can take over the discussions I have made and bring in some of the views of East Germans THEMSELVES on the relationship of the Soviet Union and East Germany, I think that would be very valuable. God, probably the testimony of East Germans themselves in 1989 alone when Honecker's power and totalitarian state began to collapse inside out would give a sense of their views of the East German government and its historical relation to the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that they confuse "close ally" with "satellite" (the claim that Israel is a "US satellite state" is a tad absurd - and West Germany was as much a "satellite" of France and the UK as of the US, to be sure. Cheers (BTW, TFD is as tendentious as AtG as a rule). Collect (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cracker Barrel

I appreciate your suggestions at Peer review; I've made all of your suggested changes and replied there. Thanks, and feel free to offer any more. WWB Too (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The aim (contrary to what seem to think <g>) should be to get information to readers which does not act either as an ad nor as a negative ad (my way of simplifying what the arcane "NPOV" really means here). Collect (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree completely. I'm surely not free of POV myself, but I do want the article to satisfy that requirement. I think we're on the way, and any further insight you may add would be very welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

latest proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article

I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of cleaning up the article to fix duplication, contradiction and bad chronology. Here are my proposed changes. Please leave a comment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chariots of the Gods?

I've just told Lungsalad he's over 3RR - I think you are too, although I assume you'll argue a BLP exception. Maybe I need to ask for page protection. Obviously I'm not intendending to use my tools here, and I agree that if a video isn't available in a library, online or for sale, you'll need an official transcript or a reliable source quoting it, but I really think you also need to stop and work this out on the talk page. (I haven't been following the details, just noticing the edit warring). Dougweller (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is clearly a BLP one - and I am pretty sure I did not go over 3RR in any case, but thanks for the alert. Lung does not appear to understand why a transcript is needed - but I have several times now found assertions for videos which are not borne out by me watching the entire dang show <g>. I have, by the way, made all of this quite clear on the article talk page, and at BLP/N which clearly applies. Which I find a tad annoying, to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection!

Hi Collect! I strongly resent that you make me mix reading and writing in German and English at the same time over at Talk:Chariots of the Gods?. Do you know how mushy that makes my brain? I had actually typed up "the German term "Ko-Autor" should be understandable even von non-native speakers" and only noticed it on the third reading... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

L unfortunately wrote an English paper in German word order once. My English teacher turned purpur. And then I used English compound nounds in German class (using the German words as a rule) -- I got away with it (college German prof was very impressed with my vocabulary) until I stated that if a compound nound exists in English it virtually had to have a coresponding German noun! Made her quite irate! Collect (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

I don't want to contribute to Talk:East Germany, but I have a request of you since you are there already

TFD used this source [2] on a topic of the economy of East Germany to reject a source that claims that satellite states involve a wealthier state controlling a poorer state. I would appreciate it if you could point out to TFD in the discussion by adding to the discussionthat the same source on East Germany that TFD presented says "Economic policy was shaped by Soviet domination" [3] and the same source mentions the existence of Soviet satellite states, saying "Stalin deliberately kept the European satellites separate" [4]. TFD is saying I am incompetent and is threatening to request to have me blocked because of her/his misinterpretations of what I said and Andy is being aggressive - everyone is frustrated - so I don't want to be part of such a discussion, but would appreciate if you could add to the discussion that TFD's source on East Germany says: "Economic policy was shaped by Soviet domination" [5] and "Stalin deliberately kept the European satellites separate" [6].--R-41 (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let him try on any noticeboard he wishes - he is trolling with such threats - so keep on truckin' as the saying goes. In fact - why not ask yourself on, say, WP:WQA listing the diffs where TFD says you are "incompetent" and would request to have you blocked, etc. I think that might be the most powerful thing you can do. Add Andy if you like - he has a number of civility issues himself over there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFD is normally an ok user, I have cooperated with TFD in the past - TFD's recent behaviour is out of frustration, he/she probably needs a break - not a block. I would however greatly appreciate it if you could post on my behalf that that TFD's recently added source that describes the economy of East Germany, also says: "Economic policy was shaped by Soviet domination" [7] and "Stalin deliberately kept the European satellites separate" [8]. Also, I am looking through a JSTOR journal article on satellite states, I would appreciate it if I could give you the source and a quotation from it for you to post. Say that I asked your permission for you to contribute on my behalf when I am able to post it here, because I want to leave the discussion because I am generally tired out over it and that I don't want to be be blocked out of frustration and misinterpretation over my activities. I do, however want some key sources on the terminology of satellite state to be on the page before the January 24th deadline on the RfC and end of the full page protection, that is tommorrow. It is up to you if you wish to fulfill my request or decline, I just think that this is the best means for me to avoid getting drawn into long frustrating and viscious arguments in which I may be accused of more things.--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFD knows that I do not act on anything people ask me to do - he also knows that many others would do so if asked to do so (see his talk page). I would commend you to post on noticeboards, or, if loathe to do so, drop a line to Jimbo, or post on his talk page, for his advice thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I thought you should be aware of this [9]. Caden ^cool 21:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at the interactions of some editors on user talk pages, to be sure. It just seems to amuse them for some reason. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialism

Hello Collect. I am sorry, but I cannot see a discussion ongoing. There is no discussion, because you have not been able to provide valid arguments. I can see that you defy, but I cannot see that you argue. You just revert, but you do not explain, you do not argue, you do not supply sources that support your view. In my eyes, this approach is very uncooperative. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term is found in the 19th century. In multiple sources. And in the early 20th century well before Hitler's rise. And in multiple countries. It meets notability (if you dispute that, go to AfD). There is no consensus for the redirect. Throwing a list of a hundred policies without justifying each one is non-utile. I posted on the article talk page, so you can not say I "refuse to explain." I suggest you go to AfD if this is important to you for some arcane reason. Collect (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

I thought we had this resolved. All I'm asking for is a personal consideration that you not be the first to replay to my assorted talk page entries. I know there is no rule or guideline that prevents it, I'm just asking you to let other editors respond before you. It shouldn't take a day as you claim. And if no one answers then its obvious the question was unaswerable. The easiest thing to do would be to remove me from your watchlist. I don't follow you around like a puppy dog. I removed you from mine long, long ago. I don't know why you are so interested in where I go and what I do. Don't you have enough to do with your other interests? Your attempt to defame me at the ANI/Civility case was dissapointing, I'm sure. Lets just drop it. You go your way and I'll go mine. And, if by accident we meet, I'll do what I have been doing until recently....I'll leave the vicinity. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stalking you, nor anyone. Period. Full stop. I watchlist well over two thousand pages. Period. I have made extremely few edits relating in any way to you, and you will note that my advice was spot on, so accusing me of trying to make your editing life miserable on Wikipedia is absurd in the extreme. Please stop this accusation now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfWhat?

Can you explain to me the need to move a comment given in reply to a "Request for Comments" to a different section? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Because I had already put a clear break after the "neutral statement" of the request so that editors coming in would not find it hard to figure out where to post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see your intention. But note that that is neither the normal nor the suggested way of formulating RfCs - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment and in particular the example section. Also, I did not recognise your statement as "neutral". I assume that your use of quotes above indicates that you agree.... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stated the issue as neutrally as humanly possible. My statement in the comments section reprsented my statement about what the issues are. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that I'm a bit more optimistic about human abilities than you are. Consider Should the article state that the book was "rewritten by Utz Utermann"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Utermann was hired by the publisher and not by EvD. I blame EvD for all the "loony bits" which is what the "rewritten" bit seems aimed at removing. Would you think Utermann added "loony bits" if you just saw a claim that he "heavily rewrite" the book? Or would you not feel that EvD did not do all the "loony bits" himself? I know of no reason to impute the "loony bits" to Utermann at all -- he appears to have been simply a word-worker who did not especially care whoses words he was reworking. OK? Collect (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't " impute the "loony bits" to Utermann". What we do is follow the sources, which say "heavily rewritten" (and other words to the same effect), without stating anything about the source of the ideas one way or the other. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet by stating that he basically wrote the book, we do so impute them to Utermann. Clearly and just as much as saying "ghostwritten" to be sure. Sorry you do not see that, but it is how I suggest the readers will read it. Collect (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil William Newton

Hi Collect, I thank you for your attention to the Newton article, but believe that you've deleted not only unsourced content, but much that, in contradiction to your edit summaries, is clearly included in the Times and NJ journal articles. Perhaps you can go back through the recent edits, or we can do a line-by-line recapitulation, which is headache-inducing. Thank you, 99.149.85.114 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the articles, and they have some information, but that material does not precisely back up the claims made in a BLP. I suggest you look extremely carefully at the wording of the articles and ascribe nothing which is not in the articles plainly and clearly expressed, and adding nothing whatever to that material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them, too. I find that nearly all the content here is drawn directly from the source, with little extrapolation or change [10]; this appears to be a not unreasonable summary of facts presented by its source [11]; this, as well, is a fairly direct use of the source [12]; the specifics here are cited by the source [13]; and I'm uncertain that this needs another source in addition to the law journal [14]. While following BLP guidelines is a necessity, I am puzzled by the removal of so much content that is apparently adequately sourced, and varies little, if at all, from the sources provided. If tone is a concern then passages can be vetted for neutrality. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can not extrapolate - and, if anything, you must use conservative wording in a BLP. And also remember brevity is a virtue - there is no need to give every scintilla of detail found in a source - the object is to make a fair and reasoned biography of a living person - not to score points for or against a person. OK? Collect (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes OK. But if brevity was the issue then that is what should have been stated in the edit summaries. And as I stated above, I found little or no extrapolation from the sources, whereas you consistently described the content you removed as not supported by the sources. And the implication that I've an interest in 'scoring points' is unfounded--I'd never heard of the subject prior to coming across this a few days ago, and am seeking only to adhere to guidelines. It does appear that much of what you characterized as not borne out be cites, actually is. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for the "strongest" part of the claim - and in each case the key words were not in the cites. Also extensive detail about Straight, Inc. belongs in the article on that specific group, and not in the BLP of Newton. I commend you to read WP:PIECE - the idea is to make an encyclopedia article and not a book about the person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my wont to go much further down this rabbit hole, and your explanations are helpful in supporting your edits. But I'm still troubled by your characterization of the content you removed as unsupported by the sources--I think it's an invalid contention promoted by inaccurate edit summaries, and I've welcomed further comment at the article's talk page and the BLP noticeboard. Previous comments there have reflected my own ambivalence re: the nature of the article's content, and my attempts to solicit others' feedback in order to honor neutrality and BLP. Thanks, 99.149.85.114 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that if any part of the claim is not found in the source given that that part of the claim is "unsupported." I know it sounds a bit overprotective of the person the article is about, but it is Wikipedia policy and is intended to "do no harm" to others. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Flanagan

Relating to your edit [15] of the Patrick Flanagan article, specifically what part of the WP:BLP states that information pertaining to a lawsuit, which is freely available on the US Govt's SEC web site, is not acceptable? A quick Google shows that at the very least, tens of dozens of Wikipedia BLPs deal with lawsuits. Should I begin removing all information regarding lawsuits from these pages, or are you going to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter raines (talk • contribs) 10:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources per policy are not generally allowed for such matters as lawsuits. See WP:BLPPRIMARY

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

Clear? And I found this one - OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not change policy. Collect (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, here's a primary source from MLM Watchdog magazine that mentions the lawsuit [16]. Please re-instate the lawsuit section on the Patrick Flanagan page and add this additional primray source. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter raines (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at WP:RS/N if "MLMWatchdog" is a reliable source first. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. B^e——C_ritical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freudian slip?

WMC? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<g> Nope - just a typo here. Now fixed. Collect (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gingrich

Sorry, I didn't see your edit, which is time stamped five mins before I edited the IP's contrib. Feel free to revert. Writegeist (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see the anon IP has reverted to his/her version. Clearly contra WP:UNDUE, and beginning to look like edit-warring, IMO. Writegeist (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you do the warning honours then? Collect (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did, on the UTPs of the numerous IP addresses (which trace to the Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Columbus, OH) from which the anon edits the article, e.g. here and here. Sad to say the anon just doesn't get it. Or affects not to, anyway. Writegeist (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand those who do not regard WP:BLP's requirements about "editing conservatively" to heart. Collect (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "editing conservatively" isn't really the issue as the item was written and re-written numerous times. Ultimately if followed WP:BLP on NPOV and V with POLITICO RS source verifying independently as per their article. The IP quoted more heavily it seemed from that article along with a YahooNews story suggested to be referred to by another editor, Writegeist I believe. As I already stated I wouldn't argue the IP is wordy, they are outside of Wiki also, however, removing the item all together seems also to not follow WEIGHT. It appears you two know each other pretty well to stick up for each other, however, that is unnecessary here. Rather than fighting the addition it would be more helpful to the community to support versus try to tear down attempts to contribute which is what appears to have happened here. The WP:3RR on me is beyond acceptable and I take personal offense to as I do to the inflammatory language posted by Writegeist on the talk page.Goodbyz (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It appears you two know each other pretty well to stick up for each other..." - If only you knew how funny that is. Please be aware we are not "sticking up" for each other so much as trying to keep the article within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Writegeist (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honest question with you two concluding the IP and i are the same person. As I tell her and another attorney, if you want to help, do not put up road blocks but show how to pave the road. In this case it is a relevant item for that small section of the event and there is another independent source that separately investigated (Politico) so add the story in truly NPOV neither positive for or negative against Newt.Goodbyz (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Dickstein (congressman)

Like I said, pathetic. Certainly compared to your having conniption fits about using Mike Rokyo -- a man whose name is practically synonymous with the phrase "Chicago journalist" -- as a reliable source about some actual Chicago journalism, as you did on some recent topic. In other words, your idea of what constitutes a "strong source" seems entirely dependent on your personal prejudices.

But you've reverted three different editors in as many days: try that stunt again and you'll get a chance to explain yourself at the 3RR noticeboard, a place you seem to have no compunction whatsoever about running to when it suits you. --Calton | Talk 18:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you know the NYT s a "reliable source" as are the others. As for making threats - that sort of behaviour is sophomoric at best. Collect (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business Plot aka Wall Street Putsch

According to historian, Sally Denton's book, "The Plots Against the President" ... she titles the event the "Wall Street Putsch" ...

see last paragraph at http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2012/01/18/plots-against-president-sally-denton/RrGQUNfHlYtAgCG59e60eK/story.html

possible to revise heading, redirect and restore edit?

68.101.217.238 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - you need more than one person using a term to do that - what you have is what she calls it. It was not apparently a widespresd term at the time according to the sources used. Collect (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note to an editor:

There are a great many people on Wikipedia (some with way-out views as to what they "know") - in order to make your own voice heard, it is best to sometimes hold your tongue (what an image!). You are free to have opinions about others, but expressing those opinions is of no avail to you at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Collect. You have new messages at Talk:2011_Kosovo–Serbia_border_clashes#.22Goals.22_section_clear_POV.
Message added 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your support...

HI! I appreciate your support on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Lodges of North Carolina. I think the "not notable nazis" will eventually win the argument, though. I am sick and tired of spendind tons of time AND MONEY to research stuff not wikipedia only to have it deleted. That guy Tyrenon has got get a life. I looked at this contribution history and over 66% of his contributions to wikipedia over the last two and a half years have been regarding deleting other people's work while he has created nothing. Check out what I posted on his talk page: User_talk:Tyrenon#I_hereby_nominate_you_for.... Thanks again. Eric Cable | Talk 16:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yep - there are some who do that - but add the "history of Civil War" stuff to the article and rename to History of etc., with the list being the bottom part <g>. It is not the list which is notable in itself - but the history is irrefutably notable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors rejecting BLP considerations

Hi Collect. I know you are a very considerate NPOV editor in regard to content additions in regard to BLP articles. Recently I have started to notice quite a few editors opposing any BLP considerations. Policy is quite strong from the foundation and Arbcom in regard to BLP and if this is not filtering through it may be necessary to return to Arbcom for further clarification - as your involved in many of the discussions, would you please log and keep an eye out for users that repeatedly oppose BLP considerations and for discussions that from your neutral BLP considerate position resulted in a POV support consensus. Youreallycan 20:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Will Beback has joined in and User:Coffeepusher has also reverted - YGM - Youreallycan 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem? Does a sentence on his most famous law case actually violate BLP? Will Beback talk 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are well aware of the good faith NPOV concerns that your desired addition as focusing unduly on one project in four years work is in violation of WP:UNDUE - User:Coffeepusher has now two reverts and is edit warring the disputed content into the BLP. Youreallycan 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Working on Wikipedia for four [sic] years is UNDUE? That's a very strange theory. I am well aware that you don't like me and that you and Collect follow me around Wikipedia opposing perfectly good edits. Will Beback talk 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not you - read before you comment please. You see your own bigotry . I have no idea about you at all - No one is following you around, you attract investigation through your contributions - Youreallycan 21:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're accusing me of bigotry?! Whew. Will Beback talk 21:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From an NPOV position, I am disturbed by your contributions and have already pointed that out to you - I urge you moving forward take a more BLP considerate NPOV position through your contributions - Youreallycan 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honor and obey all of the Wikipedia policies. Please don't call me a bigot. I consider that to be a personal attack. Will Beback talk 22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am disturbed by your contributions and have already pointed that out to you - I urge you moving forward take a more BLP considerate NPOV position through your contributions. - Your wiki lawyering claims of attack are just a meaningless distraction from reality. Youreallycan 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My position on strong observance of the letter and spirit of WP:BLP should be pretty much clear. Collect (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for attention to an RS/N item

Dear Collect. As I value your opinion highly, I would value your attention and contribution to this RS/N discussion of the potential reliability or unreliability of using professional oral history. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded - but it is not a really simple question, to be sure. Collect (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not sure if I hold a position on the issue, and I hold strong sourcing views. It is an interesting problem to think about and debate towards solution, as it has impacts on cultures that produce oral knowledge rather than textual knowledge. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at using Wikiversity for an article on this material? I now it is pretty much a backwater, to be sure, but it allows you to make a free-form lecture on a topic without much interference, and especially without folks seeking to make your premises into the opposite of where you started (which is an endemic problem on essays at Wikipedia, alas). Collect (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations

You accused me for violating WP:CANVASS, but I notified only users who participated in discussion at WP:AN/EW. For example, I notified user AndyTheGrump, and he is against topic ban. Can you withdraw your accusations? Thanks.--В и к и T 01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notify everyone who was involved in the prior discussiona and no one else? In ote, for example, that you did not notify the admins involved ... best practice for noticeboard discussions is to notify only the person being complained about. Meanwhile shouting "homophobia" as people who are actually quite "gay sympathetic" is not going to get you very far at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to fix

...this? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Baby and Bathwater

Hi. You've written some good essays. Can you edit this sentence:

The are which may be the most problematic, however, is use of "reliable sources" for biographies of living people, and WP:BLP sets a higher standard on sources than other policies set.

"The are which may be the most problematic"— I don't understand what you intended this to say. Thanks Wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My mind goes faster than my fingers do <g>. I hope you like the fix. Collect (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dowd vs Gingrich C

Hi, Collect. You said somewhere that opinion pieces are not a reliable source for facts in a BLP. I took a quick glance at WP:BLP and I couldn't find that in so many words. Can you point me to the right spot? Thanks! --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The precept is that opinion articles are citable as opinions only. [17], [18], etc. Many times in fact on RS/N and BLP/N noticeboards. Collect (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: peer review

Thanks for the comment. In case you're not familiar with the process, WP:PR clearly states: "Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate" (emphasis mine). From my POV, your nomination statement simply lists what you perceive is wrong with the article. I neither agree nor disagree with your assertions, and I'm completely uninvolved. However, that is not what PR is for. If you pinpoint weaknesses in the article, and someone disagrees with you, you do not need a review; you need dispute resolution. Review statements generally say something along the lines of "I'm looking for feedback on how to improve this article so it can become GA/A/FA" -- not, "these specific things are wrong with this article." One is seeking suggestions for improvement, the other is seeking backup. Do you see the difference? According to you, you already know what's wrong; you don't need a review. Also if it weren't for the dispute, I would simply reply: WP:SOFIXIT.

I hope this makes sense. Anyway, I closed the page because it has been open for almost two weeks, and has yet to receive a proper review, nor any clarification on your part. The review is still technically closed, despite your reversion of the template change, btw. María (yllo submarine) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centpacrr had averred that it was a "high quality article." In point of fact, it is not. I request you reopen with the comment "How can this article be improved to meet GA standards." Cheers. Otherwise, "peer review" is a tad useless if all that is needed is for the edit warrior who has added reams of purple prose to an extant reasonable article to say "but there is nothing more than a content issue here." Outside opinions thus showing him where his view has problems is far better than trying for other processes, IMO. Collect (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't. Articles are usually nominated for PR by those with an invested interest in the subject. I commented first as a potential reviewer, but I closed the nomination because anyone can do so per the instructions if there has been an extended period of inactivity. PR is not the correct venue for your dispute, especially when you plan on utilizing a misleading nomination statement. Your goal isn't GA, so why lie? That's very bad form, and it sets an equally bad precedent. Again, what you want -- nay, need -- is dispute resolution. You can seek outside views from the noticeboard, or simply ask for a third opinion. María (yllo submarine) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:AGF -- the goal was to get a disinterested person who knows what makes a good article to review the article. It is not DR as I truly do not give a damn about how bad an article one editor is creating - the goal, as I understand it, on Wikipedia is to produce good articles! Note that I specifically did 'not see PR as an "adversarial proceeding" as I am not an "adversary" of Centpacrr, but just doing my damndest to improve Wikipedia. Cheers - but I find your position to be a teensy bit off-putting. Collect (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be closing Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Lindbergh/archive2 per Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy. The peer review should be closed as it is about a content dispute: To keep down the size of the PR page, every editor is invited to close inactive discussions. Please only do so with the following kinds of requests: 1. Requests that aren't appropriate for peer review, for instance requests for help in ... resolving an edit war, or detecting a copyvio. These should be removed promptly in the interest of the requester, since he/she is unlikely to get adequate response to them at Peer Review. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- did you read what I posted? This is not a "content dispute" it is an issue about whether an article with florid prose and copyright violations can meet "good article" criteria. Alas - it seems those at Peer Review dod not wish to actually review such problems which are not "content disputes" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I amde some comments on the article at Talk:Charles Lindbergh Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Glad to see that others see some of the same faults I saw. Collect (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson

Sorry, was not trying to be condescending. We had a very short version before, but some editors have wanted many additions. Thanks for your comment. Parkwells (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the main bio, a short version is best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Though I don't remember having the pleasure of editing together on an article, I have seen your posts on many noticeboards and community pages. Hence this barnstar to recognize your valuable contributions to the Wikipedia community. Keep up the good work. Cheers!-- — *Keithbob* • Talk • 03:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stalker

why do you stalk me? Are you, like, interested in me? Cuz u and I both know you are, my friend... If there's a page for recovering wikistalkers, I definitely will sign you up. I want you to get help. Just know that I do care about your health, my friend. We'll get through this...--Screwball23 talk 02:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I do not stalk you - I have over 2300 pages watchlisted and you are about the very least of the editors I would remotely consider stalking! Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Ficker

You've previously edited the Robin Ficker article. Please take a look at the current discussion and contribute to it if you have an opinion. Thanks. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom comment

Hi Collect, I saw your comment about Wikipedia ought never be a game in which people count the numbers of editors blocked or banned on each side, seeking to get more of "them" blocked than of "us.". Do you mind explaining what this means? The only relevant facts here are that (1) there was never genuine evidence given for Cla's ban in the first place; (2) he complied with the terms of his ban far more sincerely than, say, WMC; (3) WMC was unbanned despite battlefield conduct in his ban appeal; ergo (4) it is a huge, cynical double standard for anyone to argue that WMC is allowed to be unbanned but not Cla. I recognise that you opposed WMC's ban appeal. I don't understand why you now recommend ArbCom apply a double standard. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had not thought I was applying a "double standard" but that I was strongly supporting the loosening of the reins entirely on him. I regard my comment as a bit of a truism. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, you opposed WMC's appeal so I am not saying you are applying a double standard. However, if ArbCom makes any decision other than to fully remove Cla's ban, as they did for WMC, how can that not be a huge double standard? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect ArbCom has many times been inconsistent inthe past - making a point of it, however, is quite unlikely to impress them here. Collect (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are probably right. They can make up the rules as they go along. Why should they give a damn if I point out some blatant hypocrisy? With no shareholders to report to, no KPIs to meet, no financial targets, no objectives of any kind, identities hidden by pseudonyms, and far removed from the public gaze. They ban and they unban and have nothing much to consider beyond their own convenience. What a sad situation. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not "hypocrisy" but the fact that many decisions are arrived at after "horse-trading" and compromising - when given any sufficiently different information with a significantly different committee, all bets are off -- win, place or show. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The system is deeply flawed. We seem to accept that the Committee isn't going to bother looking at the evidence, and isn't going to be bound by any actual rules or precedents, and if the outcome happens to be horrifically wrong, who cares? It is to me astonishing that such a barbaric system can pop into existence in the 21st century. I watched GoRight driven from the community in a manner similar to the mob in Salem. We've gone back about 3,000 years in our history to a situation similar to what must have existed before the Romans invented law. It may not be "hypocrisy"; it may just be "negligence". What is clear to me, though, is that this system continues to exist because the public, and Wikipedia's donors, just don't know about it. It has to stop. Alex Harvey (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP question

In reference to this diff[19] which part of WP:BLP says that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out

I consider "unintelligible" to be a very weak source.

Try also: Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources which is the present case

See also BLP/N discussions at [20] where the anonymous rumour was deemed unusable in a BLP. [21] similar discussion result. [22] ditto.

Anonymous sources are not usable in making any contentious claims in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that this is the paragraph you are objecting to?[23] If so, I'm fairly certain that multiple reliable third-party sources can be found for most, if not all, of that paragraph. No offense, but I'll defer reading those discussions as they are quite lengthy. As for anonymous sources, the only thing I can find in BLP is WP:BLPGOSSIP and it doesn't say that they are not usable. It says to be wary of them (i.e. use caution) and it's about gossip. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only actual RS fact is that the transcript says "unintelligible." Wikipedia and specifically WP:BLP prefers facts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. That some people believe they hear "coon", "punks", "clueless" or "course" are facts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to dubiously relevant negative material about Martin, you've advocated its inclusion where Martin's family had confirmed the material ([24]). In this case, Zimmerman's close friend confirmed that he heard the word "goon", or possibly "coon":

As far as, I mean as far as George being racist, I didn't take it as a racist term. I heard 'goon' and talking to my teenage daughter, apparently goon is a term of endearment in high school these days... He wasn't talking to Trayvon when that comment was made. He was speaking a generality in that this suspicious person was someone who he—lumped in—as always getting away—goon, coon. I mean, the bottom line, he thought he needed to keep an eye on this individual for whatever reason.

(Source, ABC News). Maybe you can help me understand why you consider the material about Martin is a BLP slam-dunk, but the negative material about Zimmerman a BLP violation? MastCell ^Talk 00:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual material provided by the family and printed in reliable sources is not "dubiously relevant negative material" and is not sourced to anonymous sources. And again -- the transcript says unintelligible. To me unintelligible means, of all things UNINTELLIGIBLE. Is that too hard to grasp? Collect (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do "anonymous sources" come in? Zimmerman's close friend - who is decidedly not anonymous - seemed to feel the word was reasonably intelligible, at least enough so to narrow it down to two possibilities. And this was printed in reliable sources. I understand that the person who transcribed the call rendered the word as "unintelligible". But I don't understand why you think we're therefore forbidden to discuss any other reliably sourced views on the tape. And I continue to see a bit of a double standard here, but that's a separate matter. MastCell ^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where no one knows what the word was - not even his friend asserted he was certain - then ascribing such contentious claims as saying he said "coon" in a BLP-compliant article is clearly a no-go. Cheers. And the editorial comment only said some (anonymous) people said they thought they heard the word -- every play "telephone" as a child? Collect (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Right

I do not understand your long campaign against this article. Although you and I may not accept the descriptions offered by Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, Peter Viereck, Richard Hofstader and more recently Sara Diamond, Chip Berlet and many others, our role is not to judge or censor what they say, merely to report it. As a wise man once said, "We report, you decide". TFD (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No such campaign on my part -- other than to respect Wikipedia policies. Such as accurately stating what the cited sourse states. Cheers. Now scram if you wish to keep this civil <g>. Collect (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]