User talk:Collect

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Christian Science to Good Article status.

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

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

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

Had I known Collect was behind your request I may have declined. He has been sniffing my excrement for 4 years or more. I don't bother myself with him unless he shows up where I am working. Then I have to consider what is more important: dealing with Collect's dribble or continuing to talk and work with other editors. I detest him so much I usually just leave and go do something else in WikiLand

Sorry, But I'd rather have all of my fingernails pulled out than to get involved with those editors. Especially Collect, perhaps the most dangerous and dirtiest Wikipedia editor I've come across--only my opinion of course, which I feel I am free to offer on my own talk page? It is true that there are plenty of articles here that are more about numbers than about the truth, IOW, who ever has the most editors on their side can write the article.

I got here by looking at Collect contrbutions. (from a sock master)

This essay serves no purpose in mainspace other than to aggrandize its creator. I recall some quip about dressing a pig...I'll let those who want, finish the line.

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense

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

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

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

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

Some of my essays:

WP:False consensus

WP:KNOW

WP:Advocacy articles

WP:PIECE

WP:Defend to the Death

WP:Midden

WP:Baby and Bathwater

WP:Wikifurniture

WP:Contentious

WP:Sex, Religion and Politics

WP:Editorially involved

WP:Mutual admiration society

WP:Source pH

WP:Sledgehammer

WP:Variable RS

WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights

WP:Repetition in Argumentation

WP:The task of an editor

Some of the articles I created:

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

etc.

From WP:Plagiarism

N Copying from an unacknowledged source

• Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes—from a source that is not acknowledged anywhere in the article, either in the body of the article, or in footnotes, the references section, or the external links section.

• The above example is the most egregious form of plagiarism and the least likely to be accidental.

Happy Collect's Day!

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

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

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

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the worst fishing expeditions I have ever seen - whoever thought of this is a good candidate for the Baker Act. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing personal Collect, I just though it was too much of a coincidence that an account would come out of such a long retirement and jump right into the PNAC article, making many of the same edits and voicing many of the same concerns that you had. I'll happily apologize and retract the allegation if the SPI folk find the accusation unworthy of investigation, or if it turns up nothing.

I see what you said about being unable to post on the SPI page - I linked your response here for you. Cheers.Fyddlestix (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As I have a very long online history dating back over thirty years, I find your accusation to be reprehensible. I also note that usually someone posts the response on the SPI page - as a common courtesy. I also suggest you read Joe job as being themost likely cause of the "DearMe" editor (I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Vertrag, but the DearMe one seems intent on making bad edits. I would also state here that assuming bad faith of editors is a sure way to have others assume bad faith for you. :( . Collect (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is this DearMe and which are the bad edits? Dear ODear ODear (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[3] was, frankly, a totally improper edit. [4] appeared properly sourced - and I would not properly sourced criticism removed from any article as it goes against WP:NPOV, [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century&diff=prev&oldid=649875584] is silly as the opic of "neoconservatism" is a part of this article, and so on. I find some of your edits to be a tad violative of Wikipedia policy as a result. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[5] was a righteous edit, which removed a link from a quote, since WP doesn't do that. Perhaps you "totally" object to it also having moved the "neocon" section lower (because the term was not explained)? The second edit removed an advocacy source, which is unreliable, since there are no shortages of academic rses on the topic; the removal was partly because of the or topic sentence. The third on the neocon cat was because the term is not glossed or used. We don't add cats for every topic in every sentence in the article. Dear ODear ODear (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, just to confirm - you want me to copy-paste your response below onto the SPI page for you? Happy to do so just not 100% sure that's what you're asking. This is only the third SPI report I've ever filed so sorry for not knowing what is/is not commonly done in this situation.Fyddlestix (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, next time I'll know, thanks.Fyddlestix (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to Sock accusation:

As I am unable to post on the SPI page, will someone post this? I find the accusation risible, inane, and a wondrous example of WP:ABF.

My actual name and address are known to Jimbo, and about a dozen or more admins. I have used this handle now for over thirty years, and have never "socked" at all -- this accusation is apparently about as ill-faith as I can conceive of, and timed so that I cannot respond. I would have no rational reason to sock, but accusations of this type are so routinely made now sans any actual evidence that I suggest SPI enforce the rule requiring some actual evidence of some sort, beyond "someone came into the article, and even though their edits are, in fact, contrary to the edits of the editor I wish to accuse, this is a good way to annoy the hell out of them." 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Done (and I fixed your sig in the copied version. Let me know if that's not what you wanted). Did you want to first line copied as well? Guettarda (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Cowsills "evidence" - the edits were absolutely and totally unrelated to each other -- anyone saying I would use a sock for such edits is NCM.

Re: An accusation that I used a sock in order to force Ubikwit to edit war - that is a remarkably obtuse and ill-founded charge - noting that I suggested that Ubikwit self-revert.

Re: We both used BLP/N -- I have about four hundred edits on that noticeboard. Odds are pretty high that anyone posting there will show some sort of overlap. And the overlap? I saw Vertrag's post about a Cowsill! That is the one and only BLP/N thread we have an overlap on at all. Period.

Please someone - put the horrid SPI complaint out of its misery? Collect (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Florida a "fringe" state filled with fringe politicians who believe in fringe ideas?

Should we update all of our Florida articles and political biographies to reflect that the state no longer subscribes to science but to its own version of reality funded by the Koch brothers?

• "Florida officials "ban" the term "climate change"[6]
• "Billionaires Charles and David Koch have helped to fuel conservative activism in Florida, by spending millions over the years to establish elaborate political operations in the state. As a result, Florida has become something of a testing ground for anti-government campaigning from the Kochs’ primary group, Americans for Prosperity."[7]

What do you think? Do we need a new Florida fringe guideline? Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that some politicians in every state, territory and nation-state either believe in or campaign on fringe ideas. I don't think that there is any need to single out Florida (my personally least favorite state among the 50) when kookiness is universal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen, but I'm not entirely serious (but I am raising points for discussion). Mostly, I'm trying to keep Collect occupied during his "vacation". Idle hands and all that.... :-) Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And WP:HARASS is in full force again -- not to mention that "Florida" is neither mentioned as my home on my user page nor user-talk page, this is beyond harassment and verges on attacking using personal information. See WP:OUTING as well Viriditas -- your campaign to drive me off of Wikipedia is not something for you to be proud of, ever. Thryduulf, Sandstein Newyorkbrad, MONGO, NE Ent, Callanecc, Robert McClenon, AGK kindly take note. Collect (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not taking note of random disputes on random user talk pages. if you think admin action is required as a result of anything that happens here, you can request it at WP:AE or in a forum described in WP:DR, as the case may be.  Sandstein  15:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein as I am currently blocked, that suggestion is not all that useful when the acts of harassment are present. Perhaps blocked users should be allowed to post at DR, but so far that is not the case. I am about to frankly call it quits if this Catch-22 is so damned important when a person is actively being subjected to harassment. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Was it SYNTH? Yea or Nay?

Is answered at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_PNAC_Members_associated_with_the_Administration_of_George_W._Bush with what appears to be a clear affirmative at this point (every one of the past 15 is a "delete" !vote). Cheers to all - and there is still time for your own personal opinions thereat. Collect (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Closer specifically found the result to be that the list was clear SYNTH. So much for anyone decrying my statements about that list, I trust. ArbCom please note. Collect (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

My "blocks"

Listing all blocks and circumstances thereof. One admin has been desysopped for improper blocks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Were for: [8] including: The uncertainty over Joe's plumbing bona fides led to some political commentators to question McCain's vetting process following Sarah Palin. While Joe was simply asking a question, it was McCain who promoted an image of "Joe the Plumber" that did not match reality. Under the title of "Joe not a plumber" Andrew Sullivan of the The Atlantic wrote "Why am I not surprised? No license and a lien for unpaid taxes. Like Sarah Palin, a great concept. But the McCain campaign needs to be able to vet its hood ornaments." Which looked and looks now like a BLP violation. And is not in the BLP now, wonder of wonders. [9] The onlineEncyclopedia Britannica, in its article on the Huffington Post, and the Financial Times say the site reflects Drudge's conservative political stance. (bolding is mine here) as opposed to making it an absolute statement from the Encyclopedia Britannica proper (which was at that time not strictly connected t the online version!) and implying it was from the article on Drudge. I considered this a misuse and blatant misuse of a source in a BLP, implying it made a claim which the actual EB did not make. I cnisder misleading and inapt sourcing and claims based thereon to be a violation of WP:BLP and still do so. One ought not ascribe to one source something not even operated by that source. On 24 July 2009, Gwen Gale blocked me for "violating 0RR" on political topics.[10] For an edit on the page of a very dead person. Very, very dead. I removed: In 2004, The Guardian UK ran a story which again found evidence of a link between Prescott Bush and the Nazis. The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty. Calling this Prescott Bush a "political article" is a stretch -- it means I could not even edit on Otto von Bismarck! On 30 January 2010 I was blocked for violating "clearly marked restrictions" on an article - where the "marking" was actually done after my edit <g> (the big red header was added after my edit - so "clearly marked" was actually "clearly wrong." On 3 October 2010 I was blocked for "edit warring" - the AN/I discussion did not back the block, so I made the usual comments at that point. Oh -- the edit involved was not noted whatsoever, and the admin had not posted it on any notice board at all. His reasoning? [11] First of all, you have a history of edit warring, so any reverts you perform will be viewed with additional scrutiny. Moreover, a "warning" IMO is anything that makes you realize there is a chance you could be blocked if you continue with your actions; OhioStandard's posts on both of our talk pages constitutes a warning, so it's not like you didn't know this could happen. On Carl Paladino, you first reinserted the "allegedly" on September 20, and proceed to do so again on September 30; more recently, you removed the "undue" incident once on October 1, and again on October 2. On Linda McMahon, you have a long history of editing and edit warring on the page, and probably would have been blocked if Malinaccier hadn't protected the page on September 17; your October 1 October 2 are inadvisable due to your history on that page, but the things you reverted are borderline vandalism. Therefore the main motivation for the current block was your final edit to Carl Paladino. When an admin does not even have a basis for a block for "edit war" then there is a problem somewhere. So let's look at the Paladino "edit war" edit (which was not at 3RR whatsoever) where I trimmed: [12] In a statement to The Politico on September 29, 2010, Paladino indicated frustration with the media's coverage of his previous affair with an employee, and not doing the same with his opponent's personal life, stating: "Has anybody asked Andrew Cuomo about his paramours? Or asked him why his wife left him or threw him out of the house? Has anybody ever done that? What are they doing intruding on my life?" Caputo also interjected the phrase "while he was married," indicating that at least he knew of actual affairs and not just hypothetical ones. That night, after Paladino made an appearance with the New York State Business Council, New York Post columnist Fredric U. Dicker aggressively pushed a microphone into Paladino's face and prodded Paladino to produce evidence to support what Dicker (and many others) interpreted to be an allegation of infidelity against Cuomo. Paladino responded with an accusation that Fred Dicker was following and photographing Paladino's youngest daughter several days prior, and demanded that he not do it again or else he would "take [Dicker] out." Paladino eventually stated that, for his part, he did not know of any actual affairs, and that the allegation was an implication he did not intend to make. In a statement to The Politico on September 29, 2010, Paladino asked why the media was concernied with any of his affairs, and not asking similar questions of Andrew Cuoomo. After Paladino made an appearance with the New York State Business Council, New York Post columnist Fredric U. Dicker pushed a microphone into Paladino's face and asked Paladino to produce evidence about any acusations. Paladino said the New York Post following and photographing Paladino's youngest daughter several days prior, and demanded that he not do it again." Paladino later said he did not know of any actual affairs, and that the implication was not intended. Guess what? Now the stuff I had removed has been removed -- as blatant BLP violation. 8 Jan 2011 - read the AN/I stuff on that one! [13] 1 Oct 2014 for Joni Ernst (who I believe is alive) for this edit [14] (noting that edit violated an RfC result all of one week old) removing Agenda 21 is the subject of numerous far-right conspiracy theories. During the general-election campaign, Ernst moderated her tone, saying: "I don’t think that the U.N. Agenda 21 is a threat to Iowa farmers... I think there are a lot of people that follow that issue in Iowa. It may be something that is very important to them, but I think Iowans are very smart and that we have a great legislature here, we have a very intelligent governor, and I think that we will protect Iowans." Note the current article Joni Ernst does not contain that material which I believed and still believe was violative of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV as connecting a living person specifically and by implication to "far right conspiracy theories." Judge me on that one as you will. Leading to the last one - where I pointed out that I was at 2RR and Ubikwit was at 5RR, that I told him I did not want to report anyone, and he could simply self-revert his last RR and I would be happy. The "edit war" was about the SYNTH and BLP violating list now reconstituted and discussed at the AfD [15]. Amazingly enough,my view that the lists and connections and tables were SYNTH and violative of BLP are not unusual. Cheers to all. Assign this as "evidence" but all it is, is a statement of where I have erred, how others viewed it at the time, and how Wikipedia subsequently has viewed my edits. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

References

A barnstar for you

		The BLP Barnstar
		Odds that I may disagree with you in the future? Very high. Odds that you are a staunch and worthy defender of BLP policy? 100%. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. The clear consensus here is to delete the article, as it has been found to be a synthesized WP:POVFORK.

As I stated. List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush was SYNTH. Cheers to those who argued that I was absolutely wrong on this. Collect (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk page stats

[16] shows that of just over 5K total edits to this talk page over a period of nine years, the one who is at issue has posted 68 times. Of which 25 were in the last 479 total edits. In fact this amounts to 5% of all his last 500 edits entirely. This is a rather unusual amount of attention in user space, as a rule. Collect (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In some respects - the core issue for Wikipedia

On Jimbo's talk page an editor opined that my belief that we should not seek to harm to anyone in a BLP was wrong - he noted that Wikipedia decided years ago that "do no harm" was not in any way to be followed - that we could do (presumably) as much harm as we desire to living persons, and that this obstinacy on my part about doing harm is key to my troubles with others. We have the ability to do great harm to living persons - the policy states specifically Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

ArbCom please note: I stand by my belief that BLPs are not to be used in order to inflict harm on anyone. This is part of my stance on User:Collect/BLP. Please produce a "finding of fact" on that as well as one each essay of mine, and on each of my "many blocks" as stated by a complainant. Again - I am not going to provide "evidence" as the harassment worked exceedingly well indeed. Collect (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon kindly note that I shall not provide any statement nor evidence not present on this user talk page. I note that I did email some time ago material to ArbCom members which may be pertinent to the discussion. I request in all due courtesy that my essays be individually examined and the other points raised on this user talk page be examined. Kindest regards. Collect (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Collect, above statement duly noted. You're welcome to contribute evidence to the case, and you are equally entitled not to if that's what you prefer. However, important to let you know the committee will decide on the basis of evidence received. On behalf of Arbcom -- Euryalus (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have told ArbCom my position, and expect them to act in courtesy with my statements. If they decide to ignore my request, there is nothing I can do other than note my disbelief that reasonable people would act in such a manner. Collect (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

From the guide to arbitration: "Submissions must be posted on the case /Evidence pages; submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited." Of course, the committee looks at a range of materials on-wiki - for example the citing of one diff in an article will usually require reading the surrounding ones. But beyond standing on your record, if there is anything 'you want to add either to explain any conduct issues or respond to others' claims during the case, you need to do that on the /Evidence page and not here.

And having delivered this piece of bureaucracy, and again noting your comments above, I'll leave you in peace. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

And I would note this was not how ArbCom acted in the TPm case when a member of ArbCom generated "evidence" not posted by anyone at all as material used in the decision, and thus I am going to insist that my courteous request made some time ago was not objected to in a timely fashion whatsoever by ArbCom. If you wish to live by "absolute process" when you (ArbCom) did not do so before, then I cheerfully view the process as not being worth a bucket of "warm spit" per John Nance Garner. If you do not examine the material I already mentioned on the request page, then you are not doing a rational job of examining evidence at all. If you (ArbCom) wish to copy the entire pertinent material from this page and consider it "evidence" kindly do so, but do not expect me to suddenly change course and do so for you. See Equity. I believe, moreover, that any fair reading will find my behaviour and beliefs concerning WP:BLP are reasonable and not based on any biases on my part whatsoever, and that where complainants finding eight posts they dislike out of 40,000 edits made by me are not of sufficient weight to deem me as anything other than a sincere editor doing his damndest to "sail straight and true". With exceedingly warm regards, I remain Collect (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Note - this also means I "provide evidence against" no one at all, other than such as is implicit in the material on this page. Just to make that clear. Collect (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Note also that MrX and Fyddlestix insist they did not support the SYNTH list (connecting assorted people as being connected as being both members of an administration and members of PNAC) being used. I removed MrX as supporting the SYNTH, but Fyddlestix specifically made this edit which conveys the SYNTH itself [17] "With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War." making the SYNTH claim in Wikipedia's voice rather than saying it was an opinion of specific persons. [18] has Fyddlestix stating "I really don't see what can be gained by discussing this further here. Since the result of this AFD is pretty clear, isn't this all moot unless/until someone tries to re-incorporate the content back into the PNAC article? I for one have no plans to do that, at least not as a table like this one. I do hope that some of the sources we found/used for the table can be used/added to the main article though" [19] He states that he did not feel the table was SYNTH (which I interpreted for some reason as supporting that table, later overwhelmingly found to be SYNTH). [20] iterated his support thr the SYNTH table. [21] has him asserting that my opposition was "WP:CRYBLP" [22] iterates his support for the table. [23] shows Fyddlestix's clear continued support for using what was the basis for the notorious table -- which was found to be SYNTH by an overwhelming consensus at AfD. Sorry Fyddlestix - you supported the material, and saying I lied when I said you supported it is not precisely accurate. Collect (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (please also copy as this is a particularly horrid accusation against me which I suggest my diffs completely demolish. I had long ago corrected my listing of MrX as inapt.)

Collect, I don't want to start a debate with you here (I really think you should just come say your piece on the case page instead of making arguments here) but I'd like to point out that the diffs you linked above might not show what you think they do:

• You linked this diff as an example that "conveys the SYNTH itself," - but I did not write the text in that diff. As the edit summary shows, I was simply restoring the text as it had read before the edit war between you and Ubikwit (with Vertrag playing a role as well), which had resulted in a considerable amount of text and citations being deleted from the lede. Note that I changed the text six minutes later, and subsequently added a large number of references to back up the revised text. I also added a qualifying statement to make it clear that this was only some people's point of view, and citing 3 academic sources which take the opposite view for balance. So the diff you linked, as you can see, is not really the full story here - I didn't write the text I was restoring there, and I altered it myself (adding multiple RS to back up the revision) within minutes of restoring it.
• I'm not sure what you think this diff shows, all I see is me indicating my acceptance of a consensus decision on the AFD, and suggesting that further debate was off-topic on that particular page (and kind of a waste of time) since the results of the AFD were already clear and a close was imminent.
• These diffs [24], [25], [26], [27] are evidence of me asking you to clarify your position and asking you to detail your specific argument. I'm not sure why you think this would reflect badly on me or that it's an indication of my own personal stance/argument, as I was very clearly trying to understand your position rather than advance one of my own in each of these diffs.
• This diff was me suggesting that some of the sources that were used in the table might prove useful in the PNAC article. I specifically indicate there that have no plans to and would not support putting the table back into the article, and I've made no edits to the article to that effect. Hell, the few edits I have made to the article since then have been in the opposite direction (citing Ryan re: "members" being inaccurate when discussing PNAC). In that talk page post, I noted that some sources had been used in the table that weren't in the article, and thought they might be usefully used in the article at some point, that's all. I'm not sure what's wrong with that or what you think that shows.

A reminder, by the way, that the table had been in the article long before I had even created a wikipedia account, let alone edited the PNAC article. JBH spun it out into a list article, not me, and I've repeatedly indicated that I did not support that decision. So neither the list article nor the list itself could possibly have been "my idea," which is what you alleged here. Asking you to be specific and clear about why you think content violated policy is not the same thing as creating that content. Just wanted to clear that up. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You deliberately lied in your "evidence" when you said you had not supported the table. Period. I suggest you remove that charge that I "lied" when I listed you as a supporter of the clearly SYNTH table. Perhaps you have a very labile definition of the truth - I removed MrX from the quick list , but telling people I lied about you supporting the SYNTH list when the evidence is so clear is an interesting tactic. Meanwhile you have won -- the harassment which included multiple AN/I sections, an SPI report and absolute allegation, the edits on each other's talk pages and/or emails and the like - such harassment has had its desired effect. No edits by me on anything remotely resembling a BLP or political page - not even any more edits on Moby-Dick lest someone assert that Melville was an office-holder. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not here for a debate, I just wanted to make sure that the context of the diffs you posted was clear. If you're going to accuse me of having "deliberately lied," though, I'd really rather you did it on the arbcom evidence page than here. I'm sure the committee would be interested in your perspective, and I'd much rather you presented your evidence of these "lies" in a setting where it will be properly scrutinized, and where I have the right to respond without being accused of harassing you. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Is your position that when you restore material which I had called SYNTH, that you personally did not support the restored material? I find your iterated presence here, your argumentation that when you specifically restore material that you do not actually mean to restore that material, your SPI charges, your AN/I posts etc. to, indeed, be intended to drive me off of Wikipedia, and you damn well have succeeded. Have a beer to celebrate. Be glad the ArbCom folks have decided to practice blindness. Collect (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Who I am

I am intrinsically a centrist - and find the concept of "left and right" in a "political spectrum" to be useless as having no absolute meaning over time and place, nor do I find any ideology "correct" over time and place. Nor do I think it proper to add contentious negative claims of fact to any BLP -- those who revel in "masturbating", "naked", "fucking" etc. and any "contentious claim" find I tend to oppose such material in BLPs - just as I did on David Copperfield (illusionist), Alex Sink, Kim Jong-un, Charlie Crist, Barack Obama, et al and a myriad of other BLPs in the past. Read my "partial list" on my main page, though it be long.

The only truly hurtful charge is from Fyddlestix who says I lied when I named that editor as supporting the SYNTH table. I provide the diffs above showing, indeed, that the support was, indeed, given by that editor, and trust that charge will be retracted. I note that I specifically removed MrX from any such charge after checking the edits.

I also find the use of a claim that it is a political edit to follow the template instructions on Infobox:Officeholder to be ludicrous indeed - Kraxler and others came to a full agreement on that some time back now.

I note that anyone who says they deliberately "put negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like" is a far worse behavioural case than I could ever be.

I know I annoy some for using literary allusions - last one for awhile is "I shall rest at Avalon" - inactive because of the very successful harassment, but healing for time of need. Editor quondam, editorque futurus Collect (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Quibble: isn't the term "centrist" always used in relation to something else, i.e. the right and the left? (Or the upper and the lower, etc.) "Center" is similar to "vertical," in that they are what they are in relation to something else. If that something else is "useless as having no absolute meaning over time and place," then so, perforce, are they, as well. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of the quibble? Collect (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Answering the inner need to be pedantic, obviously. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way - you seem to have missed almost the entirety of my posts at TFD's user talk page - I fear your elision missed the entire section about what compromise I suggested, and why I suggested that compromise, as well as my suggestion that we heed Franklin's plea. I did not only post about "national jurisdiction" etc. being the normal term of art, although it certainly is. Collect (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Please point out what you meant exactly and I'll be happy to make the appropriate correction. This is all part of the effort to move on with that specific arbitration process. Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Copy my entire posts about why compromise is the only course. Collect (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not, since I may again prove inadequate for this task. I'll simply direct again all interested parties to the relevant Talk Page. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Masefield

I caught sea fever from Masefield's ship and ended up bound for Ireland...

Sorry, couldn't resist it. One of my favourite examples of English song, and one I sing at every opportunity. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem! I fear I feel sorry for some who appear not cognizant of literature, though. And be quite glad you do not hear me sing <g>. Collect (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I have no super strong interest in American politics, and I dont think I've ever interacted with you, but I like reading through Arbcom cases when I'm bored, and noticed the bizarre bureaucratic kerfuffle over evidence having to be in the right place or else arbcom refuse to read it. With that in mind would you take issue with me posting diffs to the rebuttals posted on your talk page to the evidence page? Wikipedia is (supposedly) not a bureaucracy so the refusal to read certain evidence by arbs seems kinda silly. But I dont know what the principle behind the refusal to post evidence is, so I didnt want to go ahead and do it and somehow accidentally subvert a point that is trying to be made or something. Bosstopher (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You have an absolute right to do so. Absolute right. The issues are my essays (LOL!) (feel free to state why they are so disruptive), and my positions on the PNAC and related pages - where a lot of the diffs are where I call the table "linking" people, their jobs and their association(signing a letter) SYNTH - and (lo and behold) the AfD showed well over twenty other editors agreeing with me (count them) to an organization whose page had earlier linked the organization to seeking biological weapons, genocide, and to having Jews with "Dual Loyalties" [28] edits made by Ubikwit stressed the "Jewish" [29]. ("Of these, many were from the Jewish ..." seems intended to stress the number of Jews involved.) Collect (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I made a few comments because I know you as a good contributor. I am not sure what would be your best strategy. Perhaps point-by-point rebuttal of every accusation? I quickly checked first diffs in the "edit warring" and "false claims" sections by MrX. The first one was about this. Even though your first revert of the edit by User:Tbrambo was OK per WP:BRD cycle, the rest was not. Nevertheless, you did not revert anything on this page after ANI discussion, and therefore bringing this now by MrX to Arbcom was not a good idea. The second diff I discussed with MrX, and his claim seem to be bogus. He probably does not know the rule that prohibits use of inappropriate BLP materials at all pages. But I am still unsure. Perhaps simply leaving the project would save you a lot of trouble. My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Too many editors seem to be (blissfully?) unaware that WP:BLP applies to every page in the entire project. I suspect that having my essays exposed for what they are - legitimate views of an editor who wants Wikipedia to actually work - will show the problem lies not with my views but with those who oppose them or deliberately seek to misapprehend them. The harassment has been too successful at this point - but that does not negate the views I hold, nor make harassment the proper course for ArbCom to abet. Collect (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I quickly looked at the evidence, and a lot of it seems doubtful to me. Nevertheless, I suspect you are looking at a topic ban on editing BLPs of US politicians, unless you can provide some convincing evidence in your favor. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

MastCell and company are providing more than five times the amount of "evidence" than I am given any space to rebut[30] etc. -- if you get enough people assembling piles of mud to throw, and the person having mud thrown at them is given one fifth the opportunity needed, then it is clear that the possibility of a rational "trial" is nil. If you look at the Editor Interaction tool, you will find MastCell has been gunning for me for a very long time - as have Buster7 (a few of his quotes top this page - and he railed against "Palinistas" "Saint Sarah" etc. who opposed filling her BLP with stuff like she believes dinosaurs were Jesus ponies, etc. Check out MastCell's "non-attack" on me on Writegeist's UT page where he calls me [31] Charles Pooter (that editor's talk page is heavily invested in attacking me, by the way - see [32], [33], and [34] etc. where he devoted many many kb to his animus to me, while MastCell calls my silence "disruptive". Frankly, I face people who would write 5000 word attacks on me at this point (one posted actually about 8000 words in just three weeks!) - and frankly I have cancer and heart disease and I do not give a damn if the inmates (as Writegeist termed them) run the asylum or not. To rebut 5000 words or more in 1000 words is silly. Any Arbitrator who gives a real look at the "weight" of evidence garnered from 40,000 edits should recognize the mudslinging and ** for what it is. I am hurt that MC can assert with a straight face that I called an editor here Anti-Semitic, as that is just a "lie by iteration" at this point which should rebound on him, as is his failure to note that he is an extremely "involved admin" with regard to me (note huge number of interactions between us - sometimes in the space of well under an hour). Is there any sanction for repeatedly making such a false claim about an editor by an administrator - even after they were told the claim is less than valid?

For "silly season" the forces arrayed against me have a horrid record of POV-pushing ... [35] has Buster7 suggesting Palin got "Wiener's emails", [36] says she was "at most a deck hand at sea", [37] where he says " You have been an obstructionist from the moment you took Kelly's place as a spokesperson for Gov. Palin. At least Kelly brought a sense of leadership. All you bring is a sense of dread. Also, Kelly took the time to preview her entries. And, she wasn't pompous in her use of manners. Unless you have had your head stuck in the sand, you would know that the word on the street (Pennslyvania Avenue)is that Palin has hurt McCains chances. But, the reader probably already knows that at this stage. So.......nevermind. Obstruct to your hearts content. Twist things around all you want. Change history till the cows come. It won't really matter in the long run."

Writegeist wrote to KillerChihuahua [38] Pithy stuff like

There's a host of people involved at SP and I thought they should know what action I had taken re. your record on an important issue relating to the article. Since abusing Raban's critique as "POV pushing essay crap" is indefensible, as is making a groundless personal attack on me as a "vandal", as is also threatening to block any editor for making a fully "legal" attempt to get Raban's highly relevant and RS piece discussed, I would doubtless have taken it to ANI anyway. As for the outcome there — brusquely decided, and without the courtesy of an explanation, by a 17 year-old who, on his own admission, apparently spends just about his entire life on WP — I have already said enough. (Too much.) — Writegeist (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking the trouble to address a sysop’s numerous flat-out lies, half-truths and smears is not "nitpicking", as you term it. A sysop who peddles fictions as facts to discredit another contributor is a threat to all contributors and, I should think, to numerous WP policies. Such an individual is hardly best qualified to police the behaviour of other bad-faith editors. And the behaviour of a sysop who, when exposed, shrugs off his/her lies, half-truths and smears as piddling trivia is contemptible.Further, your aggressive and deceitful assertions are not confined to my talk page: here is an example of your attempt, at another user's talk page, to suppress discussion of notable, relevant and V material from an RS source, in this instance the London Review of Books, by misrepresenting it as a blog: Consider this a warning. Cease warring over the inclusion of that nonsense. Blog essays are not useful to us here on Wikipedia, (except sometimes on articles about notable blogs such as Daily Kos) and discussion of them here is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Which drew the following reply (abbreviated here) from the user: I note your warning, but I am pretty sure it was inappropriate. First, I wasn't even "warring for inclusion of that nonsense". Just undeleting the comments discussing it in the first place. If it is truly not a fit subject or source, it should be a simple matter to dispose of that in Talk. Deleting the comments, instead, was not appropriate at all. I have encountered situations where it was appropriate to delete comments rather than rebut them, and this was not one of them. [...] And by the way... the London Review of Books is not a blog. [...] I also think it's worth noting that at least one other admin did not find your block warning to be appropriate. "Anger and frustration"? You flatter yourself. The abusive behaviour I've touched on here earns contempt—an altogether cooler customer whose home is the intellect, not the heart. As for your closing remark, the course I’ve chosen is probably more realistic and certainly less tedious, as it's the only 100 percent effective prophylactic against direct contact with you: avoidance of articles you're involved in.

On a lighter note, as a parting gift, some Hilaire Belloc:Matilda told such Dreadful Lies, / It made one Gasp and Stretch one’s Eyes; /Her Aunt, who, from her Earliest Youth, /Had kept a Strict Regard for Truth, /Attempted to Believe Matilda:/ The effort very nearly killed her./ Every time she shouted 'Fire!' /They only answered 'Little Liar!'/ And therefore when her Aunt returned /Matilda, and the House, were burned.Goodbye Madam! And the best of luck. — / Writegeist (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See the caliber of my steadfast opposition?

I keep no enemies list, nor would I ever keep one - he does, Writegeist does, MastCell does.

But looking at the AFD for the SYNTH list - the following apparently do not keep any such "list": Coffee, GabrielF, Anonymous209.6, Dear ODear ODear, Tom harrison, DHeyward, The Four Deuces, Alex Bakharev, Davewild, Anythingyouwant, MONGO, Ken Arromdee, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, JoeSperrazza, Two kinds of pork, B, Tarc, Gaijin42, Rlendog, AndyTheGrump, LM2000, RightCowLeftCoast, Capitalismojo, Resolute, Carrite, Horologium, Ealdgyth, JzG, Thargor Orlando, Cullen328 and so on. I wuld prefer that ArbCom listen to their opinions on this drama and the SYNTH at the very heart of it than a dozen who have opined on my essential evilness for years now -- in some cases making far more than a hundred edits critical of me in one way or another, or simply gainsaying anything I say. For the record, I plead guilty to using quotes from famous people and events, and words needed to read Wikipedia articles with a Readability Index of 35. I am guilty of actually following WP:BLP and WP:NPOV as being non-negotiable entirely. I also try to understand that no one is perfect, and finding "bad edits" out f 40,000 edits is an extremely easy task for those who wish to waste their time in such a manner.

But Fyddlestix stated however (which I counted as support for the SYNTH list)

" It has not been established that there is any SYNTH/OR in this article. In fact the current discussion over at BLP/N seems to be leaning the other way, since you have refused or been unable to point out an actual/recognizable piece of SYNTH/OR in this article. You've also failed to make a convincing/intelligible case for this table being SYNTH or OR here, here, here and here. "

Problem being that a couple of dozen others saw the clear SYNTH which is also a WP:BLP violation. Fyddlestix called me a liar for pointing out that he/she specifically re-added the material connecting Bush admin members to PNAC and Iraq to the PNAC article[39]. Cheers to all who enter this humble abode. Collect (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after looking at the current version of Evidence page, many people would think you were a serious troublemaker and should be site banned forever. This is one of the reasons I would recommend you to provide your version of events on the official arbitration Evidence page. If there is not enough space, you can ask arbitrators for extension, and they might grant it for you. Nothing on your talk page will be taken into account. However, if you are going to provide some evidence, I would recommend you not to bring ridiculous mutual accusations (such as your exchange with Fyddlestix), but simply explain what had happened in general with all supporting links and diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have "presented evidence" in several cases - and in none of them did it appear any arbitrator actually read the diffs provided. I present what I consider salient material here - feel free to use any of it as evidence on the case page. When an arb (unnamed) proudly announced to me that he did not read much of the evidence at all in a case, and apparently mine not at all - period, my confidence is, alas, diminished. What counts far more is independent editors simply saying that enough is enough - that ArbCom should not reward harassers for being quite successful, and that viewed from the outside, as ArbCom is supposed to do, that the evidence against me proves very little at all. Else the Ikips of this world win by default. WRT the trivial Fyddlestix charge - he/she apparently regarded it as a linchpin in the complaint, whilst I only addressed it as a result - clearly it is of minor weight. As I have iterated - the basis of the issue at hand is whether or not the PNAC "table" was SYNTH - and a drove of independent editors have ruled clearly that it was and remains SYNTH and violative of WP:BLP. And that posting on Jimbo's talk page is not a violation of WP:CANVASS. My email is open. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a huge pile of evidence by your "opponents", and it is very difficult to read (I really could not). But there are much higher chances that people will read your evidence because this will be the only evidence in your favor. Not commenting on the official page will mean that you agree by default with every argument by your "opponents". If that is what you want, then fine. And perhaps you are right that everything is already determined. You angered too many people and will be banned just to make them happy ("reduce disruption for the project"). That happens all the time, and perhaps you will be happier by doing something more productive instead of contributing here. Good bye! My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You miss the "proposed decision" stage - any arb is allowed to read this page (precedent in the past cases is rife) and all I need do is state that the "evidence" is per se insufficient for any findings to be made about me. If I start addressing every diff presented, ArbCom would have to allow me at least three weeks and 10,000 words to adequately state what did or did not happen. In my last case (TPm), where I did participate, I was warned not to demur with the proposed "kill them all, God will know his own" - I managed to get three other editors out of that "Gordian Knot solution" proposed by one arb, but it was the fact I fought which ended up with a "finding of fact" that using the quote "bosh and twaddle" (by Teddy Roosevelt) about a "reduction ad Hitlerum" hypothetical case was found by a bare majority to be intrinsically evil. Since it is clear that Arbs can decide "bosh and twaddle" in such a case is punishable, they can pretty much decide any word of more than one letter is punishable - depending on whom they judge. Lord knows that my language is rather temperate compared with AndyTheGrump's! Collect (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The case is not about PNAC, but about behavior of users in the project. After looking at the current Evidence I think all these content disputes are really about nothing. Should someone, who obviously is a conspiracy theorist, be described as such in the first phrase on in the 2nd paragraph? Should something be called "a scandal" or "an affair"? Should views by a politician on the climate change be described in length in his biography? That does not really matter. What matters is your conflict with several other users. The conflict is serious enough - the case was taken by Arbcom. Why conflict? Perhaps you are just a stubborn guy who makes an issue of every minor disagreement. Right now it looks this way from the Evidence. If so, you should be topic banned or banned. Or maybe these users simply do not like you personally and therefore revert your edits, even ones of no significance (as you apparently imply). Yes, they do not like you judging from their comments, but I do not see any evidence of their wikistalking. Perhaps it was you who stalked them? My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

With me following well over 4000 pages, the odds of me "stalking" anyone are nil. In point of fact, I had zero interaction with some other than where they leapt into discussions. Most of my entries into articles are from WP:BLP/N discussions and the like - If I were stalking Ubikwit would I have such minimal overlap out of well over 4000 pages? Fyddlestix? Any of them? Check the number of edits I have made at BLP/N <g> (try over 1750 edits by me on that noticeboard alone) and you will see how it works. And again -- WP:BLP is not a "negotiable policy" - it is at the very core of what Wikipedia seeks to be.

And how could I "follow" Ubikwit for Neoconservatism? PNAC? Oligarchy, Sam Harris (author)? (since I posted earlier than he on all of them) I did arrive at Robert Kagan and Joe Klein from noticeboard posts - not from "following" anyone.

Fyddlestix posted after me at PNAC and after me at Skull and Bones. Following? Not possible for me on any article at all there.

MrX? After me at Talk:War on Women. After me at Steve Scalise. After me at Rick Perry. Before me at S. Truett Cathy which was at BLPN. Before me at Jeb Bush which also made BLPN. In fact after me at more than 80% more than 3/5 of the articles of any possible interactions per the Editor Interaction tool. And you could think I was stalking folks by having them follow me more than 80%60% of the time? Interesting indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not me. They tell it was you who stalked them [40]. So, unless you can provide something on Evidence page to support your words here (you peacefully edited page A, someone X, who never edited it before, came to revert your legitimate edit for no obvious reason, and he did the same on five other pages [diffs]),most people including arbitrators will think these guys are telling the truth. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In which case - I ask you to convey the actual truth. If they can make sufficiently outrageous lies so good that you believe them, then Wikipedia is truly doomed. Collect (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but conveying your position is your responsibility. No one will do this for you. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

WRT falsely accusing anyone of sockpuppetry at SPI posts - I have an 80% accuracy rate there. [41] shows absolutely minimal overlap between Buster7 and I from Jan 2013 onwards - period. In fact I ignore him entirely except for when he had an RfA and I pointed out that he had in fact made threats about finding out about me personally: [42] and [43] noting that the complainant has used the term ""psychopathic schizophrnic " (his spelling) [44]. Did this dismiss Buster7's stuff enough? But I forget -- you are mute when faced with facts and actual diffs, but more than willing to convey an opinion that Buster7's "evidence" convinced you I was a stalker, right? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Talking here with me is not the way to convince anyone. People will only look at your diffs and links on Evidence page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Shaygan Kheradpir

Can't seem to draw sustained attention to the page from non-SPAs for the life of me. Do you have time to take a look here? I don't feel the sources directly support the material they are being used for. I have a COI of sorts. It would probably be accurate to say I just have a COI with the Juniper section. CorporateM (Talk) 21:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry -- it is a BLP and the harassment which would assuredly ensue is not worth the effort to actually make sure WP:BLP is followed - the edit could say "George Gnarph is a 'mass murderer' " using a blog as a source - and I still am unable to intervene. Hell, my essays are asserted to contain proof of some sort of heinous behaviour on my part - and here I thought they simply expressed reasonable views about Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think there are any BLP concerns specifically, so much as a general sourcing and lead discussion. Best of luck with the ArbCom thing. CorporateM (Talk) 16:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comments on the Infoboxes II case request

Hi Collect, after a discussion on mail:clerks-l, I have partially redacted your statement in the Infoboxes II arbitration case request. On all of Wikipedia and specifically on arbitration pages, please refrain from adding personal attacks, and make sure to adhere to the civility policy strictly. (This is a clerk warning, for the record.) --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I made no "personal attacks" whatsoever in my comments, nor did I deem the remarks uncivil. Cheers as always. Collect (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This user has been successfully harassed from any BLPs or "political articles" which seems to encompass Moby-Dick as Melville held appointive political office.

Collect (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a big pedia so not working on BLPs could be a blessing. A read through the Obama article gives insight into Wikipedia...its a featured article and has been for a long time, but it's a pretty positive review for a sitting President with less than a 50% approval rating and I think he's a horrible president and possibly one of our worst....but because I disapprove of his presidency so vehemently is exactly why I don't edit the article. I know if I try to add the facts and perspectives of more than half the polled voters, I will have little success. Therefore, where we can make a difference is at keeping the quackery at bay in those areas where virtually everyone is United against the introduction of such nonsense. At arbcom they have you tied to the stake and have been given the opportunity to add more wood at your feet so you can either submit your defense and even explain in plain English what's at stake or wait until they toss in the flaming torch.--MONGO 00:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I too hope this will be only a topic ban. However, after looking at the Evidence right now, I would not exclude a possibility of site ban.My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

While a site ban may not be the goal, I doubt those that oppose Collect's efforts will miss him should that be the end result.--MONGO 03:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I site ban will be totally stupid, as there is only one area in which his behavior has been questioned. He does good work in other areas. A 1RR in political BLPs will be more than enough, and will give him the opportunity to learn that WP:WPDNNY. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Any such topic ban would basically keep me from doing what is most useful for Wikipedia in my opinion. Look, for example, at the edits made by the harassers:

[45] shows an editor ignoring the clear finding that the "list" was SYNTH and uses [46] which is an editorial column to make claims of fact.

"The report's primary author was Thomas Donnelly, and Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt are credited as project chairmen. It also lists the names of 27 other participants that contributed papers or attended meetings related to the production of the report, six of whom subsequently assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. As I have iterated, opinions can only be cited as opinions - and this source is clearly an opinion source (the source also includes such "facts" as

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing. In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions. This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were. Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Sound like opinion or like fact? In fact it is specifically part of the "9/11 conspiracy theory" category AFAICT.

[47] introduces a "second letter" not even associated with PNAC and then adds the SYNTH that it shared seven signers with the PNAC letter. If claims about the first letter's signers was SYNTH, how can one not note that connecting seven of them to a second letter not even connected with PNAC is relevant?

[48] makes the edit:

Cruz has stated that satellite data shows no global warming in the past 17 years, based on a cherry-picked range of data that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change views as indicative of a short term trend. (bolded is the edit)

That appears to make a claim in Wikipedia's voice directly that he cherry-picked data deliberately to make a false claim. The source used here states " Researchers largely have agreed that the rate of global warming has slowed in recent years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged that the rate of warming since the 1998 El Niño has been smaller than the rate calculated since 1951." and "Cruz’s most recent statement, that “no significant” warming has taken place in the past 17 years, is more accurate". The WaPo article does not use the term "cherry-picked" at all. Nor does the CSM article use that term. NEITHER of those sources given as a reference for the "cherry picked data" supports the claim at all, and so it is likely a BLP violation for any editor to use them as a source for a claim of fact in Wikipedia's voice.

But I can not come within a mile of that BLP - even for such an egregious violation. The FactCheck Levitan editorial source could be used for a claim ascribed to the person holding it, but not in Wikipedia's voice. ("FactCheck.org's SciCheck feature focuses on false and misleading scientific claims that are made by partisans to influence public policy. SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation" indicating that the purpose of such editorials is specifically to attack "partisans" and to be editorials in nature) Lastly (before iterating the same Levitan source as though using it twice makes the opinion "more valid") we have a CNN source. Amazingly enough, it makes no such claim about "cherry-picked data" at all. Sorry -- when a single editorial source (noting the comment at the bottom of the Levitan source that the sourcing is intended to take aim at "partisans") makes a claim, we can not use it as "fact" in a BLP.

Care to defend those edits as being absolutely proper under policy?

If I can not make a difference on BLPs where my harassers and complainants are still actively making edits which are questionable under Wikipedia non-negotiable policies - what the hell can I do? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment about that edit is correct. Under 1RR you could revert, and explain in talk. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

And the other editor is edit warring on you -- he reverted your edit ("quote to citation for "cherry picked". Was attributed in a previous version but another editor demurred" which fails to note the problem is in the source being specifically editorial in nature and per note at its bottom - specifically funded to handle "partisans") -- and apparently thinking opinion is the same as "fact" to be made in Wikipedia's voice. See the problem? Collect (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it always first revert or there are any exceptions such as partial revert? That's where the conflict begins. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been threatened even where zero reverts per se occurred (the change was to language which had been in a BLP for a while!). Thus as long as the harassers are out in "full force and vigour" - I can not touch even Moby-Dick. Collect (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty hard to debate these days whether the matter concerns BLP or not. Though it is clearest when the matter concerns COPYVIO. Can you point me to the thread or section where this regrettable proposal of 0rr might have taken place? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Long ago - 2/0 blocked me at 1RR for "edit war" - which was quickly overturned. Gwen Gale blocked me for violating 0RR on political articles - for removing charges that a very long dead politician was actually a Nazi, etc. Look above for some of the accusations from the past. For fun, look at the edits from 2008 on Dino Rossi and note that it later emerged that the main editor there (acting as owner AFAICT) was a campaign worker for another politician. Who issued 3RR "warnings " many times on my talk page as a result. Collect (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Collect: WP:WPDNNY. If there are egregious BLP violations, there are other editors around, you know? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

And any such ban would include not mentioning any such violations to anyone at all -- did you not understand that minor cavil?

If I saw a claim that George Gnarph was a murdering thief - sourced to the Daily Mail (which is RS except for contentious claims about living persons, IMHO), I could not mention that fact to anyone at all - as it would qualify as meatpuppetry or the like.

Or I could wait as you suggest until someone notices it -- which can take more than 10 years for even absurd hoaxes, in case you missed that news <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A 1RR on political BLPs will allow you to revert, explain your reversion and engage in talk. But if you don't defend yourself, and acknowledge some of the concerns (I know it will be hard; we are proud beings), you may end up facing more severe sanctions. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Where there is a BLP violation - letting it remain is actually contrary to any common sense. I think you just learned exactly how some others work to promote what they "know" to be the "truth" on BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your statement is that you think that if it wasn't for you, BLPs with violations will remain in WP. But nothing could be further from the truth. If you stop editing WP today, nothing will happen, really. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I am not essential to Wikipedia whatsoever. If Wikipedia wants me (or anyone, in fact) to edit, and has me feel harassed while I am editing, then it is likely that I would not edit Wikipedia much at all.

Try an analogy: You like to mow the golf-course fairway - but some kids keep shooting pellet guns at you. You get discouraged and no longer enjoy mowing the grass. (See WP:HOUND). You stop because if they keep making sure you can not enjoy mowing the grass, there is precious little joy to be had in mowing when the kids are shooting at you.

You are not essential to the golf course, - in fact you are entirely worthless perhaps, but when enough kids are there to drive off enough volunteers (See Gamergate inter alia) the golf course will lose a lot of other volunteers.

No individual volunteer is worth a sou, but the collective and escalating danger is that too many of the mowers will be driven off by those pesky kids. If one wishes to retain any editors, then one must prevent those shooting the pellets from affecting the volunteers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I hear you. But I think that if you acknowledge some of the concerns expressed in the evidence, you will be able to continue editing, and the pesky kids will have a reason to stop shooting pellets. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Read my statements and rebuttals. Note where I state my positions - right or wrong. And my actual political background - which I suspect will not shock anyone who actually reads my opinions about WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't give up yet. I looked at some of the "charges" against you (admittedly not all of them) and what I saw amounted to little more than "Collect often disagrees with me over content" or "Collect made 3 mildly snarky remarks" or "Collect prefers to take contentious BLP disputes about political figures to BLP/N where it will get more neutral eyes on it than on the article talk page which will have more partisan editors (on either side) watching it." The 3RR allegations are the only ones I saw that seemed serious, but even there 3RR has exceptions for BLPs, in particular to eliminate "bias." There is a lot, and maybe I missed some egregious ones in my sample, but I have faith that ArbCom will take the time to look through all the evidence and see how flimsy much of it is (assuming of course that I didn't miss anything really bad). Rlendog (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Extension

Looks like this case is probably going to proceed irrespective of your convenience. I can only suggest that if they decide to grant you any kind of extension, try to make the most of it, even if it's not nearly enough and even if it means you'll present a half-assed defense of yourself due to lack of time. I don't think it really seems fair but at this point I actually think they are more concerned with fully adhering to established protocol than making sure the process is fair. Anyway, I was going to make a large submission on your behalf, but I didn't get around to it before evidence closed. I requested an 11th-hour extension but it was denied. Sorry bud. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence closed

The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase

Hello Collect, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

See topic ban. Bleah. Collect (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Meghan Trainor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meghan Trainor. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed

The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Decision in Collect and Others

Hi Collect, in the open Collect and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Collect, I decided to waste some of my time, and have just taken a look at this frightful case. My comment (about a little piece of it) is here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

He also engaged in some unwitting violations of ArbCom protocol in your defense, and got a gentle tongue-lashing for it. You owe people now, dude. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said I was physically AWAY - and actually unable to participate. Blaming me for being in that status is absurd. I made clear that June 10 was the earliest I could do much -- but I find the committee is prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, and th3 fact that it allows arbs who had repeatedly called for my being sanctioned to act without recusing themselves to be a horrid example of sophomoric puerility. To your health. Collect (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Final in person request

Assuming that, in spite of your medical condition and any Real Life situations, you still drop in here to see what's going on, I would forgivingly make a request. As a gesture of good faith, I wonder if you would consider re-working your talk page introduction so that it in no way mentions me or even hints to my existence. I would consider it a personal favor and perceive it as a handshake of forgiveness and an act of possible friendship. Any transgressions we have committed against each other should, by now, have faded into the long forgotten and distant past. . Buster Seven Talk 15:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you assume he isn't watching this page, and have the patience to wait for him, else ask an admin to do it for you. That would really be a sign of good faith, especially after all the accusations you've made about the supposedly deceptive nature of his absence. Don't purport to claim equivalence between Collect's RL health problems and your hurt Wiki-feelings. BTW, I don't think I've said anything to deserve the treatment you gave me at the ArbCom case. Thanks for nothing, old pal. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Collect has not edited Wikipedia since April 6, and all indications are that he won't for weeks more. In view of Buster 7's May 4 request for forgiveness and friendship, I feel confident that Collect would not hesitate to grant Buster 7's request. Accordingly, since I have not been disinvited from editing this talk page, I intend to remove from view the unattributed material in question, within the hour.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Anything. . Buster Seven Talk 21:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was AWAY. Physically away - and just got back from overseas. I have cancer, wife has melanoma. Wish similar health on others? Collect (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Tough luck, bud. I am sorry to hear this. WP would suffer with your absence, but I don't know that that's a good reason to stay. And in any event WP appears content to serve as an online attack platform, so maybe the grapes really are sour. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - what I find galling is that I have been around for over nine years - and when I said I was away on a trip, I found it galling that anyone would snidely suggest (on and off-Wiki) that the trip (planned for two years) was "convenient". Where those who were stalking/hounding continue to stalk/hound even when I am away, I find their position to be less than collegial at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Although I stumbled onto that case by accident after it was already underway, I subsequently watched the process very closely. There were multiple things that were considerably more than 0% galling. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the quoted matter at the top of this page, or I will

Collect, when I happened on this section on the workshop for "your" case, with its striking header, I felt myself getting angry. A little research showed you had added a quote from 15 October 2008[49] to the top of your talkpage four years later on 7 September 2012, [50]. It has been distressing the editor in question ever since. I know you know that. Unless distress is actually your purpose, please remove the quote, including all other reference to Buster7, such as this sneer (added on 17 Aug 2014), which actually identifies Buster, within the next 24 hours, or I will. I realize you may not be watching, and then I'll simply be the one to remove it. BTW, I don't think the identification is the big problem. Buster obviously hates having something he said as a newbie,[51] which he wouldn't say today, quoted against him, whether or not it names him. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC).

For someone who purports to be paying attention, this post you made sure seems like a bunch of unnecessary bluster, directed at an editor whom you know is not watching, solely to make some kind of point. Just go ahead and remove it, without the posturing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As I had made clear that I was basically not going to be around (just returned from overseas) I find your post objectionable but shall gracefully leave it in place. Count my edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Collect, I hope you and your wife are fully recovered. I have counted your edits as requested. Not sure why — did you want me to note how few they are, to emphasise that confrontation and personalising are so important to you that you're willing to spend three out of seven edits on the miserable matter of the quotes at the top of your page? And to ask Buster if he wishes cancer and melanoma on others, for god's sake. In response to an olive branch from him, yet. I'm very unlikely to post on your page again — I only did originally because I was angry and it seemed necessary. But as long as I'm here, is Christian terrorism really a page about US politics or US political figures?[52] The mediation doesn't seem to focus on American issues — even though I see you mention the KKK a couple of times, so no doubt you'd have to avoid certain details going forward — and Christian terrorism in the United States is a separate article. I'd ask arbcom if I were you. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC).

The hostility of your message is as flagrant as can be. Are you really thinking Buster is extending an olive branch? That's ludicrus. Let me know when you and yours finish running Collect off the website.--MONGO 13:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I shall be sure to tell everyone in the world when anyone is fully cured of cancers such as malignant melanomas. If you wish to see the "olive branches" I trust you have read the site-which-must-not-be-named and such genteel olive branches from his friends as "For many years BLP has been Collect’s battleground of choice for deploying his well-stocked arsenal of assholery. It's no surprise to see him run for cover from the altogether tougher action at arbcom, or to hear him squeal "harassment!" from the sidelines now that he’s called to account—in WP as in RL narcissistic assholes commonly play the victim card when there’s pushback. Collect’s endgame strategy is one that’s well-tried. And didn’t that game work out well for, say, DangerousPanda/Bwilkins.", and a WP edit [53]. I also suggest you read the history of "broadly construed" as a Wiki term of art indeed - as the only exception granted for reverts is absolute unambiguous vandalism as you surely have noted. I am not even allowed to mention groups related to any topic covered in "any namespace" including any essays or posts to UT Jimbo. And yes - the topic of CT does contain material and discussions specifically related to the topic ban. Hell, even Mark Twain is absolutely covered by the ban! And my two good articles are covered by the topic ban. With all the same wishes you bestow on me, Collect (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles about US politics and US political figures will be less neutral as a result of this decision, and I do not regard that as coincidence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad luck, I hope this won't put you off editing altogether. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It has - along with a cancer (melanoma) problem, and the fact that arbs who had repeatedly called for my ban in the past should have recused. I would note this case was argued in my absence (I was overseas, in fact), and that I find it so utterly irrational as to beggar belief. This means that my stating that I am, in fact, a liberal is a direct and instant violation of the "decision" and O ask that anyone who finds this to be sufficient to ask for my permanent removal should do so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Because although your edits were not appreciated, they were valuable. Keep your head up and enjoy this adorable kitten.

RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ariana Grande

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ariana Grande. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Stalking again

[54] is evidence thereof. User:Viriditas/Conservative alternate reality in the United States shows an unusual proposal for an article. Said editor is intent on preventing anyone keeping track of "problems" however [55] even editing the sandboxes of other users whilst they are not present on Wikipedia, and where the discussion at AN/I was ongoing. Collect (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

These diffs posted by Viriditas display a ridiculous, arrogant hall-monitor attitude. The essay belies a sort of blissful self-made ignorance. Both are commonplace on Wikipedia. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

일반 문서

...is apparently the Korean word for "Articles". Not sure why the X! edit-counter tool shows the Korean word there (or in one other place: 过错 for Errors). Just FYI. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I wot not why the system used Korean for an English Wikipedia though ... Collect (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Collect, I have moved the extended discussion (basically, everything after the candidate's response) followining your oppose at Neil's RFA to the RFA's talk page. If you or any other participant in the discussion (or, any of the bureaucrats) disagree with this, feel free to undo my move. Also you can change the title I chose for the talkpage section if you feel it is singling you out (I named it "Oppose by Collect" in anticipation that there may be need for similar sections in the coming week). Pinging @Alakzi, PhantomTech, Cwobeel, and Liz:. Abecedare (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted

Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dennis Hastert

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dennis Hastert. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Edward Snowden

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Edward Snowden. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Cosby

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Cosby. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Some people seem intent on defaming me by innuendo it seems

I was not absent "conveniently" from the arbitration case. I was on an extended trip planned for two years. I am, in fact, willing to send Jimbo photos from St. Petersburg, Helsinki etc. as absolute proof - and if you wish me to do so, please post here instead of making snide and unwarranted claims about me. I find such innuendos as being spread to be further examples of basic and explicit harassment. I also note that one arbitrator should absolutely have recused per prior discussions, and his direct personal attacks on me in the past. The community expects arbitrators to approach all cases with open minds and not with absolute and blatant prejudice. Collect (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

Thank you

Collect, I'm back at Wikipedia, and I want to say thank you for the comment that you left at the Christian terrorism mediation talk page, expressing your willingness to wait for me to return. I think that it was very kind and generous of you to show that kind of consideration for my feelings. I especially appreciate that, even though we have disagreed about content, we can still treat one another with respect as human beings. I also see from something you said above that you are dealing with a health issue, and I sincerely wish you the best with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Same sincere wishes from me too, FWIW. You have more time for healthy habits now, instead of the unhealthy Internet, so enjoy if possible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The health issue is with my wife who now faces substantial surgery (at least not the immediate loss of her arm) and other possible medical treatments. My own medical issues are not life-threatening - prostate and related cancers are chronic in nature. Note that I was not given reasonable ability to address the claims made about me at arbitration and, in fact, I was accused of deliberately avoiding the issues - while I was rather engaged in dealing with major real issues and an extended trip to Europe which had been planned for two years. I wish there were some way to show those who made the snide and iterated comments how wrong they are and were, but that would clearly violate the (papal) infallibility of ArbCom. Collect (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to use the best redirect I ever created.🎃Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Geography only?

Are you permitted to comment on geography strictly omitting constitutional status? The intent is to launch an RfC on the “United States:Talk” page this week. I am not trying to cause a controversy, I just wanted you to know the six-months progress in your absence. Please use discretion, TFD is constantly trying to make this a discussion about constitutional status, and older≠wiser (Bkonrad) will not agree to the statement if any political assertion is made in the introductory lede sentence at "United States".

A group of twelve editors at an RfM this year have been hammering along on the same issue of including “native-born” Americans from the Insular Territories in the “United States” lede sentence. You may remember the Dispute Resolution of 9 to 3 participants two years ago, well the margin this time is 9 to 1. Of the three editors who opposed two years ago, Bkonrad has agreed to a statement as geographical extent only, without inference as to constitutional status. Golbez dropped out saying he does not want to be bothered on the subject again. The Four Deuces (TFD) has agreed but continues to snipe at various elements of the following charts.

I thought you might enjoy perusing them, as the intent is to launch an RfC on the “United States:Talk” page this week. Sunray (RfM mediator)(an additional mediator will administer the RfC), AlanScottWalker, Robert McClenon, The Gnome, RightCowLeftCoast, Bkonrad (older≠ wiser), Wzrd1, 66.193.25.66, TheVirginiaHistorian, (and in at least one iteration, TFD) have endorsed the proposed language.

"The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [n]

"Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016.”

Mediation US territory discussion

United States District/Territory	Geographically, US national jurisdiction	US Citizens/Nationals	Estimated population	In Congress (Member of Congress)	Local self governance	US Constitution supreme law	US District Court	Presidential vote
District of Columbia	Done	Done 1801 US citizenship	658,000	Done 1971: Norton	Done 1975	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC	Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment
American Samoa	Done	Done 1904 US nationals	57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population)	Done 1981; Amata	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Fed'l appointed High Ct; DC or Hi	citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court
Guam	Done	Done 1950 US citizenship	159,000	Done 1973; Bordallo	Done 1972	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU	while resident in a state
Northern Mariana Islands	Done	Done 1986 US citizenship	77,000	Done 2009; Sablan	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP	while resident in a state
Puerto Rico	Done	Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat)	3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population)	Done 1901; Pierluisi	Done 1948	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR	while resident in a state
US Virgin Islands	Done	Done 1927 US citizenship	106,000	Done 1973; Plaskett	Done 1970	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI	while resident in a state
uninhabited possessions	Done	Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll	n/a	n/a	n/a	Done fundamental provisions	various	n/a

Sources

See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. viewed April 6, 2016. Six scholars in law journals, university press monographs and Congressional Quarterly attest to the 21st century US geographic sense, national jurisdiction and constitutional framework including territories: G. Alan Tarr (2005) "encompasses” (p. 382 [56]). Ellis Katz (2006), "composed of (p.296 [57]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), “a part of ” (p. 1 [58]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “the US includes” (p. 231-232, [59]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), "officially a part of” (p. 649 [60]). Earl H. Fry (2009), “U.S. federal system” (p. 297 [61]).

The following chart is of my own making. It has not been discussed as being included in the RfC. It may be that active participants to the mediation will not be permitted to make any posting beyond their opening statement of under 300? words. So, just FYI:

Mediation sources summary

Scope	USG sources	Scholars	USG sources	Scholars	Almanac	Encyclopedia
US federal republic geographic extent	Pres. Proclamation [62], Pres. Exec Order [63], GAO (1997) [64], State Dept. Common Core [65], Homeland Act [66]	Tarr [67], Katz [68], Van Dyke [69]	FEMA [70], US Customs [71], Immigration serv. [72], Education [73], Soc. Sec. [74]	Sparrow [75], Haider-Markel [76], Fry [77]	Fact Book [78]	Britannica [79]
50 states (18 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	Done (1)
50 states & DC (17 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, & 5 terr. (16 sources)	Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland	Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US	Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law	Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system”	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	5 USG sources omit possessions	3 omit possessions	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss

Mediation deliberation

The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed in international forums, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law. The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A). Sources describing the constitutional status of Insular Case “alien races” a century ago were not found applicable to modern territories today with “native-born” Americans obtaining their citizenship, self-governance, civilian courts and territorial Members of Congress by today's law.

Good health to you and yours. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - but I am barred from anything remotely connected to any US politics whatsoever from the dawn of time. Of course, I was not given a shot at refuting the evidence (I was, in fact, overseas, on a trip planned two years ago, told the committee that, and was told "tough shit" or the like, and had some claim that my absence was "convenient"), and the persons who gave the "evidence" leave such edit summaries as "Fuck You!" when they edit, or edit was aver images of a politician in a BLP. One might even fear that at least one arb, who has repeatedly called for me being banned entirely from Wikipedia in the past, but did not think that a reason to recuse, might have prejudged the case such that finding that I used a "foreign word" would be sufficient for my summary execution (LOL?) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Regrets. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it, for however long I shall remain in the position. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

My comments did not in any way reflect any judgment on my part, and it is possible that any comments on the actual matters at hand would be interpreted by those harassing me in the past as being violative of my topic ban referred to supra. Collect (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quint Studer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quint Studer. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Votes at an RfA

In an unspecified RfA, the first five hours saw a total of 8 !votes -- every single one an "oppose" for 0% support.

End of day 1: 21 to 23 (21 supports, 15 added opposes - 58% support )

Day 2: 40 to 33 (19 supports, 10 opposes - 66% support)

Day 3: 48 to 38 (8 supports, 5 opposes - 62% support) (At end of Day 3 - 56% support)

Day 4: 56 to 41 (8 supports, 3 oppose - 73% support)

Day 5: 70 to 43 (14 support, 2 oppose - 88% support)

Day 6: 77 to 47 (7 support, 4 oppose - 64% support)

At end: 95 to 49 (18 support, 2 oppose - 90% support) (from end of day 3 to end - 81% support)

Yet we have folks (presumably) skilled in maths who did not see any change n the percentages indicating a swing of any sort. I consider a shift from 56% to 81% to be, in fact, a massive swing. Collect (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

Collect, your recent talk page posts appear to me to be a violation of your topic ban. Please be advised that I have filed a request for enforcement. Cheers. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your colours here - - Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I was totes prepared to ignore the Koch thing because obviously that was a BLP violation, which I note has quite rightly been removed. But this?. Not cool man... Fyddlestix (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Look -- I do not know who you are -- but you filed a totally spurious SPI complaint against me, and I do not doubt your intent here. I suggest quite sincerely that you stop hounding me for once and for all damn it! Collect (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Nobel laureates in Literature

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Nobel laureates in Literature. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back!!

	A Wiki Tribble Dee Do
	I sent this Wiki Tribble Dee Do just for you! The encyclopedia needs more Tribble Dee Dos but they don't flourish in harsh environments. Hopefully we can turn that around someday. Atsme📞📧 17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to add this link: [80]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Hi, Collect. You have been blocked for one week and you are also indefinitely prohibited from interacting with User:MrX (this is a one-way interaction ban). See rationale at this discussion at WP:AE. This sanction has been recorded here and can be appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC).

Neat - I was n a cruise the entire time of the block which was IMHO unwarranted and alas UNAPPEALALE which any idjut reading this page would have known. Blocking a person in this manner is a trifle less than utile - blocks are preventative and not punitive - remember? Collect (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with User:MrX, see WP:IBAN (please note that this is a one-way interaction ban).

You have been sanctioned for this edit. Please compare the discussion here, where I and other admins found your response unconvincing.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAPDS and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer a two-way IBAN - as one-way bans frequently cause far more problems than they are worth - and it isclear that almost all the "interaction" has, in fact, been by the other party. Cheers. Bishonen, Collect (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And the punitive block is clearly absurd - although I did get back for a few minutes, the block basically is due to an absurd misreading of any policy at all.

I would note that almost all the "interactions" are by the other party. Collect (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I blocked you on my own discretion, for violating this topic ban with this comment, but I'll point out that all the uninvolved admins in this discussion thought poorly of your behaviour, including your defense of it; one called it an "almost comical".."misinterpretation of the situation, and a clear illustration of the battleground mentality ArbCom tried to curb"[81], another pointed out that it encompassed several of the problematic behaviours identified in the ArbCom case, including insinuations without basis in fact and wikilawyering.[82] And so forth. As for the IBAN, I can understand that you'd prefer it to be mutual, but I didn't and still don't see any justification for imposing a sanction on MrX in this context. I have reminded him that the community takes a dim view of anything remotely like gaming of a one-way ban by the other party.[83] I don't want to change the terms of the ban, but you can of course appeal it, or the terms of it, at AN or AE. Bishonen | talk 07:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
  • "Uninvolved"?? I suggest you note my many editorial involvements with StS and Gamaliel, and with you if I recall correctly on several noticeboards[84][85] among many articles, and innumerable WP pages. I note Writegeist has been noted as a major stalker of me (see the EIR results), Fyddlestix was the person about whom I gave confidential email evidence of harassment to ArbCom, and so on. NYB spoke against a block, and Floq said a block is almost never given on a first offense, and Laufer took no position at all. GWH only noted that emending a post within 11 minutes was not fast enough (though three months was too fast for a person saying the Koch's were related to a notorious war criminal to be removed as the blatant BLP violation it was, of course). As for your "consensus" of "uninvolved" folks - it ain't there. Period. BTW, I shall be willing to email you any violations I find where any editor continues to stalk me, if you would so allow, with your assurance you shall firmly deal with anything remotely suggesting continued stalking by my lovely set of stalkers. And your kind suggestion that I post at AN of AE while I am actually blocked from doing so' is wondrously Kafkaesque. When you assert"consensus" it would be lovely if uninvolved people made up the "consensus" you assert is there. Collect (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There's the imperious "period" again. I used to think it meant "full stop", in the sense of "I'm done", but I guess it can be just a verbal tic, an attempt to project dominance.[86][87] I'm nonplussed that you should complain about my assertion of "consensus", quote marks and all, four times if I count your "alas" edit summary. Where did I mention consensus? I told you I had blocked you per my own discretion. Try reading my actual words. As for complaining that I mention AN and AE while you're blocked, when you know, and I know, the block will expire in less than a day, while the sanction I suggested you appeal is an indefinite one — Collect, you seem to be turning into a complaint machine, I shall not feel obliged to respond to you further. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC).

Collect, I would suggest minimizing your interactions with Bishonen. That means making the briefest possible replies to her, only emailing her in the most dire circumstances, et cetera. Otherwise, you run a very considerable risk of being misconstrued, either deliberately or not, and facing further charges as a result. Bishonen, I hope you will not respond to Collect further, as you have indicated. Incidentally, the word "period" is a well-known interjection, and has nothing to do with being imperious, or having a verbal tic, establishing dominance, et cetera. Per dictionary.com, it is "used by a speaker or writer to indicate that a decision is irrevocable or that a point is no longer discussable."[88] Who's the "complaint machine"?😛Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen asserted far more than a consensus - Bishonen wrote all the uninvolved admins in this discussion thought poorly of your behaviour, including your defense of it; one called it an "almost comical".."misinterpretation of the situation, and a clear illustration of the battleground mentality ArbCom tried to curb" which I demonstrated is a bit of a truth-stretch.

With regard to a case where an interjection was used as such (as you noted), I fail to see the validity of the grammatical cavil made by Bishonen. And it is absolutely true no one in hell is "obliged" to respond to anyone at all. Such an attitude, however, is unlikely to attract the good wishes of the person thus being ignored. As, to my knowledge, I have never emailed Bishonen at any point in time at all, as Alice noted is it quite difficult to email Bishonen any less I do not see how I can not email anyone less than zero <g>. Bien amicalement. Collect (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

In this instance, "less than zero" is an excellent status to maintain (you mentioned above "BTW, I shall be willing to email you").Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

An unknown admin at AE just noted De minimis non curat lex. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion, restoration and archival of BLP-violating content about Smith, Koch brothers

Hope there's soon consensus at NPOVN on what you just said, BLP violations do not change into "non-violations" by being "archived". Then unless it's established that it's not a BLP violation, all content, whether about Koch brothers or Shepard Smith said to violate BLP should be removed from the archives, and so I'll remove the challenged Koch brothers content from the archives myself. Prefer standard DR (in this case at NPOVN) to edit warring or user talk page notices. I agree, that's what the policy says, but if anyone edits what MrX and I archived right now, edit warring is likely to ensue, so I prefer to continue with DR for a bit, as it makes sense to give DR a chance to work. The DR at NPOVN is the best place to resolve all this. --Elvey^(t•c) 20:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, do you concur that discussion of the sexual orientation of a living person who has been outed, but is nevertheless not out is gossip, as that term is used in the BLP policy, and therefore violates it and should be removed from wikipedia? --Elvey^(t•c) 01:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

PS haven't read the arguments of the other side, but based on what's on this page, sure sounds like you got a bad rap from ArbCom and have done lots of good work enforcing BLP.--Elvey^(t•c) 01:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Merci. You likely should note the dramatis personae involved as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chick-fil-A may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• asp?privcapid=7621129 Company Overview of Chick-fil-A, Inc.] Bloomberg Business, Nar 25, 2015]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rubin Carter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rubin Carter. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

WW II

See [89] - a non-negligible number of American civilians were killed by the Axis in WW II. (>16,000) Collect (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

For my lurker who now asserts no US cities were bombed by Axis planes ... that does not mean there were no civilian casualties -- take, for example, the Philippines which were US territory ... "The combined death toll of civilians for the battle of Manila was approximately 100,000 to 500,000, most of which was attributed to massacres by Japanese forces." Which I rather think was "Axis" at the time ... one specific incident, not counting anything else - like Nanking Collect (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• s fiance, was recently received into the Church of England by the Archbishop of Canterbury."] [[The New York Tiimes]] October 4, 1947</ref>
• uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDukeofEdinburgh/Militaryinvolvement.aspx|title=The Duke of Edinburgh > Military involvement|publisher=Official website of the British Monarchy|accessdate=7 May 2010}}</

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rod Steiger

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rod Steiger. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Marietta Voge

Marietta Voge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On what do you base your assertion that Augustina Stridsberg was "undoubted"ly a Soviet spy? If you're going to change the text in this article to make this claim, it will need to be separately sourced, since the claims (being discussed here at WP:RS/N) against both mother and daughter should have equal weight, if any at all. General Ization ^Talk 15:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are dozens of good sources regarding WW II - including ones in Russian.Collect (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I accept that may be true, but ask you then to cite at least one at the subject article so that the distinction you have introduced in the text is supported. Right now, it is not. General Ization ^Talk 15:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Not just from YUP in 2000, but from the NSA "Discussion of important KGB agent and Swedish Communist, covername KLARA, “who is completely devoted to us." Vassiliev notebooks ”"DAUGHTER [DOCH'] (cover name in Venona): Marietta Voge. Venona San Francisco KGB, 24, 29, 39, 46, 57, 84; Venona Special Studies, 99." , "DOCH and DOCH' [DAUGHTER] (cover name in Venona): Marietta Voge. Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 29, 38–39, 46, 57, 83–84; Venona Special Studies, 99.", "Voge, Mariette: Soviet intelligence source/agent. Wife of Noel Voge, née Jirku, daugher of Augustina Striksberg/KLARA. Cover name in Venona: DAUGHTER [DOCH'] and KLARA’s daughter. As Voge: As DAUGHTER [DOCH']; Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 29, 38–39, 46, 57, 83–84; Venona Special Studies, 99. As KLARA’s daughter, 45–46.", " CLARA [KLARA] (cover name in Venona): Augustina Stridsberg or a reference to the town of Santa Clara. Venona San Francisco KGB, 83–84." "KLARA [CLARA] (cover name in Venona): Augustina Stridsberg. Venona New York KGB 1944, 141; Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 38–39, 45–46, 57, 83–84 (unclear if a reference to KLARA or to the town of Santa Clara); Venona Special Studies, 36, 103." These notebooks were only available well after 2001, by the way, and make massive PDF files if you really want to make sure the indices are accurate. The Wilson Center is part of the Smithsonian. How many of these do you really need? Collect (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

One would be great, but cited by you at the article, since you are the editor who made the change that (in my view, anyway) makes it necessary. General Ization ^Talk 16:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty Images

I'm fairly sure you are referencing the medals section. I am don't know how to make those smaller (didn't add them) and I'm not sure they are completely nec. You don't become a general without lots of fixins in that salad. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

They are quite unnecessary IMO, and the poor folks with mobile phones, etc. really would prefer the list be made ... a simple list. For fun, see how the page looks if you use a small window, or even use your phone to read it. Many thanks for the work on this - he is notable, but that does not mean we use the scandal as a sledgehammer, which is what I tried to remedy <g>. Collect (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I truly believe this is a person that added the detail to be thorough. What is left here is "my" last good version there ws loads more details. The new user I have high hopes for. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Thorough" is not going to work where the vast majority of future views will be on quite small screens - which is one big reason why Google now makes a "mini-article" from Wikipedia for each search now. Thanks again. Collect (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Marathon course-cutting

Why would you only remove the well sourced and proven Mike Rossi cheating from Marathon course-cutting but none of the others? There is also the removal of Mike Rossi's entire article, which I have no beef with, but you might as well remove the BLP of Dane Rauschenberg too. He himself actually started his own entry, Fiddy2 is Dane's username. I suggest you either remove all course cutters or none. Mike Rossi is as much of a cheater as all the others on that list. GregTakacs (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

One is expected to do what one can ("Sufficient unto the day") - which is not the same as doing everything that anyone else mentions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with the edit waring resolution process but I would like to suggest that the removed part to be reinstated. Where should/would this discussion take place? GregTakacs (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at User talk:Tokyogirl79 as Rossi was found not to be notable enough to even have an article on Wikipedia at all. If he is not notable, then adding him to any lists is likely to be unsupportable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

While I don't dispute that Rossi is not notable enough to have his own article, his incident was more than notable and publicized enough to be part of Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results. Most of the incidents in the current list were half as notable as Rossi's and most of those have no Wikipedia articles either. He was offered $100,000 by two very notable and legitimate athletes running a major on-line running board and website to repeat the feat. Mike Rossi's LVM Marathon cheating is notable and big enough to be worthy of the entry. Thanks. GregTakacs (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to Henry Makow

Hello Collect, I too looked at the recently added ref for his degree. (here) basically with the idea of filling in the bare URL. The webpage does contain the line 'theses ENGLI 1982 Ph.D. 1109' & I wondered myself whether it was in fact usable? If you feel that it's not, that's fine by me. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The idea of WP:RS is that a person following the link finds a statement which says the same specific thing as the claim - which that link did not appear to do. Collect (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

OK fine; it would require some knowledge of what the 'shorthand' on the page means or a process of deduction on the part of the reader. So no problem. Eagleash (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

AE

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B001:1FC2:9E5E:5DCF:BF25:8FF8 (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What a wonderful example of harassment if you really think that a reality show person's biography is a major US political article. Next time, register with an actual editing name please - I find it hard to accept this sort of "bash Collect at every single opportunity, whether real or imagined." The material was about as blatant an example of violation of WP:BLP as one could wish for, and if we do not keep such horrid tabloidism of rumour and allegation away from Wikipedia, it will prove the downfall of Wikipedia's principles. Collect (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Note the sole and only purpose of that editor was to file a complaint against me. When any editor is so low as to use an anonymous account to WP:HARASS another editor one would think the admins would jump on it, and try to determine what vermin made the complaint. No -- instead I am told my own use of "cheers" is "snarky"! Collect (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

UKIP

Just wanted to let you know your efforts on the UKIP page are appreciated. For too long a small clique has dominated the content in a biased and unbalanced manner, cherrypicking to support their views and generally working to smear UKIP. Thank you for your refreshingly unbiased and balanced approach and your efforts to call into question the edits of the clique. It has improved the article significantly. Cheers. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Snarky?

An admin has opined that my use of "Cheers" after posts is "snarky." I note that apparently hundreds of editors then are also "snarky" as "cheers" is found over 174,000 times on user talk pages. I therefore ask impartial outside observers (that is, excluding the UGOI who routinely harass me) whether using "cheers" is, indeed, "snarky" as one esteemed and beloved administrator opined. Collect (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope that it's OK for me to reply to you here. I think it depends on context. There have been times when you and I have taken opposing positions in some discussions, in which you made comments that very strongly disagreed with me and then ended with "Cheers". I think it's entirely possible that you meant it helpfully, in the sense of indicating collegiality in spite of disagreement. However, I found myself wondering whether you might have meant it as snark, and there were times when it consequently annoyed me. It comes across as potentially sarcastic when the comment that leads up to the "Cheers" is not cheerful. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have never used it as "snarky" and would note that since I used it consistently to everyone that it is hard to view it as snarky (especially since no one had complained in the past about it). Collect (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since I consistently see you using it, I know you never mean it to be snarky, but I personally found it prudent to know when it's best to not use it, for risk of starting a misconception. A hypothetical scenario would be an editor criticises another user's edit, and then ends the comment with "cheers" and a signature. That could be seen as snarky. Ex: "The edit you made is completely POVish, as well as unsourced. I don't see how any of the material reflects the current sources. I believe you should undo your poorly sourced work. Cheers. ~~~~"—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me an example where it is clear that I am not using it as my normal "closing"? Collect (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I can show you this example, with you addressing another editor (not me), where you likely intended it as you normally do: [90]. You tell that editor that what he is saying is "harmful to Wikipedia", and then you say "Cheers". I don't want to get into the merits of what the two of you were discussing, but I think it reasonable for some editors to wonder why you would say "Cheers" to someone after criticizing them so strongly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You successfully point out that I use it as my normal closing! It would have been odd for me to deliberately not use it, as far as I can tell. Thanks! Collect (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can readily believe that you never used it with "snarky" intent. But online communication (text only, no ability to read the other person's body language or intonation) is fraught, and people may well misinterpret your intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

People are going to just assign whatever tone they feel like to what you say. It is a problem inherent in the medium. I gave someone a barnstar and an uninvolved individual read it as some sort of baiting. Just explain that you were sincere and if that is not explanation then you are not the one who is wrong. Chillum 21:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is an admin who saw the sock above using "cheers" in a very snarky manner (I trust they are a sock as they have zero other edits!) The admin then said my use of "cheers" was "snarky" which no one had said before until they were justifying the complaint above (and I consider a complaint from a person who uses a sock to be harassment, by the way - he seems to not view it as anything out of the ordinary). Collect (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite our disagreements I have never seen your use of 'Cheers' as snarky. You are quite capable of getting your tone - snark, contempt, cheer, puzzlement, whatever - across in your text. There are times it might be better to omit a closing entirely but then you might run the risk of being accused of being brusk. The SOCK's use of 'Cheers' was unquestionably snarky and dismissing your complaint with a false equivalency was, in my opinion, a bit rude.

Putting the whole thing to a vote on your talk page seems a but melodramatic to me but eh... I guess after a while just letting things slide becomes too frustrating and we encourage your venting by responding. Oh well... enjoy your editing and have a good weekend. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 22:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Collect (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Not Snarky

• FWIW I find that it is not "snarky" at all. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Not: Eagleash (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is an ANI notice which related to edits you have been involved with. [[91]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that most of this is related to US politics, I am mute. The point which is interesting is that in the Moncton BLP he seems to think that a "point of view article" presents facts and not opinions <g>. [92] "The source is not "an opinion piece," " followed by "The added content is a noteworthy, significant point of view " Collect (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

AE

[93] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B025:1B16:3EF:73E8:77D7:9C35 (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You again? And "anonymous" stalking again? And you expect me to have an iota of respect for you? Collect (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want your respect.  I want you and your obnoxious pettifoggery gone from Wikipedia. Though I admit there's some entertainment value in watching your displays of narcissistic rage every time someone calls you out on your bullshit.  I heartily encourage you to continue violating your (well-deserved) topic ban.  Cheers, 2600:1000:B024:9B2A:807A:3C96:88A9:2F29 (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that this shows exactly and precisely the nature of the stalking and hounding I have long endured - even if no one admits that this is the case. The above is a wondrous exposition of the type of editor who should be chased away, instead of chasing off an editor who damn well has tried his damndest to follow the "non-negotiable" policies of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV which are so often violated. Will someone with the courage to do what is right please chase this sort of person away from me and away from Wikipedia entirely? "Hiding" the evidence of this hounding and poisonous editor is not what should be done = that editor should be exposed just as much as the UK blackmailing ring has been exposed. Collect (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sure some US politician has a big nose and an anonymous IP will go to AE with it. Sorry. Collect (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

AE report

I've filed at AE in relation to your obvious violation of 1RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Section headers implying that a person has been accused of a felony where the sources do not back the claim seem to be under the nature of required to be deleted by WP:BLP - but your mileage apparently varies a great deal from mine. Collect (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Law of holes

You made your point. Take the content issue to Talk and - if you value your sanity - leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Collect. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 08:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ARCA notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Collect and others and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

Anonymous complainant, I am not allowed to even mention your name. Be damn glad. Collect (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

One-way interaction ban lifted

Hi, Collect. Your one-way IBAN from interacting with MrX is hereby lifted. I have so noted in the log, too.[94] Bishonen | talk 21:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

I would prefer a two way ban - having a myriad of "anonymous" and other complaints makes me feel a tad less than charitable while on Wikibreak. Collect (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

the "finding of fact"

Collect has edit-warred in US politics articles.[95] [96][97],[98]

Passed 13 to 0 at 01:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

4 examples from one person who has stalked every single edit I have made for some years now :( .

1. "Oh please -- no edit summary here tries to claim that there was a BLP violation that needed dealing with (thus reverts exempt from 3RR) -- and it's a good thing that no such claim was made, because there were no BLP violations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)"

But several editors agreed with me that stating only one half of a claim is a BLP violation .. and those seeking my neck included:

"As someone that has continually had to deal with Collect's wikilawyered BLP claims, at the very least he needs to be warned against that, because this kind of thing is an unnecessary time sink. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "

"The somewhat backhanded attempt to assert priority of Jr. High grammar over the statements of a notable adult is, at best, a content dispute. The statement of the subject should not be subjected to a reductionistic application of grammar, which is probably a form of WP:OR. There is a substantial difference between "actively" supporting something or "passively" not opposing it. And trying to half-way apply BLP (for exemption) to that would be twisted logic, especially if it were seen to serve as the rationale for engaging in an edit war.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)"

In short persistence by two "devout followers of my edits" as the OP never had edited that BLP in his life before. Whatsoever - the only way to find it was by tracking my edits.

2. The famed PNAC case - and the fact is that an AfD on an "article" derived from that page was deleted as clear POVFORK SYNTH. Treating this as a violation on my part - much less calling my edits a violation of WP:BLP implies the readers never even looked at the evidence - but simply looked and said "Collect got blocked" -

Ubikwit stated "The only text I added to the article today was a copy edit to the lead after adding sources for the table and discovering in the processes that the lead only covered PNAC members that had served in an official capacity in the Bush administration, whereas there were also many that served in an advisory capacity. Second, a content dispute related to the table that I restored had been through the processes of a BLP/N thread with consensus giong against Collect and him refusing to defend his position at the end of the thread. I linked that thread on the Talk page today when I posted the sources for the table[221]."

The issue was that posting SYNTH claims about living persons is expressly a BLP violation - as the AfD proved. Swarm blocked us both as having interpersonal problems - but did not examine the BLP issue which was, IMHO, settled by the AfD: The result was delete. The clear consensus here is to delete the article, as it has been found to be a synthesized WP:POVFORK. Note earlier PNAC issues included making a claim that the living persons listed supported use of genocide through bacteriological warfare.

3. Joni Ernst reported by MastCell. Issue was whether " stating that “The United Nations has imposed this upon us, and as a U.S. senator, I would say, ‘No more. No more Agenda 21.’ Community planning — to the effect that it is implementing eminent domain and taking away property rights away from individuals" with the concomitant statement "Agenda 21 is the subject of numerous far-right conspiracy theories is a contentious partisan claim. I suggest the statement about Agenda 21 was a clear attempt by an editor who damn well should know better to add "far right conspiracy theories" as a claim which implies the living person backs far right conspiracy theories which is a BLP issue. Did any Arbitrator actually read those edit? Yes? Really?

4. [99] Yes -- accusations that living persons are "homophobic" - Panti (Rory O'Neill) alleged that some individuals involved in Irish journalism, Waters and Breda O'Brien, as well as the conservative lobby group The Iona Institute were homophobic because they opposed same-sex marriage a contentious claim noting that RTE paid monies as a result of a proposes lawsuit. If a claim is deemed so contentious that the broadcaster pays monies as a result, I consider that it is also contentious under Wikipedia;s fundamental policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Note the material I deemed to be violative pf WP:BLP has been removed from every single one of the articles involved. If I were wrong on the material in the FoF failing BLP, would not one of them still be around as of today? I would like any arbitrator who thinks the claim is not contentious given that RTE retracted the material and paid substantial money and that Wikipedia no longer makes the claims I objected to, to write below,stating what the errors I made were, and how frequent the errors were in thousands of articles I have edited. .

This deals with the extensive proof(?) that Collect violates WP:BLP. I also note the amusing fact that the list of diffs here is called "US politics articles."

In short - the FoF has nil to do with US politics, and damn near nil to do with BLPs at all -- other than the fact the biggest one ("PNAC list) ended with an Afd strongly affirming my position that articles using SYNTH and POVFORKS, or "guilt by association" claims are an evil which Wikipedia should damn well stop. Collect (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I realize I might be sanctioned for actually demolishing the "finding of fact" - as I am disallowed from ever presenting any evidence as a result of me asking for enough time to actually deal with all the "evidence" at length - but that I can so thoroughly demolish this sham evidence seems to think "fear" was there. For those who seem to like the fact my wife and I may actually never take another voyage in our lives (or said or implied it was fictitious) - I wish you all the fiction you merit. For the "IPs" who so mysteriously appeared to track my edits - show your damn faces. Collect (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

what ACTUAL BLP violations look like

Added here [100], [101], [102], back to [103]. I think one can gather which editors seem not to "get" WP:BLP, alas. [104], etc. show repeated desires to clearly violate policy as noted by Drmies at [105] with "(→‎Sheriff's report: no no no this is a BLP violation ") Collect (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

[106] is blatant. [107] repeated. The material had been discussed at [108], [109] and [110]. As well as [111], [112], [113] and so on. I would like to find out from others which of those edits were not BLP-compliant. [

[114] is clear (edit summary: ‎Rebuilding America's Defenses: re-add Der Spiegel tranlstion, with citations, ce." Minor problems though - [115] - the claim was not congruent with the source at all. Does the editor relent? Try [116] to see how regretful he was about inserting a false claim into an article subject to WP:BLP. Is "Writing in Der Spiegel in 2003, for example, Jochen Bölsche specifically referred to PNAC when he claimed that "ultra-rightwing US think-tanks" had been "drawing up plans for an era of American global domination, for the emasculation of the UN, and an aggressive war against Iraq" in "broad daylight" since 1998." really much better -- but at least it no longer says Jimmy Carter said that. If the concept of POV-pushing is too difficult to grasp, the concept of actually lying about what is in a source is not a great indicator of an editor who follows WP:BLP at all. Votre pensées? Collect (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Collect, do you really think that now is a good time to be re-hashing the PNAC and the Pamela Geller stuff? You're topic banned, remember? Now is the time to lay low and lay off, not to go dredging all of that up again. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is evidence regarding the Arb Case - and I made no comments about politics etc. here. I am pissed at an editor from whom I am interaction banned continuing to take me to dramaboards, and I would ask your forbearance on this. Collect (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, are you also following my edits perchance? You legally can do so, but it would be nice to get a reply. Collect (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No Collect, I'm not following you. I have had your talk page on my watchlist since the original PNAC debacle, and we both seem to watch BLPN and a couple other noticeboards pretty frequently, that's all. Any time we've crossed paths (that I'm aware of), that's why. I do think it's a pretty bad idea for you to be going the route you've gone above, and picking a fight with nomo & others just now, but far be it from me to tell you what to do. Sorry if I bothered you, I'll butt out now... Fyddlestix (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If you do not feel SYNTH and POV FORKS making an implication of guilt by association are, in fact, violative of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, simply say so. I suspect other's mileage might vary. I would kindly ask you to remove my talk page from your watchlist - if you feel you are gaining something by your posts here, you likely are not. This is also true for others who might unfortunately seem to be following me. Collect (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I really have zero interest in re-treading any part of the PNAC-related debate with you Collect, in my mind it is already ancient history. I must admit, I am hesitant to take this page off my watchlist given your history of quoting other editors, linking their diffs, and criticizing them behind their backs (as you've done with several editors just above). I'd be happy to do so if you agree to do me the courtesy of pinging me anytime you feel like linking, quoting, or discussing my edits - just so that I'm aware of it and can react if I see the need. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

At this point, it looks far more like you can not let go rather than me not letting go. I shall ping you wherever it appears remotely pertinent, as you ask. The material above is hopefully going to be read by Arbitrators who did not give me the courtesy of posting it before, and who appear to vote without actually reading the diffs in context which were cited as the reason for their votes. Collect (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK Collect, works for me. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting your review of the Wiki Education handbook on writing biography articles

Hello! I work with the non-profit Wiki Education Foundation. We're creating a handbook for student editors in higher ed who are assigned to write biographies on Wikipedia. Would you be willing to spare some time to review the text of that brochure and offer comments on the Talk page? You can find it here. Thanks in advance! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Denali edit / McKinley genealogy

I have a question about this edit. Did you remove the line because you questioned the source, which I believe is RS because it comes from the aggregated website of multiple official Ohio-sponsored McKinley memorials, or because it was a parenthetical? Or because it is "genealogy"? It seems to me the Congressman's statement, expressing outrage on behalf of descendants that, in fact, can't have any feelings about the issue, should be factually challenged. It's well-known that McKinley has no direct descendants; it's surprising that an Ohioan supposedly concerned with defending his legacy would be unaware of that. How can we improve the Denali article so that a casual reader won't take the Congressman's outrage at face value? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The parenthetical claim was seemingly made to indicate the person quoted was in error. To add it as a claim to make that implication is a violation of WP:OR - one should use a reliable secondary source making that connection rather than using a parenthetical claim. In addition, "genealogical claims" tend to be of nugatory value in biographies. There is no doubt that President McKinley has many living relatives, albeit not descendants, around, so it is unclear what the value is of that claim. By the way, it is not up to any Wikipedia editors to take umbrage at a claim, but only for us to use what people in reliable secondary sources state. Collect (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I get that, it borders on WP:SYNTH. If the press picks up on and challenges the Congressman's claim on behalf of McKinley's "descendants", however, we might have a better secondary source to draw on. I've never heard of any of McKinley's collateral relatives weighing in on this issue before, and they are not closely engaged to McKinley historical issues. I appreciate your reasoned reply. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the relatives might indeed have concerns - the use of "parallel and legal names" for the mountain is likely what should have been done - but that is not our concern. Collect (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I for one am looking forward to the press conference of angry McKinley relatives. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Some paper in Ohio will find a few - controversy sells papers. Collect (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, a president tried to rename "Cape Canaveral" as "Cape Kennedy" - but had not the power to do so. Collect (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Continued topic ban violations

You were banned by ArbCom from "making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace". You've made two edits about a US political figure at WP:BLP/N, a page which I watchlist and where I regularly participate ([117], [118]). The sanction against you doesn't say anything about "political pages" or "political comments"—instead, it proscribes you from any edit about US political figures—so I'm not sure why you've emphasized the former terms in excusing this topic ban violation.

I'm not familiar with the case at hand and don't feel like digging into it, so I have no idea whether you're "right" or "wrong" on this particular BLP question and I'm not going to "turn you in" for this edit. But you're doing a piss-poor job of respecting your topic ban, having already been blocked once for violating it, let off with a slap on the wrist for violating the associated 1RR restriction, and now this. It's not complicated - this guy is a US political figure, so don't make edits about him. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My edit had naught to do with any political aspects whatsoever, and your interpretation would debar me from even commenting at WP:BLP/N.. and thus I find your nice stalking of my edits to be as abysmal an example for any admin as possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Editor Interaction Tool belies your claim that you repeatedly just happen across every single one of my edits, even ones where you have never edited on a topic and the topic is not at a noticeboard otherwise. . You are not only an "involved admin" you are so deeply involved as to become ludicrous. Collect (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

AE block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban (see below), you have been blocked from editing for a period of a fortnight. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Sorry Collect, I was willing to cut you some slack at the last AE request because you were removing an obvious BLP violation, but this is a clear violation of your topic ban. You might not be discussing the substance of the political issue, but the briefest of glances at Sylvester Turner shows that he is clearly a US political figure and thus covered by your ban from "any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others#Collect topic-banned (option 2)). The wording of the topic ban makes it abundantly clear that you had no business commenting on that thread, and that you need to stay well away from the topic of American politics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]].

The edit involved had absolutely nothing to do with US politics whatsoever. I posted no comments whatsoever on any page of the actual political BLP. If the meaning is that I can not post on any project-space page which evens mentions anything remotely involved in US politics, I fear that such a broad interpretation would include any noticeboard entirely, and my own user talk page entirely. The sanction specifically states the edit must not be about US politics - and the edit I made was not about politics. If the interpretation is "any imaginable page in which anyone or anything remotely connected to US politics is even hinted at" then I find such to be neatly absurd ab initio.

I ask you all to understand that such a broad interpretation, when it is clear my opinions on BLP/N have nothing whatsoever remotely to do with politics, is untenable. I note my particular issue that MastCell, an "involved admin" if such exists, has stalked my every edit for some years as evinced by any fair use of the Edit Editor Interaction Tool.

My edit on the BLP/N page stated clearly "Asserting that these comments are not "political" for those following my edits and that this noticeboard is not a "political page") - the libel suit results make clear that this stuff under no circumstances whatsoever belongs in any BLP - the suit was won by Turner, and later thrown out due to the requirement of "actual malice" for a public person and not just "deliberate falsity This is not a "political opinion" but clearly one of stating a fact under WP:BLP and anyone who supports such claims should be the one removed from Wikipedia.

Jimbo Wales has, for example, stated that his user talk page is also an exempt area, and it is reasonable that apolitical edits about policies on the appropriate policy noticeboards should be an exempt area, else we would still have the Kochs linked to Ilse Koch.

I would also note this extreme interpretation would mean I could not even opine at RfA if someone mentions a "political article" to any degree whatsoever on such a page, and that, since my very User Talk page "mentions" politics, that I am eternally estopped from using my own user talk page.

When such a "literal interpretation" of something results in a clear injustice, I suggest that WP:IAR applies. Collect (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Community discussion ended up endorsing your block. Max Semenik (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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

 Done Jbh^Talk 13:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

HOUND STALK HARASS - but that does not mean anything here

[119] Yet such editors go unmarked at all - while it is a most grievous sin to point out that [Talk:Koch_family/Archive_1] appears to violate WP:BLP on its face. "My fault, my fault, my most grievous fault" for thinking that Wikipedia's most important policies are actually important, while folks like "IP2600" can go around stalking, hounding and harassing and no one does a single damn thing about them at all. Collect (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The IP addresses belong to mobile phones. Blocking them would be futile as the effort required to change the IP address is trivial. I can semi-protect your talk page for you if you want, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The addresses should be blocked then - let the cellphone company know that someone is pissed that an "anonymous editor" says he is glad a relative of an editor is dying a painful death - has it occurred to anyone I am still upset that an idiot complained before while I was trying to calm down and deliberately is seeking to inflame the whole damn situation? Does it not seem reasonable that when an "anonymous" IP harasses, stalks and hounds a user that doing not a damn thing is not going to stop the problem? How would you feel if IP2600 wrote "I am glad Mrs. XXX is dying a painful death - haha!" or the like - and XXX was your cousin? And that untouchable anonymous editor brings you repeatedly to noticeboards? What expletive would you find excessive? Do not protect this page - let everyone see how obnoxious harassment can get, how evil the perpetrators of it are, and that is will signal the end of Wikipedia in many ways. Which is more important - whether a BLP/N edit which made no political statement is violative of an absurdly over-broad sanction, or whether people say "I am effing glad a person is dying - and XXX wears gloves made from Holocaust victims" etc. Answer please - which is effing more important? Collect (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of importance, it's a question of practicality. I can block the individual IP addresses, but it's entirely possible that the intended recipient might never see the block, because IP addresses like that change so frequently. I've blocked a small sub-range of IP addresses, which might get their attention, but they may well end up with an IP address outside that range, and blocking a larger range creates a significant risk of impacting innocent third parties. That's why protection is a more effective solution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It is the sock master who would be guilty of causing inconvenience to Verizon users - I am followed and stalked and harassed and it appears to me no one here gives a rat's ass about that - instead they split hairs about whether a comment that libels should not be placed in BLPs is "political" or not. Again - note that political stuff exists on this user talk page so a true literalist would rule that every single post I have ever made here in the past months is a violation. Frankly, if a large enough block was made at Verizon, they would certainly track down the "anonymous" user. And how (again) would you feel if your wife were dying and an idjut said he was "tickled pink"? Really? Not a scintilla of umbrage from you? Collect (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Collect, we simply must balance collateral damage with avoiding disruption. We can't block a huge number of innocent people to stop one person who will just find another set of IPs if we do. It is not inconveniencing Verizon we are worried about, we are worried about legitimate editors from that range trying to contribute here. Would you like me to semi-protect your talk page for a while? Chillum 16:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume no one on WP has said they would be "tickled pink" to have one of your relatives die then. You are lucky. As for the IP2600 -- I wish him all that he so earnestly deserves. Collect (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If I told you some of the things people on Wikipedia had said about my family it would horrify you. Chillum 20:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Argh - in which case I trust you understand umbrage occurs - whilst some editors seem more like Dolores Umbridge ... Collect (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

[120] Best wishes, Airplaneman ✈ 23:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

TY - I trust you see that the problem is not in what is posted at any given time - but in the stated objectives of the "anonymous" editor, whom I suggest is almost undoubtedly an "established editor" under another name, doing their damdest to destroy an editor who, truth be told, has been one of the most active protectors of WP:BLP for a long time now - and the famed AfD which was closed finding the "list" was a POVFORK and SYNTH is pretty good evidence that others agree with me that using any Wikipedia article to make inferences of "guilt by association" (incuding a lot of "dual loyalty" garbage, and making sure "evil people" were clearly labeled as "Jewish ethnicity") are intrinsically violative of policy. Collect (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WTF??!!?? Are you still stuck on PNAC? It is well past time to drop that stick, move on and maybe even consider that others can hold a different opinion than you without being devils.

On a different note I wish you and your family the best possible outcomes. No one should have to go through that and it can be unbearable for everyone. Jbh^Talk 01:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The clear and overwhelming consensus at AfD (not even a close call) was that the "article" was a POVFORK using SYNTH about living persons. I do not and did not view the minority at the AfD as "devils", and have never posted anything remotely near that apparent claim as to my view, only that my understanding of WP:BLP in the case at hand seems to be the strong consensus of many other editors. Others may differ, but that is what a clear majority felt - and which was my position from the start. If a person is backed up at a very well attended AfD by many editors - I think you might consider the remote possibility that I was, in fact, correct in noting the problems. Collect (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Health update

Cousin with esophageal cancer just had 1/3 of esophagus and 1/2 of stomach removed, and significant enlargement of lymph nodes. I am sure "IP2600" is thrilled. Collect (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Tickled pink. It's interesting how your family members seem to come down with horrible diseases every time you get in trouble here. Cheers, 2600:1000:B01D:FB5:E191:5083:4589:66C6 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (adding colour so people can find this rot) Collect (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And she may not last the week (sigh) -- I am glad you are so thrilled about this - it makes me think that evil does endure and that administrators more focused on "well BLP/N is sorta politics related" than on your behaviour demonstrate that fact as well. Collect (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)!

Note: Please do not protect this page - the assholes who have stalked me have won, so let them gloat - after all it is more important to allow folks to accuse living persons of being war criminals than it is to protect Wikipedia policies. Collect (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales note this is what I have had to endure here - and the question is whether this sort of behaviour is "unimportant" - or whether it is a fatal poison at the heart of the issue. Please reply to my email. Collect (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you share such personal medical scenarios with the world wide web? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.56.181 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Neat - I knew someone would show up again as an anonymous IP. And same location -- surprise, surprise, surprise! Collect (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

re AN

MrX has lost no chance to jump in once more - but he is the definition of "involved" on this. I respect Drmies and only wish he would read the posts here and then judge. I admit that having people effective cheer for a painful death of my relative tends to make me less civil than I would normally be, but the fact is a great deal of my travails are linked to harassment, stalking and hounding, some evidence of which had been sent to ArbCom without any response at all - assuming the members I sent it to actually take their function seriously. I do ask how you would feel at this point with such posts as I have faced - and "walk a mile in my moccasins." Collect (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

You and I don't always see eye to eye but I'm going to give some sincere advice. You can read it, ignore it, delete it before reading or whatever you like.

If you want your topic ban to ever be lifted it is imperative that you do not edit anything remotely related to U.S. politics. If some guy once ran for dogcatcher in Mouse Turd, Nebraska then don't edit his article. Likewise for non-BLP topics. History shows that people often do get their topic bans lifted if they keep their noses spotlessly clean for at least 6 months. So that's what you'll need to do. You can decry the injustice of it all if you like, but that's not going to help and is much more likely to hurt.

In the meanwhile build up a good record editing other stuff. You say you collect things -- why not edit numismatics, or bring Inverted Jenny to FA status (which could definitely be done), or something else? When things get hot it's therapeutic to change focus. I'm mostly known as someone who writes about climate change, and indeed my most-edited article is global warming. But my second, third, fourth, and fifth-most edited articles have nothing to do with that. Give it a try. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all Inverted Jenny is a "political article" as the stricture is clear - second is that that article is actually misnamed. The stamp was issued for a special flight to promote airmail, and was sought by President Wilson.[121] "On March 1, 1918, the Post Office Department made an agreement with the War Department ‘to inaugurate an Aerial Mail Service between Washington, D.C., and New York beginning May 15th." Thus "political" - " On March 1, 1918, the Post Office Department made an agreement with the War Department ‘to inaugurate an Aerial Mail Service between Washington, D.C., and New York beginning May 15th." The stamp was issued on May 13th - having been designed and printed also on political grounds. The pilots were chosen specifically on the basis of political contacts. Wilson bought the first stamp issued. And the "invert" may have been deliberately sold to a person with political connections. Sorry - can not tough that article with a ten foot poll (sic?).

The broader issue is that my edits on BLPs are not "poor" as some aver - and I find that absurd claim to be quite disheartening indeed. The problem is that some folks who disliked my strong positions on such (that allegations very rarely belong in any BLP, and that opinions must be cited and ascribed as such to the person expressing them) - which had absolutely nothing whatsoever with my personal point of view, but a hell of a lot with their personal points of view - use the principle of "wind and water erosion" to eliminate other editors, rather than accepting that maybe they simply do not really understand the Wikipedia policies, which are intended to allow what we write today to still make sense a hundred years from now. Wikipedia has far too much "useless information" tossed at readers, instead of dealing with the most salient information, neutrally presented, and staying away from the "silly season" stuff which perniciously invades far too many articles.

And of course the principle that "harassing folks I do not like is fine" which also pervades the project. This is an endemic poison, and related to the "we can erode the person by attacking him often enough - we can concentrate on the 10% of the time we were right and he was wrong, and no one will note the 90% of the time that we were the ones who were wrong."

By the way, note that the "topic ban" is for a minimum of 18 months, and that the 1RR is perpetual as far as the apparent wording of the sanctions go, and the first ever saying "we will not accept the absolute requirements of a policy to be used by this person ever". Some appear to aver that if a person added "George Gnarph deliberately poisoned 20,000 people at Madison Square Garden CHEERS!" to a BLP that I could not remove it.

As far as I can tell, this is the longest such sanction ever given out, and the broadest - even (according to some) including Denali because the mountain bore the name of a politician! It covers all of American history - which covers even such issues as the Tariffs of the nineteenth century, religion in the US and so on. Almost all US postage stamps, as I noted, are "political" if you really have someone "anonymously" scanning my every edit.

And I note you do not address an IP saying he would be "tickled pink" to have a relative of mine die - which I find to be a teensy bit more corrosive on Wikipedia that my saying that listing people making "connections" for them was SYNTH (noting that my position was, in fact, borne out at the AfD). And those who yelled the loudest that I was "crying BLP"? They were wrong at the AfD, and remain wrong. But it seems iterating accusations weighs more heavily than fact, just as enough water poured onto granite will erode it. Collect (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of "Booking Photo" in a BLP INFOBOX!

I fail to see how any editor can remotely justify using a person's "booking photo" clearly labeled as such - in the infobox of a BLP! But that is how a few editors regard the policy -- if one finds an evil person, post their "booking photo" in the infobox and make sure everyone sees "Booking Photo" as well. Collect (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ummm... you did not notice how no one is advocating that and everyone is trying to fix it? Thank you for catching the caption, I have removed that. If you can move files maybe you can change the file name to something other than Sheena_Mugshot.jpg maybe Ma_Anand_Sheela.jpg. Possibly even delete the old version with the booking placard. If you think there should be no picture please comment at BLP/N instead of whatever this is. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Crap... I didn't think. I am really sorry. Jbh^Talk 14:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

NP -- I think you see my frustration here - there are thousands of equally bad violations on Wikipedia at the very least - and note the editors who opined (more-or-less) "this photo is fine and dandy here with the nice big 'Booking Photo' caption (and the fact the person looks like a corpse in a mortuary photograph)" on the BLP talk page and at BLP/N. Collect (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I do understand your desire to clean up BLP violations. It needs to be done and you are very good at identifying them. Where the problem comes up (Not saying in this case) is where you try to force your view of policy over the community's. I have mentioned this before and there is no need to go into it again so I will leave it at that. Jbh^Talk 19:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"It looks fine to me.", "Basically, she got away with (attempted) murder" are how some editors appear to view this. Thankfully the infobox photo is now removed - but when folks repeatedly accuse me of "crying BLP" I suggest they ought not say using a booking photo in an infobox looks fine in any sense at all. If that is "crying BLP" then lock me up for sure. Collect (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about the "It looks fine to me" comment at BLPN you have taken it way out of context. I was seeing the old picture in the article even though I had replaced it with a cropped version. I had said "what is showing up in the article is some combination of the old picture with the new picture's aspect ratio."[122] and MrX replied "It looks fine to me. You probably need to clear your browser cache and possible purge the WP cache." [123]. This was a comment on a technical problem with what I was seeing in my browser and not a comment on the BLP issue. Jbh^Talk 19:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Which of you two deleted the image then? Speak up - don't be shy here. If a person sees a BLP violation - what does the policy say to do? The image which "looks fine" is, curiously enough, the "mugshot" used improperly. Really? Collect (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

And... here we go. You can read the discussion and see what was said about how to address the issue or you can make shit up to conform to your view of reality. The thing I love about Wikis is that everything is recorded and it is very easy to document when someone tries to take something out of context or tries to subtly reframe a comment to 'win' an discussion other than the one they originally were having.(Much like you just did rather than admit you had taken MrX's comment out of context)

We stand at a crossroads if one direction we can have a civil conversation where we may have vastly different opinions but can deal with each other honestly and maybe come to a better understanding of each others viewpoints on how to interpret and apply Wikipedia's rules. The other is a rehash of old behaviors which are demonstrably destructive. The choice is yours. Jbh^Talk 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear me - tangent time again. If a page "looks fine" with a likely BLP issue, the problem is that the page is not actually "fine." And I note you no longer assert that the really clear consensus at an AfD is somehow errant. Collect (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It was not the page that looked fine. I uploaded a cropped version of the photo to get rid of the 'mugshot' look. When I tried to display it after uploading I was still getting the old version showing up on my browser. Since I have not uploaded a 'new version' of a picture before I thought I had done something wrong so I stopped what I was doing and asked for help, describing what I was seeing. MrX said what he was seeing was OK ie he was seeing the new picture ie 'it looked fine' meaning I had not screwed up the upload or done something else stupid.

This exchange, which I very much doubt anyone else misread, was used, by you, on your talk page to say something else entirely. Does it make sense to you why people get annoyed when you take out of context edits and display them on your talk page as part of some personal campaign. Do you understand that when you take things out of context you are misrepresenting the words of another human being? Do you understand that is wrong and is exactly the kind of thing you say you are trying to remove as BLP violations? These are not rhetorical questions I am interested in your response. Fully 50% of my conflict with you revolves around this issue which I see as misrepresentation and Maybe you do not see it as such but, like most social interactions, it is the perception of others that matters in such cases. If we can address that issue it would go a long way towards resolving out differences, at lease from my perspective, and maybe differences with others as well. I know there are other issues and other bad actors that I can do nothing about but partial solutions can help.

AfD?? huh? If you are talking about PNAC I stated at the end of the AfD that I felt the argument of POVFORK was reasonable and while I could see how some saw SYNTH (Although not the SYNTH you were arguing) but I did not agree with it. That was and is my view on that topic. I have avoided it since and have no desire to rehash it here. Neither of our opinions are likely to change and no good can come of derailing what might be a productive conversation here and now. Jbh^Talk 21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The "new version" had "Booking Photo" clearly showing - that is a problem, but you appear not to have noticed it. And I suggest you read WP:SYNTH to see precisely its use in any BLP article is a problem as well. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to state that "person A is connected to group B" and "group B is connected to Group C" therefore a table can "show" (imply by SYNTH) that "person A is linked to Group C". Is that clear enough at this point? Nor did I see posts saying "this is SYNTH" but what Collect noted was not SYNTH, even though the end result is exactly the same" either. Collect (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I didn't notice the infobox caption mea culpa. I thanked you and removed the text when you pointed it out. That, however, is not what the discussion at BLPN was about nor was it what the exchange between MrX and I, which you copied here without attribution, was about. The issue brought up at BLPN was the photo itself and that is what the discussion was about.

Would you care to comment on the issue of posting other people's edits, out of context and without attribution or notification. If you do not feel it is wrong would you please tell me why you do not think it is wrong particularly when people have told you repeatedly that they find it offensive? It seems to me that you are unconcerned about other Wikipedia editor's moral rights to their words. I am really trying to understand where you are coming from on this issue.

I am not going to engage on the PNAC/SYNTH issue. That would be resurrecting a long dead horse and I refuse to bring about a Zombie Apocalypse. :)

Jbh^Talk 22:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If I wish to comment on a person, then I attribute the quote to that person. Where I am commenting on a general problem on Wikipedia I see no reason to inject personalities into a discussion. You might note that I have not been critical of you personally - but that I do find the rampant use of "attacking the living person by catenating items" to be violative of the spirit of not seeking to harm anyone. In a few cases, some editors have, indeed, tried to make sure a living person "basically got away with (attempted) murder" is far outside the ambit of editors who are trying to produce a neutrally aimed encyclopedia article. By the way, I suggest if you show that poor photo to 100 people, 101 will say it is a mugshot. Collect (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I can understand and in general can accept that idea. What I hope you can see is that in many cases the people whose words you use to illustrate a point or people who were also in the discussion see those quotes and can identify who said them. This can be a major problem if the point you are making, or more specificly the point you are representing the statement as making, is not what the person who wrote them intended or you fail to capture some nuance or context that changes the meaning of what was written. Most people, me included, would consider that situation a misrepresentation and since we are in an environment with a copyright notice on every edit screen a violation of their moral rights. Do you see where I am coming from on this. (I do want to make it very clear that I do not see any personal attack coming from you and I apologize if you consider anything I have said an attack such is not my intention. My goal was and is to have a frank discussion about a some if the issues I have been a part of or witnessed. I hope from this that we each can come to see the others viewpoint on this particular matter and from that both adjust our perceptions and behavior to decrease some of the tension in this whole drama. I know it is only a piece of the overall conflict, that you have problems with other editors' behavior and it is not just you doing stuff people dislike but it is a small thread I can pull on that might derail the downhill rush this situation has been on for the last few months. Then again I might just be an idealistic busybody with delusions of diplomacy but eh. :)

Re the photo. Yes I think you are right. I figured I would try to clean it up but it really did not work well. The picture is out of the article and no one is pushing to put it back in. Since the original was uploaded as non-free media it should be deleted unless it gets moved to Commons as public domain - see the BLPN thread. (I can not comprehend Commons' deletion policies nor can I understand their ideas of what is worthwhile.) Jbh^Talk 23:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright notices on every edit screen? Comments on talk pages are not generally considered "copyrighted" as a rule, and Wikipedia's "warning" ("Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted.") refers to quoting copyrighted works sans proper attribution - our own words are thus not the issue. Collect (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was not talking literal copyright infringement. What I was trying to get at is that this is a site where we are constantly reminded that people have rights to their words and to the original meaning of their words when they were written. Every day we decide whether to quote, paraphrase or use our own words. Editors here should be acutely aware of the value others put on their own words and should not lightly take liberties with them. To disassociate a quote from its author, particularly when some of those who are going to read it can identify or might be the original author is a moral wrong that I would think any Wikipedia editor would be sensitive to. To then use that same quote to imply or illustrate something not intended by the original author is, in my opinion, reprehensible because it makes those who read it and who can still identify the author think the author meant something that they in fact did not. Do you see?

To bring it back to the concrete your quote of 'looks fine' and identification of the discussion makes the author of that quote as MrX trivial. To say, as you did, that that quote supported the inclusion of the mugshot in the article is the same as saying 'MrX supported the use of a mugshot in an article' that is a completely false and disparaging statement. You took an out of context comment, posted it on your talk page, and not only misrepresented its meaning but, through that misrepresentation, slandered one of your long time opponents. Maybe you do not see that as the case, I hope not, but that is how I see it. I do not believe my view is unreasonable or even likely a minority view. I have raised this issue before and I hope I have been able to explain it properly this time. The TL;DR of all this is quoting people out of context to 'illustrate points' generally pisses them off and any Wikipedia editor should know you do not quote out of context. Jbh^Talk 00:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Intersection on numbers of pages - theoretical issues

Subtracting all projectspace pages (noticeboards may skew values of intersections as they cover a great many topics)

Editor A and Editor B "intersect" on, say, 140 pages. For editor A this is over 22% of all the pages he has ever edited. For editor B, it is 2.3% of all pages he has ever edited.

An editor C who has had a substantial number of interactions has, say, 30 interactions excluding projectspace - about 1% of all that editor's pages, and this amounts to .5% of B's pages. More to the point, editors A and C intersect a total of 10 times - or trivial percentages for either.

Query - is the number of times editor A just happens to edit a page previously edited by editor B (a very large majority of the actual intersections) an indication that editor B is somehow "attracting" editor A - or is it possible that editor A is, alas, following editor B? In theory only, of course. Collect (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The only way to answer the question is to look at actual editor interactions and time between interactions. You must then check for whether it is the first edit which is close together - this is the only kind of 'following' which could be considered stalking which is what you are talking about with your 'theoretical issue'. If it is not then it is possible that both editors had the article on their watchlists. You would also need to see of the article was being discussed where both editors were likely to notice it like at a noticeboard. If there are a lot of close interactions where the 'stalker' edited an article for the first time in close proximity to the 'stalked', and the article is not being discussed at a noticeboard, then you have a great case for harassment and stalking and should take it to ANI. If not all you have is meaningless numbers. Jbh^Talk 01:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that several people are quite aware of this editor - and for some reason just tell me to ignore a person who stalks me. Alas right now we can see how much faith I have in that system <g>. If a stalker routinely tells others how evil one is, one might note that as being interesting, no? Collect (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to take a wild guess that you might be referring to someone who has posed as an IP editor at AE, but who may perhaps actually have an active registered Wikipedia account. If that's the case, my advice would be to draw no attention to it here, but after your block is over, file a request at WP:SPI, requesting Checkuser, under the named account's name. If, on the other hand, my guess is incorrect (which won't be the first time I will have made an error), then I suggest waiting until your block is over and raising it publicly at ANI. But please do not do any of this unless you have good evidence to back it up. As for that evidence, I think that a key factor (and this gets directly to what you asked here) is whether or not there is a pattern of the other editor showing up just after you were at a page first. In other words, the chronology (who is first and who second) and timing (the time between you and the other editor) are important. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Kindly posit that I am "first mover" in the vast majority of the pages involved, and that I have been told that SPI would be useless (as I recall "vast majority" may be a bit of an understatement in the case at hand). I am half tempted to produce a great wall of text showing that my positions on BLP has been upheld in a huge majority of BLPs on which I have edited - including my position that labeling folks by religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual considerations, ideology etc. is generally a really bad idea - and that we should generally use "self-identification" for living persons, and that this has been my consistent position for many years now. Also read User:Collect/BLP to see how one editor viewed BLP in the past - as something to make sure people see how evil the persons are. On the other hand, if you find merit in the other editor's positions and rationales, please tell me so we might have a colloquy. Collect (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived

The Collect and others arbitration clarification request, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Poring over 40K+ edits ....

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

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

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

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

I have now spent several full days on the preliminary stuff -- but so far not a single arbitrator has acknowledged the evidence I sent in months ago. Where no one reads anything, it is likely they will read anything in the future - or is it a matter of "our minds are made up ahead of time - don't bother us with facts"? ANEW complaints? In one case: My conclusion is thus that this is not a blockable offense, and Collect apparently acted in good faith, In another "both editors blocked" despite the fact the 3+RR was not on my part at all, and the BLP issue was later proven at AfD to be correctly raised, [124] notes that repeatedly removing fucking from a BLP where the problem had already been shown to be a BLP issue was not improper on my part, and so on. Collect (talk)

Please comment on Talk:Shaun King (activist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shaun King (activist). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Two Things

First, no apology is in order about spelling. It appears that you may have left the space out of my name. That is trivial. Even if you actually misspelled it, that is trivial, although I have always reserved the right to complain about spelling. It is trivial because the name has been misspelled for two centuries. The correct spelling is MacLennan in Scotland or McLennan in Ireland, but my great-great-great-grandfather was illiterate, and so the spelling was done by a New York State clerk who was probably English-American and knew little of the spelling of names elsewhere in the British Isles. No apology required. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Second, the Murder of Anni Dewani, which you have recently began editing, illustrates why DRN moderators cannot always be neutral. In particular, moderators cannot be neutral on BLP policy, and we know that Shrien Dewani is a living person and was acquitted of the crime. For history, moderated dispute resolution was attempted, and I couldn't be neutral on BLP policy or on reliable source policy. I eventually had to fail the moderation because the editors resumed edit-warring as soon as the article came off page-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. My background on BLP is pretty clear - even if ArbCom has officially ruled my record "poor" on exceedingly weak evidence :(. Moderators, of course, ought not be "neutral" on well-defined policy issues, but should not be seen as having any "editorial opinions." And my editing of the article was a single attempt to actually bring the article in accord with policy - and this is one article where "add all the information one can find" is precisely the worst solution IMO. Too many editors shout "more is better" even where it is clear that such a mode is a major problem on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ali Khamenei

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ali Khamenei. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wallace

I did a bit of rework. Whats the readability index now/where do you check it? Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you know what vocational confluence is, please enlighten me, it is bugging me now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

See [125] which gives you an easy way to check readability of articles <g>. And I would have to be fully enlightened to define the term "vocational confluence" as it does not appear to have a definition. [126] is the only book found by Google using the term ... Collect (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well meditate long enough and the answer might arise, Regards! Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP help request

Would you please give your opinion on some requests made by the subject of a BLP at Rick Alan Ross. It is part of the Scientology DS so I do not know if you want to get tangled up in it but I thought you opinion would be helpful and maybe you can bring a perspective on the issue we are missing. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 13:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Commented - a person is a "reliable source" for his own written statements per SPS - seems the simplest course of action. I knew John Campbell, and so would not touch the topic with a ten foot pole. Collect (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for taking a look. I completely understand not wanting to get involved in the topic. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 15:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

proofreaders needed?

[127]

PG&E officials say nobody opened the damn up and the water simply ran out.

And not that rare since we have spill checkers and not proofreaders and factcheckers for reliable sources ... Collect (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maurice Cloud

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maurice Cloud. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey

I've been an occasional editor and I think I was away when this ban stuff happened, but it looks like a ludicrous railroad job. You're one of the best editors I've seen on Wikipedia and this place is better off the more active you are. My condolences on your personal struggles, and screw the dickless IP trolls. That the losers bother to go so far out of their way to stalk and harass you like that just underscores what a huge positive impact you've had. VictorD7 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe the fact I am a "target" indicates that I have value <g>. Collect (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rudolf Hess

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rudolf Hess. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Violation of your topic ban, again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These edits[128][129] to a discussion of Kevin McCarthy (California politician) on Jimbo's talk page violate your topic ban of "making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace".  I won't bother with an AE request, but will leave it to talk page stalkers to decide whether to act on your consistent and unrepentant boundary-testing.  2600:1000:B003:7F86:1B03:6F18:857E:A7FF (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(I did block Collect for breach of his topic ban a few months ago, but) I have absolutely no interest in dubious "gotchas" from IPs. Log into your account if you expect to be taken seriously. Bishonen | talk 14:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

My edits did not in any what whatsoever deal with any US political issue nor personage, and this sort of harassment gets old really fast. This sock who clearly does not wish to actually show who he or she really is, is the lowest form of life on Earth, in my opinion. Collect (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Collect. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Your revert on Gary Cooper

When a contributor takes the trouble to research five solid book references - including one from Gary Cooper's wife acknowledging the relationship with Lawler, and then it is reverted TWICE with the claim that the addition is UNSOURCED: ie trashing the hard work of others and then making a false claim to justify doing so -- that's trolling by any measure. And what other reason than homophobia would you give for it? Whim, perhaps? You were wrong to revert because (a) the contriuction was a worthwhile addition to the article and (b) you justified his behaviour by doing so. You should have left it and talked to me first. This is why good contributors leave Wikipedia. Engleham (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh: and I'd appreciate -- having spent much time researching the addition -- you doing me the courtesy of reverting your revert. Engleham (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that I state what I found in examining the sources given on the talk page of the biography, which is where the discussion ought to be. And as I noted, calling any editor "homophobic" is not wise under any circumstances. When one finds what might be a copyright violation or plagiarism, by the way, it is proper for one to remove it rather than let it fester. And asking me to undo the removal of what may well be a violation of Wikipedia policy is unlikely to sway me in this matter. Collect (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gordon Grant (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fantasia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Piers Gav

Hi Collect. You removed a sic in the Piers Gaveston article. Fair point on the long S, but the main problem with their motto was it doesn't appear to be correct Latin re. dilixisse vs. dilexisse. Where we present a translation, albeit by a normally reliable source, that doesn't add a sic, shouldn't we add one in the absence of a reliable source that's similarly Latin-anal? [Full disclosure, my current Latin skills are limited to Googling]. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. "Sic" is very rarely an appropriate item to use - it is only used to indicate that a specific error is in a source and is not the fault of the person using it now. Often one sees it used for a spelling error in a transcript of a spoken word - and it is invariably wrong in those cases as one might get an implication that the speaker made an error, and not the person transcribing the spoken word. [130] supports "dilixisse" as the "perfect active infinitive "of "diligo" ("to love") and Wiktionary[131] chooses "dilexisse" as the "perfect active infinitive" of "diligo". In short - no actual error as far as I can tell here. Collect (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks for sorting that out. Bromley86 (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deaths in 2015

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deaths in 2015. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this "plagiarism"?

Talk:Paul Theodore Arlt demonstrates what appears to be specific and deliberate plagiarism - using a Washington Post source in the first place, grabbing more than 150 words from it, and then not citing it at all. [132] is the initial edit for that article. There is a pattern here over several articles from the single editor. Collect (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: An admin has officially called this section an "aspersion." IIRC, Jimbo has stated that plagiarism can not be tolerated on Wikipedia, which is a much bigger "aspersion."

Plagiarism is extremely unethical and absolutely grounds for dismissal from the project. We should reject it with every fiber of our being.

But neither does that mean we should tolerate or condone destructive and unethical attitudes towards scholarship.

Plagiarism is never the right thing to do.

Plagiarism is a form of lying, of pretending, of fraud upon the reader.

It is the moral crime of pretending that someone else's work is your own which amounts to plagiarism.

And so on - all verba Jimbonis. Collect (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

compare

Nine Mile Portage with [133] Nine Mile Portage Heritage Trail

This recreation trail is based on an ancient overland route created by the early aboriginal people of our area. One of the oldest known European records of the route appears on a 1688 map by Italian Vincenzo Coronelli labelled as 'Portage de dix Lieuel'. This portage came to be known as the 'Nine Mile Portage' by the British Military, which employed it strategically during the War of 1812. After the war, use continued until the first roads and the railway were established. The old portage then fell into disuse and eventually the land was sold to settlers as the concessions were developed. But it was never completely forgotten.

Opened in 2003, the initial route mainly follows sidewalks and roadways. In time, it is intended to develop the Trail to follow the original historic route as closely as possible. At all times, regardless of the stage of development, the rights of private property owners must be strictly observed. No right-of-way exists along most of the historic route of the Nine Mile Portage.

This web page is compiled through the efforts of the Nine Mile Portage Working Group, composed of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, Friends of Historical Fort Willow, Township of Springwater, Simcoe County Trails, Simcoe County Historical Association and the Rotary Club of Barrie, who generously sponsored trail signs, granite markers and interpretive signage, and granite benches. Special mention to Keith Bacon for his supplied reseach and resources.

This article does at least cite the page it so fulsomely borrows from. Collect (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bachman-Wilson House with (inter alia) The NYT [134]

The front façade of concrete blocks has an almost fortress-like appearance to ensure privacy from the street. The house is built with Way-Lite concrete blocks and Philippine mahogany trim. It has a second story, rare in a Usonian house, with cantilevered balconies. The living room has a built-in banquette facing a wooded scene through a wall of 10 foot high glass panes, symbolizing a transcendental pew set before the altar of nature.

The public space is a dramatic focal point, with walls of glass and an open floor plan. Cut-out wooden panels of abstracted forms over 24 clerestory windows provide an unobtrusive yet restrained decorative touch to this lavish space. These recall Native American geometric motifs as well as stylized forms that may be based in nature. Construction was completed in 1956.

At the Bachman-Wilson House, for example, the front facade of concrete blocks has an almost fortresslike appearance to ensure privacy from the street.

Built with concrete blocks and Philippine mahogany, it has a second story, rare in a Usonian house, with two bedrooms and cantilevered balconies.

The public space is a dramatic focal point, with walls of glass and an open floor plan. Cut-out wooden panels of abstracted forms over 24 clerestory windows provide an unobtrusive yet restrained decorative touch to this lavish space. These recall Native American geometric motifs as well as stylized forms that may be based in nature.

Note the minor similarities in wording? The NYT is listed as an also-see type of article - but not used as a reference, even though the borrowing is clear.Collect (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

These are copyvio instances. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CCI is thataway ---> Talk page polemics accomplish nothing. If you think it is a big deal open a CCI if not why post about it? Jbh^Talk 18:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

But, of course, ordinarily one doesn't just jump to CCI or other action without validating that others see the same issue. ??Polemics?? Not so much. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See these two threads [135] [136] over on Bish's talk page where this seems to have initially kicked off and was already discussed. Jbh^Talk 18:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The second one (FLW house) is not related to that editor. And note - the brouhaha came about precisely because I followed the process for reporting copyright issues -- and then was accused wrongly of having it in for an editor. Did you not notice my post at CCI? BTW, do you have any idea what the backlog is there? Try on the order of multiple years <g>. Collect (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I seldom look at CCI, I saw this brew up on Bishonen's talk page. The best thing is to fix what you find, report it to where it should be reported or tag it for other editors to deal with. All of the effort spent on talk page posting could have been used to clean up the problem and would have generated much less drama.

Wikipedia has processes, imperfect - some near pointless - they may be. It is better to use them or work around the dysfunction than to engage in point-making on talk pages. - Free advice, worth about half what you paid for it. Cheers. PS - hope all is well with you and yours. Jbh^Talk 21:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, you raised the issue of going to CCI. I had, in fact, done so ab initio. The problem arose when the editor who was specifically automatically notified of the CCI listing argued that I must have made it up in some way just to get at him. If you have never read Jimbo's positions on plagiarism - try reading them. My "aspersions" are vastly gentler. Collect (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I said nothing about aspersions. If you raised it at CCI and nothing was done - then nothing was done. If you still feel strongly about it then AN/ANI would be the next step. Everyone who has been on Wikipedia for more than a moment and everyone who ever wrote a paper at uni gets that plagiarism is bad. You do not need to convince anyone - I hope! - of that. The only way to get it removed is to a) do it your self b) tag it for someone else to do c) engage Wikipedia's processes to clean it up and/or block the culprit. None of that can happen on your talk page. How do you expect a thread on your talk page will fix the problem? It passes a bit of non-productive time but how does it address the problem? Jbh^Talk 21:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you forgot - I have stalkers who assert that almost any edit I make which can remotely be connected to any political topic is something to waste hours of my time at AE for. I even had one complain about me mentioning Corbyn and Cameron in the UK, for God's sake! In short if I do anything at all, someone will post anonymously demanding I be blocked for whatever trivial reason they can think of to waste hours of my time as a bare minimum. Is this clear at all? Now how the hell do you expect me to "do it myself" when the reason why I damn well can not is on this page in the first place? Really? Now I ask -- how the hell does your post alleviate the problem? Really? Collect (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Charles S. Strong at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles Stoddard (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Charles Stoddard (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 15:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anna Politkovskaya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anna Politkovskaya. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Draco

I didn't know that the word draconian was derived from Draco (lawgiver). Thanks for that. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

My fault <g> - I have a semi-eidetic memory for quite useless information. Collect (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sisu 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

for lurkers:

Cinderella was a notorious crier - tears by the gallon.

Thus becoming the very first Grimm weaper.

Credo

Those who hold a position here because of what they "know to be the truth" are precisely analogous to those who favour or oppose any "truth" in the first place. Rather, we should divorce this from what we "know" or "believe" or "believe we know" and stick strictly to the precept that people should not be categorized for their beliefs except on the basis of categories they place themselves in by stating their own self-categorization. Else we are as bad as any who label folks on the basis of beliefs as "heretics" or "witches" or any other category susceptible of "guilt by association" tactics. I, for one, have always opposed "guilt by association" arguments on Wikipedia and in real life, and if I be the only one left in the world holding that personal belief, if I be the only one in the world in my self-identification in the category of "do not classify people because they differ from you in religion or any other belief at all" then I proudly assert my position in that category. Collect (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On guilt by association, which is a logical fallacy, it brings to mind the words of Professor Leslie, who taught me English Constitutional History many many years ago. :

"Birds of a feather

Flock together

And so do pigs and swine.

Rats and mice shall have their choice,

And so I shall have mine."

There is a right to associate (or not). And tied to that is the free exchange of ideas in this forum. These concepts ought not to be infringed here.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Art Critic

Started of by saying the artist had the nose of Picasso ...

... and feet of Klee.

Clever--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

	We couldn't have done it without you
	Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good. Celebrate. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW

Removing an imaginary "article" from a dab page which is absolutely not in any way "US Politics related" is not an edit to a "US Politics related page" except to perhaps a stalker who has nothing better to do than do his dardenest to harass me. Collect (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Full Service (book)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources question

I'm writing to you as someone very knowledgeable in reliable sources issues. I may bring this up at the noticeboard but I'd like some input from you on how best to do it, plus am looking for a second opinion to see if my point is valid.

If you could take a few seconds and listen to a clip at: this source

I'll try to make it as easy as possible: scroll down to item 7, then fast forward to 1:40, I'm interested in the phrase at 1:43.

The text states that he says "hundreds of thousands".

I heard "hundreds or thousands".

If you hear the same thing I hear, what is the proper next step? On the one hand we have a source which appears to qualify as a reliable source and there is no question that the text in the source claims a commentator referred to "hundreds of thousands" of scientists.

I think the answer is that we need another reliable source disputing the transcript and possibly an admission by Media Matters that they got it wrong. I don't think we can ask a number of editors to listen to the clip and take a vote, but I'm troubled that we had a BLP citing this claim. While it has been removed, it was removed on the basis that the source was not a reliable source and I don't think that will stand up, so it may get restored. I don't think the proper issue is whether Media Matters is reliable, but what to do if they make an obvious mistake.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I also hear "hundreds or thousands" and note the sites stressing the "of" are all making fun of a black commentator who is on Fox. Best solution is to see if he routinely uses either phrase and Google is our friend - Murdock routinely uses "hundreds or thousands" as a phrase, and does not use "hundreds of thousands" with regard to numbers of debaters. [137]] shows precisely where the original quote was made (Senate Minority Report):

The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK)

In short - the misheard "hundreds of thousands" is a natural transcription error for a person hoping to hear "of" - and is all-too-common where an official transcript is not provided. See Mondegreen Collect (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As I have noted elsewhere - "official transcripts" are far better than any video as a source, or any source relying on its own version of the video. I have listened through entire BBC programme presented as a "source" only to discover the programme did not remotely support the claim made for it. Collect (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you - good advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Because it takes guts to stand up for what you believe... instead of following the crowd! MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 23:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

New adage for the day:

A marathon is not won at the starting line, but at the finish line. So in life, where one starts is far less important than where one ends up as a person, and if that means standing up for what one believes, then one shall have won the race.

WT:RFA on admin stats

"A solution! Let admins block a dummy account"

Have you ever seen User:ThisIsaTest? Someone created a dummy account for testing, and wow does it have a long block log. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Voila! (Yes - I had heard of it - but it is an elegant solution to the problem posed <g>) Collect (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

On this day

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

I leave when the pub closes

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

Aside not related to the comment

And each of us here should remember that the conflicts here on Wikipedia are less than nothing when stood against the sacrifices that created the world that allows us our little dramas. Jbh^Talk 14:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fawaz Gerges

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fawaz Gerges. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Your voter guide

Hello. When I transclude your voter guide (and the others) into a single page (to facilitate reading and comparisons), the resulting page becomes a member of the [[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 voter guides]]. To correct that, the Category in your page should be protected by a pair of <noinclude>...</noinclude>. In the Main space, I would have done that by myself. In your Userspace, I think it is polite to ask your permission. Pldx1 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malala Yousafzai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malala Yousafzai. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Charles S. Strong

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mariah Carey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ivo Andrić

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ivo Andrić. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Alleged Copyvio

Hi Collect, would you mind explaining how you concluded that the material you removed here is copyvio? The link you provided in the edit summary isn't helping me figure out what/where the text is supposed to have been copied from, it appears to show a bunch of links that the tool found as unlikely matches, and unless I'm missing something it doesn't list a match for the text you removed at all. Thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The text I removed was "After his editor suggested he write a picture book for younger readers, McBratney began working with illustrator Anita Jeram on Guess How Much I Love You, which was first published by Walker Books in 1994. The book became popular quickly, selling more than 150 thousand copies within four months of its publication. By September 1995, it had sold more than a million copies worldwide. Popular as a gift for new parents, weddings, and other special occasions, the book has become a modern classic and sales have continued to climb. It is frequently listed among the most popular and best selling children's books of all time."

Compare with results for Luton Today as a "2013 review" http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/local/sam-s-bedtime-story-soaring-still-1-6628692:

After his editor suggested he write a picture-book for younger readers, Sam began working with illustrator Anita Jeram on Guess How Much I Love You, which was first published by Walker Books in 1994. The book became popular quickly, selling more than 150 thousand copies within four months of its publication and by September 1995 it had sold more than a million.

Bolding indicates substantially identical wording. The likely alternative is that the Luton review plagiarized Wikipedia, in which event I assuredly apologize as I have found far too many examples of copyright violations the other way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Baker (racing driver), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARCA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015

Hi Collect. Now it's over, while we're waiting for the results I can now expand on some of the thoughts I expressed during the campaign. Whether you supported or opposed my candidacy is of course entirely up to you - important is that you participated in the process. I would just like to put two concerns of yours in perspective. If one looks very closely, one will see that the questioners got the answers they deserve; there is no need to kowtow to them to get their vote. Whether or not I am offered a seat on the Committee is immaterial - I'm not sure I ever wanted to stand in the first place. If I am elected, I will concern myself with the day-to-day work of the Committee. If not, I will seek to bring about reforms of the electoral process, mainly focusing on the need for questions and voter guides to be at least objective and kept free of gender related and other socio-political barnstorming. I will be looking to you for support, and once again, thank you for taking part in this year's ACE. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked only at the answers to the uniform questions I asked - and my grading was based on my comments on my ACE page. With best wishes to all, Collect (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words

I want to thank you for your kind words. I am sorry that you had to endure a similar scrape with an unscrupulous user. Best wishes! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times vaunted accuracy and fact-checking

http://www.imediaethics.org/nytimes-admits-not-fact-checking-errors-in-mario-vargas-llosa-review/ 7 Sep 2015

The Aug. 23 editor’s note reads: “An earlier version of this review, in discussing Mario Vargas Llosa’s relationship with Isabel Preysler, stated that Vargas Llosa announced the relationship on a Twitter account and that he sold related photographs and an ‘exclusive’ story to Hola!, a popular Spanish magazine, for a large amount of money. After the review was published, Vargas Llosa contacted The Times to say that none of these assertions were true. “In reviewing this complaint, editors determined that the reviewer had based his account of these matters mostly on information from an article about Vargas Llosa in The Daily Mail, but neither the reviewer nor editors independently verified those statements. Using such information is at odds with The Times’s journalistic standards, and it should not have been included in the review.”

What is nice is this article states:

The false claims came from the Daily Mail, but the Times didn’t attribute or credit the Mail, according to the Washington Post‘s Erik Wemple. “The piece, as originally published, never credited the Daily Mail for the details,” Wemple reported. “It merely stated them as fact.”

In short - the incorrect claims were plain and simple plagiarism by the writer at the NYT - who simply "borrowed" them from the Daily Mail

O tempora O mores

Collect (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Edmund Janniger

Hello Collect! Thanks for your involvement with the Edmund Janniger article. I do hope the article does not get deleted because of dormant accounts that reappeared for the AfD debate. Cachets687 (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

And to all who read this page as well -- the best of all Christmases and holiday seasons ever - and a wonderful New Year! Collect (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

		Happy Christmas!
		Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

And the same assuredly for you! Collect (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!!

Happy Holidays Collect, I hope you like this Wiki-bauble I made and the fireworks to celebrate the holiday season. It is people like you that make Wikipedia great . Mi very best wishes for 2016!! --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind words indeed! And my very best wishes for you and your family this holiday season and for many to come. Collect (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

"The mountain has laboured ... " Collect (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Collect!

Happy New Year!

Collect,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

And to you as well! Akemashite omedetou! to the dweller of the mountain forest Collect (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Cosby

Lol Peter Damian (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

List of ministers of the Universal Life Church

I reverted your removals. I think you need to discuss them on the talk page first. So far as I can tell, they're all legit. I know the book is - I've read it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting - I assume you know that Ashmore's work is self-published, and nndb.com is deprecated as a source for anything at all, etc.? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charli XCX

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charli XCX. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Universal Life Church, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Um -- do you really, really think in your wildest imagination that an article on a "church" should be essentially the church's own website description of itself? Really? Collect (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No I do not, but you're removing sourced material. Some of it could simply be reworded. Some does need removal, yes. Some need better sources. It's not perfect. But then what article is? --Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Using a church website for extensive and precisely quoted material is WP:SPS territory. Then you removed the IRS material which was absolutely and precisely cited! Might you explain? Collect (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will re-add the IRS material. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion - Don't forget to check out the templates used for citations over at WP:CITECONSENSUS. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

And note that I have actually done a fair number of edits on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I am curious as to which policy says a non-admin can remove a speedy tag. Thanks. :-) Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Here is a discussion of this in the context of a real article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see the instructions included in Template:db, the template used to nominate pages for speedy deletion. Any editor other than the creator of the page can remove a speedy deletion template if they either feel the page doesn't meet the criteria of the template or if they have fixed or intend to fix the problem. The corresponding policy is found at WP:Speedy. General Ization ^Talk 20:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Bryan Cranston

Hello, Collect. You have new messages at Talk:Bryan Cranston#Sourcing a claim.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Danczuk

Apparently you and I have been warned. See also. — Strongjam (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder who this 20-edit person actually is. Seems awfully interested in this single BLP, alas. Collect (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the Edmund Janniger article. Thanks. Cachets687 (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Protecting biographies on Wikipedia

		The BLP Barnstar
		I've long admired your responses on the noticeboards and dedication to BLP issues. Thanks for making wikipedia a better place! Darouet (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Darouet Thank you most sincerely! Though at times the battles may be lost, I trust the war to make Wikipedia actually follow up on its promises in its policies will eventually be won.

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Harold Holt

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harold Holt. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Holt

I own a copy of the authoritative, definitive biography of Holt by a highly reputable biographer, which covers his life in detail and contains numerous references to Gillespie, the most relevant bits of which I have reproduced on the talk page. It says rather a lot that in your every interaction you adamantly ignore the definitive biography of the man and instead quote a much shorter article from an American magazine so that you can push some fantastical conspiracy theory (notably, not one his biographer takes seriously enough to mention, or that I have even ever heard of before) and have the bizarre gall to try and claim it's a RS issue. (As other people have mentioned, it's even got more backing in Holt's wife's memoirs than the bizarre line you're pushing. There are plenty of ways Holt's well-documented relationship with Holt could be described, many of which are superior to the oversimplified text that started this, but your obsession with conspiracy theories is absurd and your determination to ignore any other source than that magazine article so you can obsess upon them needs to stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The rule is: If you cite a source for a claim and the source does not support the claim, it is not allowed. This is not a "conspiracy theory" on my part, it is simply policy. The source provided, Smithsonian Magazine, was the source for the "fake death" theory and rumours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

List of ministers of the Universal Life Church

Just a quick note. Please don't remove correct references from the list. But thank you for your help with fighting vandals and the cleanup you have done. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Only noted that the "source" is published by ... the Universal Life Church. And no one defended it at RS/N. Collect (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Still a source. Still reliable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest WP:SPS shows why its reliability for people who are not self-identified with ULC might be an issue. Ashmore, himself, is self-identified as part of ULC, etc. but a lot of "famous people" are not identified except by ULC. (" it does not involve claims about third parties;" is what a self-published source 'may' be used for) Simple. Else any organization claiming to be (fictitious group) "Knights of Philip" could claim dozens of dead people as members. ULC claiming the US' most-famous atheist as an "ordained minister" is likely pushing things, etc. Collect (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Supports, Opposes, Consensus, and other broken things.

IIRC - I've disagreed with you here and there, but I did want to note something. Throughout the crat-chat discussions, I often found myself nodding in agreement, and thinking "what he said" while reading some of your posts. There were times that I struggled with how to express my thoughts, and found that you managed to convey them.

Rather than clog up your "Thanks notification", I thought I'd express my appreciation for your positive contributions to a difficult/divisive/ground-breaking/potentially frustrating(?) series of events and discussions in person.

Thanks, — Ched :  ?  20:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I would point out that it is through disagreement that we learn, and thus I would be absolutely aghast to find anyone I always agreed with, or who always agreed with me. All I ask is that folks understand that I do not keep (and have never kept) "enemies lists" of any sort, nor do I edit with any "point of view" other than trying to make something which will be regarded as properly stated in the next century. I do my best to express what I think is right as much as possible. Sometimes I have been accused of misdeeds, but I hope that a fair reading a century from now will show I was right as much as anyone can hope to be on many topics here. With best regards, Collect (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I hope you won't mind if I pull up a chair here also, as I want to respond to your comment here but do not want to continue discussion at an expired venue. What I'd like to ask is: how should bureaucrats assess or weigh the strength of a bare support? Do we do it based on the voter themselves? If we do, isn't that considering some voters more equal than others? Should a bare support from an administrator carry more weight than a bare support from a non-administrator? Perhaps a bare support early in the nomination (before reasoned opposition) would carry less weight than a bare support at the end (when opposition has already mounted). Presumably the later voter reviewed the opposition and still supports the candidacy. Is such a presumption safe? What about the earlier bare support-can we assume they've kept along with the debate and still support the candidacy? -they weren't at all eloquent in their support statement. How do we know their bare support wasn't a "Why not?" vote cast before all the reasons-why-not were fleshed out and they haven't had the opportunity to revisit the RfA and realize the error of their vote (that there were indeed well-founded reasons why not)? Does any of this shed light on why I feel bare supports do not assist in the consensus building at RfA? [Please note this is all hypothetical, not referring to any particular participant in the recent candidacy. I rather like your remark above about "learning through disagreement".] –xeno^talk 01:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I really do not claim I know the perfect solution (nor do I think anyone here has such hubris). In the case of a vote of "support", it is reasonable to assume it means "the person did not find a reason to oppose" and to ask people to come up with nicely unique reasons for support is not really all that logical. Historically, the vast majority of "supports" were without individually expressed rationales, and so it is likely that this was discussed in the past at some point.

Clearly in a community where "the mop" is officially "no big deal" it would cause an uproar indeed to assign greater weight to the vote of an administrator with (say) 5,000 article edits over the weight for an editor with 100,000 article edits. So we can mark that idea off pretty quickly.

More likely would be to start off by discounting votes from editors with under (say) 1,000 mainspace edits as being less likely to understand the nuances of the policies being discussed. We should likely also underweigh votes of editors who are voting either out of "we have too many admins" (clearly invalid with regard to the individual candidate as a reason), on the one hand, as being basically a vote against the process in the first place, and some who do not present any sign that they are concerned about any area in which the candidate is likely to be involved as an administrator.

Concerns about deletion criteria, strength of BLP and other policies, understanding of the various areas of interaction on Wikipedia etc. are generally concerns of general validity.

Concerns about personality and the like are of far more interesting connotations in general - I think it would take a few thousand words to sort out what should and what should not be weighed heavily. Which types of personality issues would you weigh most heavily? I know as an editor that plagiarism, especially where the person suggests that it is "not important" is a strong issue, and that I would weigh that quite heavily.

I do fear that I regard "ritual self-flagellation" is, at best, a meaningless exercise, and, at worst, sometimes aimed at quite the wrong person. Wikipedia does not lend itself to such theological positions very well at all.

"If I Were King of the Forest" <g>, I do not know exactly what I would do about this - but it is important to discuss it in any event. Perhaps we should have a "+100 supports" rule rather than "an oppose is worth two supports"? I do know the RfA election system is one which no other society on earth uses, as far as I can tell <g>. And I also suggest "Polish up the handle on the big front door" might be how future candidates deal with this outré tradition of Wikipedia, rather than actually be willing to make opinions known to anyone at all. In any event - a short start to what you asked for, I trust. Your view? Collect (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"There isn't any magic, but your no is still stronger than your yes, and distrust is where I put my faith." –xeno^talk 02:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've met a few authors (Asimov, Pohl, Gernsback etc.) but not Elkin. He might have been interesting to talk with. For myself, Socrates works well enough - can you imagine how he would have viewed a person who had no questions? Collect (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) OK - unless Collect minds his page being filled with walls of text: I'll opine.
• First a few of the easy ones: Should Crats give weight to "who" ... absolutely not. With one caveat: When Arbs who stood in judgment opine - I think that does have to be considered.
• In general: I think that "support" is a default (at least for me), simply because I feel that those extra buttons should not be sequestered. We're all here to build a knowledge-base, the more tools one has, the easier it is to work. Now the kicker here for me is that if you've had the tools, and you've had them forceably removed - then the burden is on the requester to show that they have undergone a change which negates prior behavior.
• The whole "they discounted my vote" thing was utter bullshit. If their votes were discounted, there never would have been a crat chat.
• One thing to keep in mind: The crats are subjected to a much higher standard than any single position - and that includes Arbcom and those who get positions on the board at the WMF. You folks were selected because you listen, you're objective, you're fair, and you're always looking to the community for input. The community cries out for transpa.rency, and yet when you put every thought out there of how your reached a decision - you get "how dare you" posts. I think it's human nature to search for faults - don't let the nature that makes you who you are that we trust, become a cauldron of self-doubt.

• NOW - regarding the issue of "grudges" ... that's a huge issue that this project is going to have to deal with - and I'm more than willing to voice my thoughts on that. But perhaps that's a different thread to be had. — Ched :  ?  03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to opine - the faux Voltaire quote holds true here (you can read any of my essays to see my general opinions). I disagree that Arbs who had "judged" a person should then be given any greater weight in any election or discussion - they are absolutely as fallible as anyone else (some even more so <g>), and to argue that they somehow are superior or that their opinions are superior, I find to be somewhat problematic. In fact, I would suggest that anyone who has participated in any "formal decision" about anything should not comment further than to note the decision. Arbitrators are very much a "political election" on Wikipedia, and have, to me, the same intrinsic believability that MPs or Senators have. This would change if we had people chosen on the basis of being formally trained as arbitrators, but I find no sign of any such training as a rule.

Now - your opinions on grudges, "enemies lists", and the abhorrent (IMHO) practice of any editor invariably being in disagreement on massive numbers of issues whenever a specific editor opines - and where that editor has not done the equivalent (even genially agreeing with that person when warranted)? Collect (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Allow me to muddy the waters for all involved. Which is a "stronger" vote, saying "per nom" only, or my vote [138] in a different and ongoing RFA, where I've taken the time to explain in detail my opinion. Tread carefully.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually and historically, the primary direct and implicit "reason for support" is "no reason found to oppose" - the "per nom" bit is pretty meaningless as a rule. Wikipedia has in the past decided that "oppose" votes in such an election do require some sort of rationale.

As I noted above, this is the exact reverse of XfD where the "argument for deletion" must be given as "no consensus" defaults to "keep." Here "no consensus" defaults to "not elected." Your "support" at an RfA, IMO, is more a comment on another editor's rationale than it is an explanation of your own position. It has nothing which would not have been of equal actual value had you posted it under "comments" or even on the RfA talk page. Or, indeed, been posted as a comment to Cunard's vote or to any comments he might make in the later comments section or on the RfA talk page.

I would note that I find Cunard's vote to be a tad excessive in length - the nature of his objections could have been given in four sentences at most, with the "uncut version" given in the following comments section or on the talk page. Collect (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I see it differently, but before I explain, I'm genuinely interested in what xeno (and others) has to say. Because it is an example outside the Hawkeye case, I think it might offer some insight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"It" being what? the length (excessive) of Cunard's rationale (IMO) or the use of a "support" vote to engage in a singular colloquy with another person who is not engaging you in a conversation on the topic? Do you really feel it was more important to discuss Cunard's rationale in your "support" vote than it would be to place it in "general comments" or as a short reply to his "oppose"? In such a case, I respectfully demur. Collect (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Briefly, I would agree that a support that says "I have reviewed oppose reason x but still support the candidate because (reasons)" is stronger than a bare support. (I'm kinda busy today but I do want to get back to the other points being made in this discussion.) –xeno^talk 15:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

When it gets to be way more than a bare mention of the other person's vote - it becomes "discussion" IMO <g>. Collect (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Speaking as the person that cast the vote and who closes a fair amount of discussions: It is a qualified support with instructions to the candidate, so if it was in the discretion zone, it would be considered a slightly weak support. There is hesitation in the vote, and the hesitation is explained more than the supporting factors. It says "I thought about opposing and agree with the opposer that this is a concern, but decided to not use that as a reason, and otherwise the person simply meets the basic criteria for admin." And Collect, I didn't reply to Cunard because I wasn't trying to persuade or debate with him nor was I asking for clarification. I was stating his rationale formed the basis of my weak support, just as a couple below me used my rationale as the basis for their supports and at least used my support as the rationale for their oppose. ie: they are just barely on the other side of the fence but agree on the particulars. At close, I would expect the Crats to see those votes as somewhat tepid support, similar to "per nom" or "why not", although they add to the discussion, where as the two word votes do not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, what I probably should have said is such a comment lends itself to weighting (either to the strong or the weak) easier than a bare support, which provides no guidance whatsoever. –xeno^talk 15:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I might be able to view a "very weak support" as being essentially "neutral" in case of a close decision - but the risk is that telling people that "strong support" makes their non-opposition into a "super vote" is something I would not wish on anyone. Nor would I count a "strong oppose" as being an especially strong vote in weight. What would happen is that tonnes of folks would add "strong" just to make sure they outshout others. Hence - maybe consider "weak" votes as being "discount this in case of a close call" but do not consider "strong" as being a super-value vote. Collect (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• having issues w/laptop and motel Wi-Fi. Back asap (Ched) 206.123.253.82 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russell Wilson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russell Wilson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: closing an RfC

It had already been closed by a bot, they just didn't put the tags and summary on. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Try reading WP:RfC -- the bot does not "close the RfC" - it simply removes the header at the end of a month. Your close is absolutely against policy - please undo it now. Collect (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You could have left the archive bot I added. As for the actual close - meh. Remove the tags, let someone else close it... or not. Next time please reply on my talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

From the top of my talk page, terms which you accepted when you left a message: Welcome to my talk page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please reply here. If you leave a message for me, I'll reply on your talk page. I'd much rather be editing than have to watch your talk page. Please leave your message in English, and please sign your comments with Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Please be logged in, messages from anonymous users will be deleted without comment. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:AGF. The ULC lists people as "ordained ministers" for which absolutely no other actual source is backing the claim up. I can start the "MeToo Church" and list Benjamin Franklin as an "ordained minister" in it - and I trust you would find that a "reliable source" for the claim? By the way the snarky "leave your comments in English" is not going to impress any of the hundreds of talk page followers here one whit. Or wit. Collect (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You are stalking me

I indicated this before. Now I ask you to stop. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Frankly your Scientology-related edits are making me all too worried that you might possibly in some way have some sort of COI yourself. Now shut the eff up on this page Clear? You are absolutely unwelcome here. Your edits about living persons are egregious and full of ... POV. Fare thee well. And note the number of edits I make -- if I were stalking you, there would be some sort of sign - but since I find mentions of BLPs on many pages (including BLP/N, COI/N and a bunch of other places), it is rather more likely that I find them quite nicely on my own. And that is actually the fact. Collect (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

For readers: I had the nerve to add one cite where he noted that a citation was needed. [139] I removed a claim that since he had a connection, however tenuous, to Margaret Singer that material deprecatory to her thus belonged in his BLP. For some weird reason, it looked like about as clear cut a "guilt by association" claim as ever made in any BLP. If the source does not mention Wollersheim at all (not even en passant) in its 288 pages, it should not be used in his BLP. Right? Collect (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

De mortuis nil nisi bonum

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

Quotation of the day. 9 February 2016

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cher

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cher. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wouldja believe ---

[140] edit summary If only the rest of Wikipedia took this course. Maybe one day. For now, we'll stick with the conventional format

To justify calling Henry Gibson, whose children are known by the last name "Gibson" ...

James Bateman in bold as the first words of his biography? Noting this is not done for any other person I can find who was widely known as a "stage name" whose children also bore the 'stage name" as their last name in their Wikipedia article! BTW, this "James Bateman" is not even on the dab page!

It takes all kinds, I suppose ... Collect (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Did he change his legal name to Henry Gibson? According to the article, this was his stage name. Of course, you are welcome to prove me wrong. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually -- you deleted the stage name link in the lead, if you noticed.

And most people would regard:

They had three sons - Jonathan David Gibson, an executive at Universal Pictures, Charles Alexander Gibson, a director and visual effects supervisor, and James Gibson, a screenwriter.

As indicating that his family used the name "Gibson". You are, of course, free to prove that claim wrong. You would, alas, have to prove the Los Angeles Times [141] and other news articles wrong as well. Care to try? If the children use the name "Gibson" do you not agree that using "Bateman" as the surname is ... um ... ludicrous at best? Collect (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A fine observation indeed, but according to the New York Times, his real name has always remained James Bateman. See article talk page for link. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

And the fact is that you have not given even a single example of a person only known for their stage name -- having a different name at the start of the article for which no redirect even exists on Wikipedia and where their own children use the stage name as a surname. None! At this point you have a very severe case of WP:IDHT I fear, so go off and find some actual Wikipedia examples which follow your claims. Then we can discourse. Collect (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Malibu land records: "Henry Gibson." US Social Security records: "Henry Gibson." Malibu uses for "James Bateman": none. Social Security records for him as "James Bateman": none. Case for him not using "Henry Gibson" as his legal name? None. Collect (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars marketing run amok

ecigs at Darth Vaper

major stores at Darth Maul

Dating service at Luke Shywalker

Tanning salon at Obi Wan Kenobi

So far no suggestions for the female characters ...

Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes#rfc_C79C105|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany...

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of ministers of the Universal Life Church page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross

The content of the Rick Alan Ross article is now the subject of a Dispute Resolution notice.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand - you could simply accept the fact that your personal views do not have WP:CONSENSUS for that BLP, of course. And you could have notified me when you posted at DR which is what you were supposed to do at the outset. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Question

about this. What is actually important to you? (i am really asking) Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I strongly suspect all the current "discussions" will have no actual impact on what the WMF legally "has" to do. I do know that we can not expect any real Executive Director to follow "commands" from the herd of cats comprising Wikipedia <g>. Some of the material bandied within Wikipedia has nothing to do with the legitimate decision-making process necessary for any actual Board of Directors. They may well have made outrageous mistakes, but we do not have any reason to believe the cat herd would not have made equivalent mistakes either. I specifically find some who write in a tabloidish manner about the real issues are actually serving neither the WMF nor Wikipedia in the long run. You will note my earlier concerns in the Doc James discussions that the "elections" for community representatives on the board should actually be elections rather than "choose any three from this list" suggestions.

Wikipedia should aim, rather, at actually following its own policies strongly, and getting rid of any groups which seem adore the scent of blood more than writing an encyclopedia suitable for long-term use by those who do not need an absolutely complete list of Pokémon figures.

The concern of WMF must be to make the foundation financially viable in the long-term, which includes as a strong secondary aim the growth of Wikipedia usage as a primary center for students and others seeking specific factual information. (I find the "surveys" in the past could have been written by any high school senior <g> and thus, IMO only, were a substantial waste of effort.)

So to get to your question: What is important for Wikipedia is to actually deal with writing a long-term stable and factual encyclopedia, and end the frequent short-term personality-driven contretemps so evidently present. What is important for WMF is financial stability, concomitant with promoting the goals of Wikipedia (here I note I am using "Wikipedia" where I might well state "all Wikimedia projects, of course).

Now tell me where you differ - and we can have actual discourse instead of the name-calling so often found <g> Collect (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. (the pokeman thing made me laugh) My question was authentic and I am always happy to try to talk - ( was the one who reached out and asked you what you meant, right? I just really wanted to understand where you were coming from. I hear you on what is important for WP and for WMF, yes. I don't know that I would agree that goal 2 for WP (ending the long term interpersonal disputes) is top priority and am not sure it is even possible (it would be great, for sure, though), but other than that I agree with the broad ideas you lay out there, sure.

A lot of what I have been concerned about and discussing on Jimbo's page, is keeping the WMF and WP in sync. How the WMF invests in technology matters to us, I think - it affects us. I won't presume you have been following what I've been saying there, but I am really unhappy with the disparity between what Doc James and the board have been saying about why he was dismissed. I respect Doc James and am ready to believe his claims that the ED/board were making significant plans for technology without talking to us about that - and the steadfast refusal by the board and ED to clearly disclose what the plans have been, only adds to my willingness to believe what he has said. I have been asking Jimmy to work toward a joint statement with James, and have been asking both Jimmy and Lila for a disclosure of what has gone on, so I don't have to "believe" anything - so we all have the story that makes sense (hopefully to parties on all sides).

How do you feel/think about all that? Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(from actual experience) Often, only one or two board members actually know the details - often the others are given "executive summaries" which (at their best) cover all the salient issues, and (at their worst) basically are "cover your ass" documents which are designed to say as little as possible. We have no way of finding out which case applies with the WMF, and we are unlikely ever to find out. By the way, I would be amazed if Mr. Wales ever saw the detailed documents, but he likely saw a "summary" only. Collect (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I hear that yes. Do you see the concern about the WMF making big tech plans without talking to us, or do you think it is out of line somehow? Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(Actually thinking about this) Jytdog People on Wikipedia are likely not to understand the long-term needs and goals of the foundation - so I doubt the WMF will open up its internal discussions to the community here. What would be nice, though, is for "surveys" to actually deal with specific suggestions instead of being treated as data to be quantified, and then ignored :) A number of editors here would have technical and editorial input of actual value for the WMF - the problem is that "consensus suggestions" are (as a rule) wertlos. The only way for it to work, I think, would be for the WMF to, on its own, seek out the editors here who have the most concrete suggestions, to have them expand on their suggestions bearing in mind the value of the idea to the long-term goals of the WMF, the relative costs and benefits, etc. What absolutely will never work is for the "community" to "elect" an interlocutory board, as it would likely end up somewhat less functional than the existing "ArbCom." Does this make sense? Collect (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

(sorry, this is kind of long, but we are getting to the heart of the matter) Thanks for the preface! Working backward - I have been thinking about some kind of "interlocutory" thing set up by the community to be some sort of body to deal with the WMF and I have a hard time seeing that work, on a bunch of levels. I hear that. I think we might need something new though. I'm thinking about it. More on that below.

The middle stuff about the WMF not being very responsive to what some editors say they want, software-wise (I hear that a lot) - the failure of their current process to create what we need (this talk interface!), and the suggestion of a better way forward. I hear that. I think the latter happens, informally, and some people in the community are very involved with the WMF, on the technical side and admin side. (Like User:WhatamIdoing, a longtime WP:MED editor, has been working a lot on liaison activities related to VisualEditor, as a WMF employee or contractor) (total aside - do you use VE? Do you think VE is important to WP? I don't use it, but I think I understand why it is important)

Now to the bigger picture - the wants and needs thing. I agree that lots of people in the editing community probably don't understand much about the WMF at all, much less its hardware and software needs and goals. I only started becoming more aware of it when Doc James got kicked off the board. I don't know if you knew much about him before he ran, but he has done amazing things outside of his editing (which is prodigious) to get medical content to the public. He even set up a nonprofit affiliate to do things like pay for translation of health content into languages in the developing world, has been advocating for better software for mobile reading, and even brings that to his editing, where he manually fixes articles to make them more translatable and more useful on a mobile). I explored the world of the WMF a bunch since he got thrown off the board, and it has been... eye-opening. To be frank there is a still a lot of stuff I don't understand. (Did you know that they actually hold "office hours" for us, where you can tell them what kind of software you would want or ask other questions? Amazing. See here. I learned about these office hours while I was reading some team notes and they were saying "We are trying to talk to the community and even held office hours, but no one - no one - came" - which was just so strange to me. They hold these office hours over on meta and using IRC, which baffles me. Bubbles (mine and theirs) not touching - at all.)

Does the editing community understand the needs of goals of WMF? I don't think so - not much. You mentioned "needs" and "goals". "Needs" is always an interesting word - it signifies literal life-and-death stuff (I need water), to things essential for doing something you have chosen to do (I need to take a shower so i can get to work), to desires (I need that Bugatti). The "goals" thing is even more interesting. I do think the WMF and the editing community share a goal with regard to putting out the encyclopedia, we need each other and are aligned when it comes to that. What are its goals and what does it think it needs to realize them? That is kind of the crux of things.

The WMF as an organization has (like every entity) a goal of surviving - and to survive one adapts, and there are pressures on the WMF now (what Lila called "existential threats") that are leading the WMF to consider adapting in ways that have little to nothing to do with the encyclopedia. (making wikipedia.org a portal through which to find knowledge) WMF has limited resources. So - should the WMF spend money on stuff to keep itself relevant, and to do whatever it can to make more and more knowledge available to the public, or should it invest its resources in making WP (its past and current flagship) better (easier to edit, easier to talk to people, available in new ways to the public, etc). (I used "should" there on purpose b/c it is a crappy word. ) What is the "right" balance and who "should" decide?

Those are kind of bullshitty questions because the reality is that the WMF will do whatever it likes (it does have to be aware of its good name so it can attract donations and grants, of course. That is life-and-death). But it is not accountable to the editing community outside of hand-wavy and useless "should" stuff. (Some editors think it "should" be accountable) What I think is that if editors who care about this want to influence the board, they need to create some new way to advocate better at the WMF. I am not sure how many people care nor what percentage of active editors they are, and what the most effective vehicle for that advocacy would be. But I am starting to think that for some part of the editing community, some kind of "interlocutory body" is going to have to be created, that will speak for itself (I don't think we could set it up so that it could in any way speak for "the editing community")

So - do you care, and would you want to be involved in figuring that out? If your answer is no, I would completely respect that.

That was a lot, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: Lots to ponder. Fortunately, the WMF has an official "statement of purpose" in its bylaws:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

In coordination with a network of individual volunteers and our independent movement organizations, including recognized Chapters, Thematic Organizations, User Groups, and Partners, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.

It does not say that individual projects can not "make a profit" at all, and the term "Partners" basically can mean whatever the WMF board wishes it to mean <g>. It does say the end-users will not be charged. And "educational content" is a sufficiently broad area as to encompass whatever the board thinks might be in any way "educational." In short - the WMF could print the equivalent of the NYT and sell ads - as long as it does not charge the actual readers for the information contained therein. And the bylaws say that any Trustee may be removed for any reason at all - or even for no reason at all.

So much for any "community power" that may be asserted. What would be needed is a "Public Encyclopedia Editors Union" of some sort as an "Interlocutory Group" - but herding cats is something I had to do for a very long time, and I think it unlikely to be easier now <g>. The word "Wiki" in any form can not be part of such a group, and (as editors do not get paid) its ability to negotiate with any other group would be circumscribed a great deal. Wikipedia is not even named as a core responsibility in the bylaws of the WMF as such - meaning the leverage of the community is that of a flea trying to move an elephant with a 1mm lever. Collect (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that is all clear. I am hearing all that.

I want to go back, if I may, to something you wrote in your initial response - namely "getting rid of any groups which seem adore the scent of blood more than writing an encyclopedia ". Would you say more about that? Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have not seen some editors who seem far more interested in being "against" editors not in their group, clique, position area, or however one wishes to describe such behaviour of editors whose opinions seem to be based substantially on the premise of automatic opposition to some specific editors, and agreement with some specific editors on an automatic basis, rather then dealing objectively with policies and guidelines, then you have been remarkably blessed. IMHO, questions about policy and guidelines should stand on their own merits, not on the basis of getting brownie points by attacking other editors. Ever see anything similar? Collect (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

sure i have seen it - up close and personal, as there is a little gang of jytdog-haters.  :) but it seems to me that "getting rid" of folks who are here for the dramah is nigh onto as-impossible-as herding cats to form some kind of editors union. How do you see getting rid of them? Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

One easy method would be to actually disconnect comments from the person posting the comments - which sounds absolutely weird <g> but which would mean we could finally remove "editor identity commentary" from general talk page posts and discussions. Article edits would, of course, have to be identifiable as to who made the edits, but RfC comments which would finally and truly be divorced from comments about specific editors holding specific opinions. This means going well past the weak concept of "no personal attacks" into "no personal asides about any editors". Just as Step One. Collect (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly radical! You mean doing something like having a randomized key generated for every edit (in any space) and that key is what would show in your signature, so nobody would know who was saying or doing what? Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Only for spaces with signed comments - the edits in article space would still have "real editor" attached for legal reasons. As for "coding" - yes, I knew Whitfield Diffie many years ago. Collect (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

super interesting. i don't know if you need to forgo it for article space. the key would be somewhere, and the license is valid as soon as "i" click save. good-faith talk discussions become wierd... two people can't know they are talking to each other in any normal sense to try to reach consensus and those kinds of things do happen all the time in the good way... but i guess folks ~could~ get used to even usernames going away in Talk (it's already anonymous). But the thing I can't reckon is that the problem that SOCK tries to solve, becomes unsolveable, no? Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

SOCK deals with people trying to pretend that they are "multiple people" - by basically removing the ability of people to do that, the SOCK issue becomes a tad moot <g>. What will count is the policies invoked and determination of whether the policies apply or do not apply in a given case - and who the people are who invoke the policy should have nothing at all to do with whether the policy actually applies. You will see who edits the actual articles, and determination of consensus may be more interesting - but already in too many cases "consensus" represents "groups" of one sort or another finding out who has a majority from article to article or issue to issue. Perhaps the weighing of the policy arguments would need "outside parties" to judge, but that would likely be an improvement over the current system. It would certainly mean a person who pretends to be 8 different people would gain naught advantage - and when they see they gain nothing by using socks, that problem would diminish. I think using "pending changes" would work well with this "radical" (as you term it) concept. Collect (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm... but good closers look at the number of arguments along the lines of X when they weigh consensus (strength of arguments and whether the strong arguments are being found compelling by multiple people - this is the heart of the whole consensus principle. There are often multiple good arguments. I am still thinking about this. For sure. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I might not be as sanguine as you are about a plenitude of "good closers" alas. Collect (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cos Cob, Connecticut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Irving

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Irving. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Mediation

You were added. ::VM stacking?, read last comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Vladimir_Putin#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediation SaintAviator lets talk 00:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Vladimir Putin". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Murder of Anni Dewani

The post to Jimbo Wales's talk page is sockpuppetry by topic-banned user Lane99. I have reported the IP (which is not an unregistered editor but a topic-ban evader.) There is also a request for a formal site-ban for Lane99 for persistent sockpuppetry about this topic. When you said to take it to the other talk page, by which you presumably mean the article talk page, I partly disagree. The puppeteer shouldn't take it anywhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the "new for IPs" Jimbo page <g> as I am fully aware of the Lane99 nonsense (I !voted for the siteban). Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The request for the site-ban (by me) was archived without closure but with consensus for the site-ban. I have requested a closure at WP:AN. So you are saying that what is new is Lane99 using IP sockpuppets rather than throwaway accounts. As you know, I have stated that there was no real judicial finding that the murder was for hire. South African criminal law is common law, not civil law, and real judicial findings are only made in adversarial cases. (Civil law courts may conduct their own investigation. Common law courts rely on adversarial proceedings.) A confession doesn't result in a judicial finding. The only adversarial proceeding was S. v. Dewani, and it resulted in judicial findings that the case against Mr. Dewani wasn't there, because it was all based on the conflicting testimony of lying criminals. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

<g> Read my edits and posts thereon - we are on the same wavelength though I am a tad stricter on removing the BLP violations that some might be. I have no doubts at all that this IP is Lane99, if that is your question. Collect (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

We are saying the same thing. At this point the BLP violation is that Lane99 keeps insisting that this was a murder for hire, and, since he says nothing about a search for the mystery arranger, he is implying that an acquitted person is guilty. (If it was a murder for hire, we don't know who hired them, because we do know that one person didn't. But it wasn't a murder for hire, because that was the claim made by lying criminals, and it isn't a BLP violation to describe them as lying criminals.) Retrial isn't going to happen, either in this case or with O.J. Simpson. The difference is that the case against Simpson was stronger than this case, in fact good enough for a civil verdict. The case against Dewani fell apart under review by Dewani's counsel and by the judge. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: WP:BLP - you might note the "interesting edits" at Edward Furlong by IPs <g>. Collect (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning proposal and straw poll

This is to make you aware of this discussion regarding the "royal family" content dispute at Peyton Manning, where you recently edited or commented on the talk page. Your participation to resolve the matter would be welcome. Tracescoops (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Anticommunist killings in Argentina

If the killings in Argentina where not anticommunist in nature then surely all the sources supporting the articles on Operation Condor, Dirty War and the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance would therefore be total fabrications, no? 86.178.165.10 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The source given does not support any claim that this met the requirements set forth in the topic sentence. And the fact that "other articles exist" is considered a very weak argument. Collect (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Pointing out that there are series of sourced articles on the project documenting a US instigated programme of anticommunist murders in Argentina is a "weak argument"? The source given supported the claim that 30,000 murders occurred in Argentina over that time period. Must have been the tooth fairy. 86.178.165.10 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The source given did not support what you apparently "know to be the truth." Wikipedia, alas, requires strong reliable sources and not just what editors know to be the truth. Collect (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You read the telegraph article I linked in my previous comment where they directly mention that the actions in Argentina were performed on the basis of anticommunist action? You're totally not stonewalling Collect, are you? 86.178.163.99 (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The article furnished as a source did not directly support "deliberate killing of people because they were communists" - so you seem to be seeking to "right great wrongs". Collect (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peyton Manning

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peyton Manning. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Crabb

Hi, thanks for your edit on Talk:Stephen Crabb. I think you might have put your comment about the blog in the wrong place - I would also welcome your input on this editor claiming that a letter to a local paper is a WP:RS. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything on Wordpress is a "blog" by definition. And the petition site is also in the nature of a "blog" in that it invites people to write petitions. Neither site is under any "editorial control and oversight" by a reliable source publisher. And "letters to the editor" are almost invariably not usable except if the writer is notable in the field, and then only for his or her opinions sourced and cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peyton Manning

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peyton Manning. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sizer

Thanks for your interest in the article, I don't have much experience of BLP but I thought the allegation against him was rank unfairness. Where would I stand if other editors make a unilateral edit today as threatened? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Post at WP:AN/I asking admins to examine the acts of that other editor. Wikipedia has some major flaws, alas. Collect (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It makes the Battle of Bazentin Ridge feels like a birthday present....Keith-264 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency

[142] has an editor who has specifically opined "The Daily Mail has repeatedly (and properly) been ruled unreliable at RSN discussions", "No, the Daily Mail is not a good source for that material. That newspaper cannot be trusted in this context ", and (regarding me) "Repeatedly defends the Daily Mail as a reliable source." (although I specifically oppose using it for matters of "celebrity gossip" or "contentious claims about living persons" as that editor damn well knows). Also "Any editor with concerns about a specific use of the Daily Mail is encouraged to post that concern here, where there will inevitably be considerable support (and only a small minority of bizarre contrarian nonsense) for deleting any material that relies solely on such a dodgy source", "- it is difficult to imagine a situation in which it would be both possible and necessary to cite the Daily Mail." etc.

And that editor not only uses the Daily Mail for material about a living person - he even manages to have the Daily Mail say something it does not say (that the person's acts were indicative of anti-Semitism on his part).

2015 Sizer was censured by the Church and banned from using social media for six months after he promoted what some considered anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that implicated Israel in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Source:

Yesterday Bishop of Guildford the Right Reverend Andrew Watson said that the vicar’s campaigning on the Middle East was ‘no longer compatible with his ministry as a parish priest.’

The bishop declared: ‘I do not believe that his motives are anti-Semitic; but I have concluded that, at the very least, he has demonstrated appallingly poor judgment in the material he has chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic.

‘By associating with or promoting subject matter, which is either ambiguous in its motivation, or, worse still, openly racist, he has crossed a serious line. I regard these actions as indefensible.

The bishop set a series of conditions for Mr Sizer keeping his job.

They include a promise from the vicar to stop using social media entirely for six months, to stop writing and speaking about the Middle East and its history, and to stay away from conferences that promote an anti-Zionist agenda. He has also undertaken to stop writing or preaching anything on the subject, to avoid posting links to articles on the subject, and to prevent anyone else from speaking on his behalf on the matter.

The action was taken by a specific named bishop, does not assert a "ban" but rather a promise to stay away from "social media" and specifically does not assert anti-Semitism on the part of the living person involved.

But what the person say to me?

This is just for starters. I have to wonder why you are unable to see support for an assertion re anti-Semitism in these sources. Perhaps you can alleviate some obvious concerns in that respect.

Seemingly quite snidely accusing me of supporting "anti-Semitism" of all the absurd concepts. So we have a person who hates the Daily Mail - using the Daily Mail, and actually substantively mis-using it! Then accusing a person who is absolutely not "anti-Semitic" of possibly being some sort of "sekrit anti-Semite" (how else can one parse "Perhaps you can alleviate some obvious concerns in that respect"?) Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Talking to air

You'll note that your comment now looks like you're talking to yourself. You can thank Smallbones for that feature. - 2001:558:1400:10:853D:41:6647:D240 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, by the way, for assuming some level of confrontational intent on your question to the guy asking about Romania. Upon re-reading your question, I was inferring too much based on my current mood, which wasn't fair to you at all. - 2001:558:1400:10:853D:41:6647:D240 (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited János Kis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Wyandanch, New York

Size matters? This is where it started, at over 315k. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor after my own heart <g>. Collect (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I even tried to get folks to cut down on a "British line of succession" list - to no avail at the time <g>. Why do editors think "longer is better" when it simply means adding trivia to articles? Collect (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, how about 10k on masturbation cut from an 80k biography on a Christian pioneer? A deletionist's wet dream... Drmies (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What about my long fights to keep editors from pointedly saying Jews have "dual loyalties" and labelling folks as "Jewish" as often as possible? Even now if you follow my spoor you will find me trying to make sure that articles do not make claims which are not even in the "sources" given. Sigh - I am getting too old for this -- some of those warriors had some folks convinced I do not understand or follow WP:BLP but their own edits betray them <g>. Including examples of outright plagiarism, and complete falsification of sources (it helps that I can muddle through some other languages for sure). Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh you deserve a medal--but you can't beat (off) 10k on masturbation and you know it. Best, Drmies (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL ... no - but who could? Collect (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Wikipedia:Main Page history/2016 March 27, with thanks for your ARCA statement and the elucidation on my talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And all best wishes for the season to you as well! Collect (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Close of RfC

Your notice to my Talk page of your questions concerning RfC close procedures. The RfC was closed on the basis of a prevailing consensus of multiple editors who were not in agreement with your position. RfCs are not evaluated as "votes" as you call them. In this case multiple editors made reasoned arguments defending their point and forming a consensus. You may follow the instructions at the top of the page for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure as shown in item 3 listed there concerning re-evaluations. If you prefer then you could also have the option of starting a WP:DRN concerning your edits since there is currently no open RfC on the Talk page of the article you have been editing. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Might I ask about your experience in closing RfCs? You stated a clear consensus which seems, in my experience of well over 40K+ edits, not to be a consensus, and failed to note whatsoever the policy issues raised in the RfC at all. Is it usual in your experience to have a non-admin with under 800 edits and under four months experience to close a contested RfC as a "clear consensus" when others do not see such a consensus, and to not even mention policy issues which were raised in the RfC? Would Softlavender agree with your close, for instance? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to file a DRN if you prefer. The RfC close was based on reviewing the participating comments and on a reading of the article as well and the close also mentioned that "fringe" aspects of the material which were discussed in the body of the article. There is no reason for you not to submit your disputation for WP:DRN and elaborate your concerns there. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Only four months here and you are a Wikilawyer First Class - usually non-admins will self-revert their close when someone finds the close contentious, alas. I really ask you not to force a DRN on this one. Collect (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Fountains-of-Paris, you should not be closing any RfCs, period. Do not do that again. If in the future you attempt to close any RfC, I will add that to the growing list of disruptive and incompetent editing you have done over the past four months, and report you to an adminstrators' noticeboard. See my final warning on your talk page. I advise you to revert your close as requested by Collect, who is one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia. If you do not self-revert, this will not go to WP:DRN, it will go to WP:ANI and the probably outcome, given your continued disruption, will be a block from editing, possibly indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Hi, Collect. Thank you for your helpful edits on the Michael Laucke regarding British English. If you have completed that task, please mark it as done in the GA Review Toolbox section. As nominator, this would be very helpful to me in keeping track of what is done and what is not done. You can also mark tasks as partially done, or make comments directly.

You might be interested to know that Natalie.Desautels who launched the Laucke article is a native French Canadian, albeit a polyglot, who chooses to write in American English on the English Wikipedia.

Please continue with your constructive editing; I need all the help I can get Write back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vladimir Putin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• amp;nbsp;— Юйжхх, Ярпсйрспю, Мнбнярх, Тхмюмяш|publisher=Quote.ru|accessdate=2 March 2010}}</ref>) In 2012, Putin reported an income of 3.6 million rubles ($113,000).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Jolly

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Jolly. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hazal Kaya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hazal Kaya. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

BLP question

I am fielding a question at OTRS from the subject of an article: Charles Cohen.

As you might guess, he is troubled by the last sentence in the lead. On the one hand, the sentence is supported by what I believe to be a reliable source. On the other hand, he has been charged not convicted. We do not simply remove negative information simply because the subject requests it. However, information such as this but not to be included simply because it might be factually true. I'm sure you have dealt with dozens of similar example so looking for your insight and advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep - issues are clear. First of all, the apparent lead appears to be almost the entire article. Second the person is, AFAICT, not "primarily known" for the alleged crime. Third, we are relying for a single source for the large amount of detail used. Fourth, the only text after this ("Methods") seems to be from a single source. Fifth, the charges appear to be the usual ones found in "police sting operations" which are occasionally found to be overzealous. In short - IMHO, a fine mess. Might you agree on this? Collect (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sphilbrick After some thought, I cut the BLP down a hair, and removed what was, in fact, an inaccurate wording of the charges which was not called for under WP:BLP while retaining the actual nature of the event. If the charges get dismissed, I would certainly suggest that the incident be removed. I consider police sting operations to begin with the premise that "anyone found is guilty", and juries frequently demur (I had a cousin once caught in one - and his lawyer got the charges dismissed, so I tend to be cautious about having Wikipedia make statements of "fact" which implicitly include a conclusion of guilt.) Collect (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Other concerns see techdirt article

Sex stings have become especially rich sources for seizures, since almost every man arrested is accused of traveling to seduce, solicit, or entice a child to commit a sexual act…even though no real children are ever involved in the stings. However, the accusations are felonies, meaning law enforcement can seize suspect's vehicles, making it extremely difficult for them to ever get them back without paying thousands of dollars – or more - in cash to the arresting agency.

For example, in one January 2014 sting where the Clearwater Police Department (CPD) and Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) arrested 35 men in a single weekend, CPD seized 19 cars as their own under Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act.

In short - caution in such cases where the person has no specific notability as a "predator" is warranted, in my considered opinion. Collect (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your in-depth review of this issue. Picking up on your second point, a question whether the sentence belongs in the lead. I wonder whether it belongs at all but I’m concerned I might have a biased view. I haven’t yet come up with a good section heading — none of the existing sections make sense, but I’m leaning toward coming up with an appropriate section heading and moving it down. That will still leave it in the article but with less prominence. I agree with your third and fourth points, but not sure where to go with that observation. Regarding the fifth point, this is something outside my expertise but you point sounds plausible.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I did make a move, but I also removed the phrase "sexual predator". While that might be a reasonable inference from the article, the term was never used. I felt such a strong term required stronger sourcing than exists.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

And I agree with your position here. Thank you. Collect (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laura Branigan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Branigan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erwin Mortier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erwin Mortier. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erfurt massacre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erfurt massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Manuel Fal Conde

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Manuel Fal Conde. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gary Cooper". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 May 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

heads up!

Note CANVASS and Stalking problems User_talk:Writegeist#Collect.27s_Laws "Don't forget to record a Support or Oppose to the move at the relevant talk page. Yes, I have been gone for years, made the mistake of socking to try to avoid wikistalking editors (inter alia). Now I know it's better just to face them head on. Live and learn. Ratel (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)" Collect (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Also User_talk:Engleham#Gary_Cooper where two editors seem to act in direct collusion. Collect (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

From Talk:Gary Cooper RfC. Collect (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Your second law, "The person who is most insistent on specific sources is least likely to have found the best sources.", is left standing on its own, without any supporting text in the article body. Would you like to add a section to elaborate on your rationale for that? wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No real need - I think the pudding has been proved :) Collect (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think making that essay about laws is a bit problematic. It seems to me there's a more specific point being made with 'insisting on specific sources' that relates more to "reliable" sources and neutral point-of-view that is getting too far afield from the core concept of "repetition". That "proof technique" can be used to assert flawed arguments in many aspects of editing policy, just one of which is choice of sources. I'd like to remove that "law", and as there are multiple "laws' attributed to you, just show the one law pertinent to this essay, and call it "Collect's law of repetition". I think it should be OK to limit your name to just the quote box, and use the more general terms "Repetition in Argumentation", "proof by repetition", "Bellman's proof" and "perseveration" for the essay title and throughout the body of the essay outside of the quote box. Is that OK? wbm1058 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous allegations

Tightening the Screws on Anonymous Sources

After two major front-page errors in a six-month period, Times editors are cracking down on the use of anonymous sources.

(First one was about using "criminal" with regard to the HRC email inquiry, the second about a claim that a terrorist has posted on social media before the crime)

The policy also requires any other use of anonymous sources to be approved by a desk head – for example, the ranking culture, metro or international editor – or that person’s immediate deputy. It also “underscores what has been our policy”: that an editor must know the identity of an unnamed source.

The New York Times is backing down from using "anonymous sources" to make contentious claims. Finally. Collect (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry?

Engleham was blocked once for sockpuppetry for just a few week. Are Grahamhigh and Portland29 possibly his sockpuppets? --George Ho (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you file an SPI - this is pretty blatantly not "genuine editors" for sure. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I opened the SPI page; the CheckUser could not confirm the users as sockpuppets. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You whine about stalking problems up page, yet here you are doing it YET AGAIN to me, desperate for something to harass me further with. Pathetic. And in vain. And worse, urging on Ho like he is your damaged dog. You like to paint yourself as the great champion of biographical truth. If that were actually true, instead of harassing me over trivial shit articles, you'd be directing your energies to correcting some of the shamingly distorted Wikipedia articles for corrupt figures, the improvement of which could make a genuine real world difference. Engleham (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Collect (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Full Service (book)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

List of ministers of the Universal Life Church

Could you please go back and fix the errors you reintroduced with this edit. The list is sorted alphabetically so now Jerry Reinsdorf is out of order. The W section header was replaced to some Facebook page for a non-notable. The person that Facebook is referencing is linked to Alan Winters but that is a redirect to L. Alan Winters. The Alan Winters in the reference is not notable and has no article. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James F. Amos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James F. Amos. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cary Grant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cary Grant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chris Kyle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chris Kyle. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Shortt

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Shortt. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail Talk Page

As I explained to you yesterday, I am seeking wider views regarding my edit/article content. I note that you deleted my attempt as "improper". I have made another attempt and hope that it is properly done. Brevity is laudable, but, alas, not always helpful. If not properly done, could you be more specific, so that I can amend it to your satisfaction. With thanks. CN3777 (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Kindly do not copy conversations from this page. Single posts of your own - perhaps, but copying any extenced conversation - no. Collect (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Mote that you are now apparently abusing the hospitality of this page, and I request you desist. And do not try reposting "selected material" from this page. Collect (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Semi-automated_creation_of_approximately_3.2C000_unreferenced_sub-stub_BLPs is interesting. I can not understand anyone in 2009 actively promoting the creation of unreferenced BLPs at all. It does explain why WP:BLPPROD was created, though. Collect (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Hopwood Jeans

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Hopwood Jeans. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Errol Flynn may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• tried to sue for libel, but since the actor had died in 1959 the suit was dismissed." ... "[Higham} set a tone for vilification later explored by other biographers. " </ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wallis Simpson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:USS Chaumont AP-5 off Shanghai 1937.jpg|thumb|right|In 1924, Wallis travelled to China on {{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malia Bouattia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malia Bouattia. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

GMO RfC

Hello, Collect. I noticed that you made a new section on the RfC page for your most recent comments. I think the rules are that each editor should have all comments in one section, so please let me make a friendly suggestion that you move your newest comments up into the section that you already have. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The purpose was, in a very lengthy page, to note that a specific proposal had been noticeably altered. Might you suggest a means to do that without the brief mention given? I would seriously doubt anyone would feel that noting a substantial change was improper - but I am perfectly happy to undo the change and add Proposal 23 or 24 or whatever if that is what is "preferred." <g>. Collect (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear, sorry. I didn't mean the proposal, but rather, your user comments as a respondent to the RfC. What I mean is to cut-and-paste from here, to here. You don't need to change anything you said, just move it so that everything is in one place. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Amazingly enough - the result would be that no one would note the changes. Is that a desirable means of discussion? As you note, I removed my name from the notice of changes thus no longer making it a "comment" by me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that it serves no purpose with respect to communication. But the administrative rules are that each editor is allowed one section, 800 words, for everything that he or she wants to say, outside of the proposal itself. Those are the rules. My guess is that if you don't relocate it, an admin will just delete it. It's up to you, but I'm just trying to be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If you feel I have used more than 800 words on that page, go to any admin and point out the actual reason for your posts here, where I have bent over backward to explain my reasoning. I suggest that I am no where near 800 words by a few miles. Warmest regards. Collect (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you are fine for the word count. But it is supposed to be in one section, not two. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, then, it should be in the "proposal 8" section as it is not "comments" per se, or I should simply copy all over to Proposal 23 or 24 or 25 ...? Meanwhile, why don't you cavil with an editor who is already over 1200 words rather than bug me about notifying people of changes? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I was just trying to be helpful. I'm dropping it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Fitch Rowland Prize, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Metcalf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

New Essay

WP:The task of an editor represents my personal view of what an "editor" really ought to do, which you are free to disagree with or agree with, of course. Collect (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swami Nithyananda

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Swami Nithyananda. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germans

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germans. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cary Grant may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Cary Grant''' (born '''Archibald Alexander Leach'''; January 18, 1904&nbsp;– November 29, 1986 was a British-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

COI Draft Review

Hi Collect. Any interest in chipping in here on a COI review request? CorporateM (Talk) 19:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I appreciate the support on the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. Gordon410 (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Karen Stollznow

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Karen Stollznow. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laura Boushnak

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Boushnak. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Malia Bouattia". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 August 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Graham McCann

Dropping you a note that this article is at AfD again, and you don't seem to have been notified of the fact. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary Cooper

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gary Cooper. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In case you find interest

Hello Collect. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gustav Holst

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gustav Holst. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murray Bartlett

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murray Bartlett. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Where to now?

It seems I have failed at the RfC for amending NFCC#8. Where is the forum I can appeal NFCC informal interpretations unsupported by any guidelines or essays?

I have no interest in trying to mechanically flood WP with non-free images as Hammersoft suggested, I have no interest in barring individual editors for capriciously disrupting stamp articles. I only wish to collaboratively arrive at an interpretation which allows use of USPS images with Template:Stamp rationale in conformance with WP:NFCC as an example of the Foundation’s EDP Exemption Doctrine Policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem I see is a strange case of "NIH" over at Commons in the first place. The only place where changes can actually occur is "there" and unless you are "one of them", it is hard to get anything done. That said, your likely ally is folks at the Smithsonian who want "Smithsonian images" used on Wikipedia. Folks at Commons seem to accord special categories to such images [[143]] and would be loath to remove such. Collect (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jill Stein

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ted Frank

I see someone tried updating my article, and you reverted the changes so that it incorrectly describes my current employer and omits my most significant accomplishments. I appreciate the sensitivity to vandalism, but might someone fix the problems, which have been present for years now, rather than leaving the article in 2011 amber? I literally have over a dozen more notable cases than what's been listed. Many thanks. Feel free to email or telephone me at CEI, as I'm rarely on Wikipedia more than once every couple of months. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - the editor seemed not to be aware of sourcing policies, and I was afraid the changes might have been inaccurate. I doubt that adding a dozen cases would fly - but if you name the two most important newer ones, that would likely make sense. I am glad you are still around for sure. Collect (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't work at Manhattan and haven't been a blogger since since 2013, CCAF merged with CEI in 2015. The cases mentioned are exceedingly non notable and not on my top ten. Better more notable coverage that isn't mentioned.

• http://www.bna.com/ted-frank-lightning-n57982069046/
• http://www.wsj.com/articles/posner-vs-the-plaintiffs-bar-1471042699
• http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/supreme-court-may-hear-novel-class-action-case.html?_r=0
• http://fortune.com/2015/12/15/supreme-court-fee-abuses/
• http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203554104577002190221107960
• http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324345804578423021106705056
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/08/01/judge-cuts-fees-in-citigroup-settlement-citing-waste-and-inefficiency/#593a79ca3231
• http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/posner_outlandish_attorney_fees_in_glucosamine_settlement_were_part_of_a_se and http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/11/20/judge-tosses-glucosamine-settlement-citing-forbes/#7a09b7106918
• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/your-money/a-little-walmart-gift-card-for-you-a-big-payout-for-lawyers.html
• Big Eighth Circuit win, lots of cites : http://www.litigationdaily.com/id=1202714432688/Eighth-Circuit-Tosses-Cy-Pres-Award-in-Bank-of-America-Case?slreturn=20160727010548 and http://www.reuters.com/article/bankofamerica-cypres-idUSL1N0UN19G20150108

It's really unfair to me how badly out of date this article and the CCAF article is and I can't dare edit it. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, new home page and photo. https://cei.org/content/ted-frank Theodore H. Frank (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Case filed

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. This case is being re-filed. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain.23Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision_discussion

Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail and Fascism

The article itself mentions the DM's ties to fascist groups and open support of the Nazis, but you reverted my category edit. Sbrianhicks (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Lord Rothermere pushed for Moseley until there was violence. The categorization would appear to link the newspaper as a newspaper to fascism, which is not the purpose of categorization on Wikipedia. See WP:Categorization for the requirements as to sourcing, and the actual purpose of categories. Collect (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Brady

I'm not here to discuss whether the draft scout ranking is worthy of inclusion. I'm just curious to see what the other rankings are. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost every sports journalist gave their opinions about ranking - the problem is that it is not of actual encyclopedic value about Brady.Collect (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jill Stein

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Biography feedback requested

Your input is requested about an RFC regarding Donald Trump. Here is a link directly to that RFC. The lead of that biography currently says, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial." The RFC proposes to insert the words "or false" at the end of that sentence. Thank you in advance for participating. If you have the time, there is a second RFC at that talk page which proposes to instead add the words "or hyperbolic".

P.S. Collect, I hope you're doing well. I have not been following your topic ban status, but this page I'm inviting you to is related to American politics so please disregard this message if that subject is still off-limits for you. The automatic feedback service is temporarily busted, so I'm notifying everyone on the list for biographies who can tolerate five or more requests per month. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking for suggestions

Collect, I was hoping to pick your brains with regards to the best way to handle a content dispute and resolution. The primary discussion is on the auto project page [[144]]. I'm trying to decide which method might be most effective in terms of getting other eyes on the topic. I'm considering RfC as well as the NPOV notice board. NPOV is good in that it gets a reasonable amount of traffic but I'm not sure I see this as 100% a NPOV issue (non-NPOV arguments have been put forth). RfC would seem like a good idea but given the conversation is already on the related project page I'm not sure it would work well. Anyway, any suggestions? Thanks. Springee (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)