(Bot; Task 19): Notifying user regarding dispute resolution noticeboard case. |
cmt |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
'''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.''' |
'''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.''' |
||
I find it interesting that an editor who says he is "collegial" would ever have posted anything premotely like: |
|||
:''I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding ***. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless *** pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective).'' |
|||
Sound "collegial to you? |
|||
Revision as of 13:25, 7 September 2012
Well-meaning editors: Please do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you.
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.
I find it interesting that an editor who says he is "collegial" would ever have posted anything premotely like:
- I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding ***. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless *** pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective).
Sound "collegial to you?
Some of my essays:
Happy Collect's Day!
User:Collect has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, 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)
Like I said, pathetic. Certainly compared to your having conniption fits about using Mike Rokyo -- a man whose name is practically synonymous with the phrase "Chicago journalist" -- as a reliable source about some actual Chicago journalism, as you did on some recent topic. In other words, your idea of what constitutes a "strong source" seems entirely dependent on your personal prejudices.
But you've reverted three different editors in as many days: try that stunt again and you'll get a chance to explain yourself at the 3RR noticeboard, a place you seem to have no compunction whatsoever about running to when it suits you. --Calton | Talk 18:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I trust you know the NYT s a "reliable source" as are the others. As for making threats - that sort of behaviour is sophomoric at best. Collect (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Business Plot aka Wall Street Putsch
According to historian, Sally Denton's book, "The Plots Against the President" ... she titles the event the "Wall Street Putsch" ...
see last paragraph at http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2012/01/18/plots-against-president-sally-denton/RrGQUNfHlYtAgCG59e60eK/story.html
possible to revise heading, redirect and restore edit?
68.101.217.238 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nope - you need more than one person using a term to do that - what you have is what she calls it. It was not apparently a widespresd term at the time according to the sources used. Collect (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that we are going through this exercise again re: the nomenclature surrounding the plot to overthrow FDR and the White House ... I believe your colleagues approved of the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If you change it again, I will request arbitration. I recall that there was much discussion about the term "Wall Street Putsch" on wikipedia in the past...( maybe it was here and the comments have been deleted?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Try again then - the consensus was not to promote a book -- as your insertion of a book review link clearly indicates is the apparent intent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There were several other editor comments here that approved the alternative names for the "Business Plot". Even the History Channel had an episode titled "The Plot Against FDR". Some removed the prior comments by the editors. And the NPR piece should be included because an excerpt of the Denton book is there. In February, you were only removing "Wall Street Putsch"...now you are removing all of the alternate titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your alternates are not found in common usage in any reliable sources. And if you want to promote the Denton book, then write an NPOV article on it - do not simply spam it into other articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
note to an editor:
There are a great many people on Wikipedia (some with way-out views as to what they "know") - in order to make your own voice heard, it is best to sometimes hold your tongue (what an image!). You are free to have opinions about others, but expressing those opinions is of no avail to you at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WhiteWriter speaks 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your support...
HI! I appreciate your support on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Lodges of North Carolina. I think the "not notable nazis" will eventually win the argument, though. I am sick and tired of spendind tons of time AND MONEY to research stuff not wikipedia only to have it deleted. That guy Tyrenon has got get a life. I looked at this contribution history and over 66% of his contributions to wikipedia over the last two and a half years have been regarding deleting other people's work while he has created nothing. Check out what I posted on his talk page: User_talk:Tyrenon#I_hereby_nominate_you_for.... Thanks again. Eric Cable | Talk 16:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- LOL! Yep - there are some who do that - but add the "history of Civil War" stuff to the article and rename to History of etc., with the list being the bottom part <g>. It is not the list which is notable in itself - but the history is irrefutably notable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Editors rejecting BLP considerations
Hi Collect. I know you are a very considerate NPOV editor in regard to content additions in regard to BLP articles. Recently I have started to notice quite a few editors opposing any BLP considerations. Policy is quite strong from the foundation and Arbcom in regard to BLP and if this is not filtering through it may be necessary to return to Arbcom for further clarification - as your involved in many of the discussions, would you please log and keep an eye out for users that repeatedly oppose BLP considerations and for discussions that from your neutral BLP considerate position resulted in a POV support consensus. Youreallycan 20:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- User:Will Beback has joined in and User:Coffeepusher has also reverted - YGM - Youreallycan 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a problem? Does a sentence on his most famous law case actually violate BLP? Will Beback talk 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are well aware of the good faith NPOV concerns that your desired addition as focusing unduly on one project in four years work is in violation of WP:UNDUE - User:Coffeepusher has now two reverts and is edit warring the disputed content into the BLP. Youreallycan 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? Working on Wikipedia for four [sic] years is UNDUE? That's a very strange theory. I am well aware that you don't like me and that you and Collect follow me around Wikipedia opposing perfectly good edits. Will Beback talk 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not you - read before you comment please. You see your own bigotry . I have no idea about you at all - No one is following you around, you attract investigation through your contributions - Youreallycan 21:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now you're accusing me of bigotry?! Whew. Will Beback talk 21:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- From an NPOV position, I am disturbed by your contributions and have already pointed that out to you - I urge you moving forward take a more BLP considerate NPOV position through your contributions - Youreallycan 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I honor and obey all of the Wikipedia policies. Please don't call me a bigot. I consider that to be a personal attack. Will Beback talk 22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am disturbed by your contributions and have already pointed that out to you - I urge you moving forward take a more BLP considerate NPOV position through your contributions. - Your wiki lawyering claims of attack are just a meaningless distraction from reality. Youreallycan 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I honor and obey all of the Wikipedia policies. Please don't call me a bigot. I consider that to be a personal attack. Will Beback talk 22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- From an NPOV position, I am disturbed by your contributions and have already pointed that out to you - I urge you moving forward take a more BLP considerate NPOV position through your contributions - Youreallycan 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now you're accusing me of bigotry?! Whew. Will Beback talk 21:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not you - read before you comment please. You see your own bigotry . I have no idea about you at all - No one is following you around, you attract investigation through your contributions - Youreallycan 21:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? Working on Wikipedia for four [sic] years is UNDUE? That's a very strange theory. I am well aware that you don't like me and that you and Collect follow me around Wikipedia opposing perfectly good edits. Will Beback talk 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are well aware of the good faith NPOV concerns that your desired addition as focusing unduly on one project in four years work is in violation of WP:UNDUE - User:Coffeepusher has now two reverts and is edit warring the disputed content into the BLP. Youreallycan 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a problem? Does a sentence on his most famous law case actually violate BLP? Will Beback talk 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
My position on strong observance of the letter and spirit of WP:BLP should be pretty much clear. Collect (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Request for attention to an RS/N item
Dear Collect. As I value your opinion highly, I would value your attention and contribution to this RS/N discussion of the potential reliability or unreliability of using professional oral history. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I responded - but it is not a really simple question, to be sure. Collect (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm not sure if I hold a position on the issue, and I hold strong sourcing views. It is an interesting problem to think about and debate towards solution, as it has impacts on cultures that produce oral knowledge rather than textual knowledge. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Did you look at using Wikiversity for an article on this material? I now it is pretty much a backwater, to be sure, but it allows you to make a free-form lecture on a topic without much interference, and especially without folks seeking to make your premises into the opposite of where you started (which is an endemic problem on essays at Wikipedia, alas). Collect (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm not sure if I hold a position on the issue, and I hold strong sourcing views. It is an interesting problem to think about and debate towards solution, as it has impacts on cultures that produce oral knowledge rather than textual knowledge. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be——Critical 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Accusations
You accused me for violating WP:CANVASS, but I notified only users who participated in discussion at WP:AN/EW. For example, I notified user AndyTheGrump, and he is against topic ban. Can you withdraw your accusations? Thanks.--В и к и T 01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Did you notify everyone who was involved in the prior discussiona and no one else? In ote, for example, that you did not notify the admins involved ... best practice for noticeboard discussions is to notify only the person being complained about. Meanwhile shouting "homophobia" as people who are actually quite "gay sympathetic" is not going to get you very far at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Care to fix
...this? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You've written some good essays. Can you edit this sentence:
The are which may be the most problematic, however, is use of "reliable sources" for biographies of living people, and WP:BLP sets a higher standard on sources than other policies set.
"The are which may be the most problematic"— I don't understand what you intended this to say. Thanks Wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! My mind goes faster than my fingers do <g>. I hope you like the fix. Collect (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Dowd vs Gingrich C
Hi, Collect. You said somewhere that opinion pieces are not a reliable source for facts in a BLP. I took a quick glance at WP:BLP and I couldn't find that in so many words. Can you point me to the right spot? Thanks! --Kenatipo speak! 02:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- The precept is that opinion articles are citable as opinions only. [1], [2], etc. Many times in fact on RS/N and BLP/N noticeboards. Collect (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
re: peer review
Thanks for the comment. In case you're not familiar with the process, WP:PR clearly states: "Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate" (emphasis mine). From my POV, your nomination statement simply lists what you perceive is wrong with the article. I neither agree nor disagree with your assertions, and I'm completely uninvolved. However, that is not what PR is for. If you pinpoint weaknesses in the article, and someone disagrees with you, you do not need a review; you need dispute resolution. Review statements generally say something along the lines of "I'm looking for feedback on how to improve this article so it can become GA/A/FA" -- not, "these specific things are wrong with this article." One is seeking suggestions for improvement, the other is seeking backup. Do you see the difference? According to you, you already know what's wrong; you don't need a review. Also if it weren't for the dispute, I would simply reply: WP:SOFIXIT.
I hope this makes sense. Anyway, I closed the page because it has been open for almost two weeks, and has yet to receive a proper review, nor any clarification on your part. The review is still technically closed, despite your reversion of the template change, btw. María (yllosubmarine) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Centpacrr had averred that it was a "high quality article." In point of fact, it is not. I request you reopen with the comment "How can this article be improved to meet GA standards." Cheers. Otherwise, "peer review" is a tad useless if all that is needed is for the edit warrior who has added reams of purple prose to an extant reasonable article to say "but there is nothing more than a content issue here." Outside opinions thus showing him where his view has problems is far better than trying for other processes, IMO. Collect (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, I won't. Articles are usually nominated for PR by those with an invested interest in the subject. I commented first as a potential reviewer, but I closed the nomination because anyone can do so per the instructions if there has been an extended period of inactivity. PR is not the correct venue for your dispute, especially when you plan on utilizing a misleading nomination statement. Your goal isn't GA, so why lie? That's very bad form, and it sets an equally bad precedent. Again, what you want -- nay, need -- is dispute resolution. You can seek outside views from the noticeboard, or simply ask for a third opinion. María (yllosubmarine) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Try WP:AGF -- the goal was to get a disinterested person who knows what makes a good article to review the article. It is not DR as I truly do not give a damn about how bad an article one editor is creating - the goal, as I understand it, on Wikipedia is to produce good articles! Note that I specifically did 'not see PR as an "adversarial proceeding" as I am not an "adversary" of Centpacrr, but just doing my damndest to improve Wikipedia. Cheers - but I find your position to be a teensy bit off-putting. Collect (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, I won't. Articles are usually nominated for PR by those with an invested interest in the subject. I commented first as a potential reviewer, but I closed the nomination because anyone can do so per the instructions if there has been an extended period of inactivity. PR is not the correct venue for your dispute, especially when you plan on utilizing a misleading nomination statement. Your goal isn't GA, so why lie? That's very bad form, and it sets an equally bad precedent. Again, what you want -- nay, need -- is dispute resolution. You can seek outside views from the noticeboard, or simply ask for a third opinion. María (yllosubmarine) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I will be closing Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Lindbergh/archive2 per Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy. The peer review should be closed as it is about a content dispute: To keep down the size of the PR page, every editor is invited to close inactive discussions. Please only do so with the following kinds of requests: 1. Requests that aren't appropriate for peer review, for instance requests for help in ... resolving an edit war, or detecting a copyvio. These should be removed promptly in the interest of the requester, since he/she is unlikely to get adequate response to them at Peer Review. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Um -- did you read what I posted? This is not a "content dispute" it is an issue about whether an article with florid prose and copyright violations can meet "good article" criteria. Alas - it seems those at Peer Review dod not wish to actually review such problems which are not "content disputes" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I amde some comments on the article at Talk:Charles Lindbergh Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson
Sorry, was not trying to be condescending. We had a very short version before, but some editors have wanted many additions. Thanks for your comment. Parkwells (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Award
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Though I don't remember having the pleasure of editing together on an article, I have seen your posts on many noticeboards and community pages. Hence this barnstar to recognize your valuable contributions to the Wikipedia community. Keep up the good work. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC) |
stalker
why do you stalk me? Are you, like, interested in me? Cuz u and I both know you are, my friend... If there's a page for recovering wikistalkers, I definitely will sign you up. I want you to get help. Just know that I do care about your health, my friend. We'll get through this...--Screwball23 talk 02:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? I do not stalk you - I have over 2300 pages watchlisted and you are about the very least of the editors I would remotely consider stalking! Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure buddy (sigh). So anyway, Mr. Stalker, I see you have a sudden interest in Bob Turner (politician). Tell me what will make you happy so you don't go crying to an admin...btw, the district was eliminated, that is factual and that is nonnegotiable. The fact that Weiner resigned for a sexting scandal is also fact, and personal views aside, I can't let you change that either. The fact that he was part of a conservative activist group is completely fine, and I see no reason for repeated deletion on that. The magazine Salon did argue that his win was "unremarkable" in their view. An argument is built on facts, my friend, and for them, the presidential polling trends was their case-in-point.--Screwball23 talk 23:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Um -- he has been on my watchlist since the Weiner election --- though I admit you seem to "own" the article by edit count. By the way, when seats are "eliminated" one does not call every seat "eliminated" at all -- generally the elimination is achieved by minor increases in geographic size of all the remaining districts. I think you ought to recognize that this is how politicians view the redistricting -- it is not "elimination" of specific districts. Cheers -- but your edits on the BLP are pretty horrendous. Collect (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sure buddy (sigh). So anyway, Mr. Stalker, I see you have a sudden interest in Bob Turner (politician). Tell me what will make you happy so you don't go crying to an admin...btw, the district was eliminated, that is factual and that is nonnegotiable. The fact that Weiner resigned for a sexting scandal is also fact, and personal views aside, I can't let you change that either. The fact that he was part of a conservative activist group is completely fine, and I see no reason for repeated deletion on that. The magazine Salon did argue that his win was "unremarkable" in their view. An argument is built on facts, my friend, and for them, the presidential polling trends was their case-in-point.--Screwball23 talk 23:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Robin Ficker
You've previously edited the Robin Ficker article. Please take a look at the current discussion and contribute to it if you have an opinion. Thanks. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom comment
Hi Collect, I saw your comment about Wikipedia ought never be a game in which people count the numbers of editors blocked or banned on each side, seeking to get more of "them" blocked than of "us.". Do you mind explaining what this means? The only relevant facts here are that (1) there was never genuine evidence given for Cla's ban in the first place; (2) he complied with the terms of his ban far more sincerely than, say, WMC; (3) WMC was unbanned despite battlefield conduct in his ban appeal; ergo (4) it is a huge, cynical double standard for anyone to argue that WMC is allowed to be unbanned but not Cla. I recognise that you opposed WMC's ban appeal. I don't understand why you now recommend ArbCom apply a double standard. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I had not thought I was applying a "double standard" but that I was strongly supporting the loosening of the reins entirely on him. I regard my comment as a bit of a truism. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I noted, you opposed WMC's appeal so I am not saying you are applying a double standard. However, if ArbCom makes any decision other than to fully remove Cla's ban, as they did for WMC, how can that not be a huge double standard? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect ArbCom has many times been inconsistent inthe past - making a point of it, however, is quite unlikely to impress them here. Collect (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you are probably right. They can make up the rules as they go along. Why should they give a damn if I point out some blatant hypocrisy? With no shareholders to report to, no KPIs to meet, no financial targets, no objectives of any kind, identities hidden by pseudonyms, and far removed from the public gaze. They ban and they unban and have nothing much to consider beyond their own convenience. What a sad situation. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not "hypocrisy" but the fact that many decisions are arrived at after "horse-trading" and compromising - when given any sufficiently different information with a significantly different committee, all bets are off -- win, place or show. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- The system is deeply flawed. We seem to accept that the Committee isn't going to bother looking at the evidence, and isn't going to be bound by any actual rules or precedents, and if the outcome happens to be horrifically wrong, who cares? It is to me astonishing that such a barbaric system can pop into existence in the 21st century. I watched GoRight driven from the community in a manner similar to the mob in Salem. We've gone back about 3,000 years in our history to a situation similar to what must have existed before the Romans invented law. It may not be "hypocrisy"; it may just be "negligence". What is clear to me, though, is that this system continues to exist because the public, and Wikipedia's donors, just don't know about it. It has to stop. Alex Harvey (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not "hypocrisy" but the fact that many decisions are arrived at after "horse-trading" and compromising - when given any sufficiently different information with a significantly different committee, all bets are off -- win, place or show. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you are probably right. They can make up the rules as they go along. Why should they give a damn if I point out some blatant hypocrisy? With no shareholders to report to, no KPIs to meet, no financial targets, no objectives of any kind, identities hidden by pseudonyms, and far removed from the public gaze. They ban and they unban and have nothing much to consider beyond their own convenience. What a sad situation. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect ArbCom has many times been inconsistent inthe past - making a point of it, however, is quite unlikely to impress them here. Collect (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I noted, you opposed WMC's appeal so I am not saying you are applying a double standard. However, if ArbCom makes any decision other than to fully remove Cla's ban, as they did for WMC, how can that not be a huge double standard? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
BLP question
In reference to this diff[3] which part of WP:BLP says that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Try If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out
- I consider "unintelligible" to be a very weak source.
- Try also: Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources which is the present case
- See also BLP/N discussions at [4] where the anonymous rumour was deemed unusable in a BLP. [5] similar discussion result. [6] ditto.
- Anonymous sources are not usable in making any contentious claims in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I take it that this is the paragraph you are objecting to?[7] If so, I'm fairly certain that multiple reliable third-party sources can be found for most, if not all, of that paragraph. No offense, but I'll defer reading those discussions as they are quite lengthy. As for anonymous sources, the only thing I can find in BLP is WP:BLPGOSSIP and it doesn't say that they are not usable. It says to be wary of them (i.e. use caution) and it's about gossip. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- The only actual RS fact is that the transcript says "unintelligible." Wikipedia and specifically WP:BLP prefers facts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by that. That some people believe they hear "coon", "punks", "clueless" or "course" are facts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- When it comes to dubiously relevant negative material about Martin, you've advocated its inclusion where Martin's family had confirmed the material ([8]). In this case, Zimmerman's close friend confirmed that he heard the word "goon", or possibly "coon":
As far as, I mean as far as George being racist, I didn't take it as a racist term. I heard 'goon' and talking to my teenage daughter, apparently goon is a term of endearment in high school these days... He wasn't talking to Trayvon when that comment was made. He was speaking a generality in that this suspicious person was someone who he—lumped in—as always getting away—goon, coon. I mean, the bottom line, he thought he needed to keep an eye on this individual for whatever reason.
- (Source, ABC News). Maybe you can help me understand why you consider the material about Martin is a BLP slam-dunk, but the negative material about Zimmerman a BLP violation? MastCell Talk 00:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by that. That some people believe they hear "coon", "punks", "clueless" or "course" are facts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- The only actual RS fact is that the transcript says "unintelligible." Wikipedia and specifically WP:BLP prefers facts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I take it that this is the paragraph you are objecting to?[7] If so, I'm fairly certain that multiple reliable third-party sources can be found for most, if not all, of that paragraph. No offense, but I'll defer reading those discussions as they are quite lengthy. As for anonymous sources, the only thing I can find in BLP is WP:BLPGOSSIP and it doesn't say that they are not usable. It says to be wary of them (i.e. use caution) and it's about gossip. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Factual material provided by the family and printed in reliable sources is not "dubiously relevant negative material" and is not sourced to anonymous sources. And again -- the transcript says unintelligible. To me unintelligible means, of all things UNINTELLIGIBLE. Is that too hard to grasp? Collect (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Where do "anonymous sources" come in? Zimmerman's close friend - who is decidedly not anonymous - seemed to feel the word was reasonably intelligible, at least enough so to narrow it down to two possibilities. And this was printed in reliable sources. I understand that the person who transcribed the call rendered the word as "unintelligible". But I don't understand why you think we're therefore forbidden to discuss any other reliably sourced views on the tape. And I continue to see a bit of a double standard here, but that's a separate matter. MastCell Talk 04:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Where no one knows what the word was - not even his friend asserted he was certain - then ascribing such contentious claims as saying he said "coon" in a BLP-compliant article is clearly a no-go. Cheers. And the editorial comment only said some (anonymous) people said they thought they heard the word -- every play "telephone" as a child? Collect (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Radical Right
I do not understand your long campaign against this article. Although you and I may not accept the descriptions offered by Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, Peter Viereck, Richard Hofstader and more recently Sara Diamond, Chip Berlet and many others, our role is not to judge or censor what they say, merely to report it. As a wise man once said, "We report, you decide". TFD (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- No such campaign on my part -- other than to respect Wikipedia policies. Such as accurately stating what the cited sourse states. Cheers. Now scram if you wish to keep this civil <g>. Collect (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
1RR violations at Pro-life feminism
Please revert yourself at Pro-life feminism; the article falls under 1RR abortion topic arbitration. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- No notice on page or talk page seems obvious; Cheers - but I tried to self-revert. Warn Rosce for sure as he absolutely has gone over any lines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've struck my archiving of the AN discussion and filed a request for clarification with ArbCom here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like we finally got an answer here -- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Abortion (1RR_query). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've struck my archiving of the AN discussion and filed a request for clarification with ArbCom here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion of WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch
Hello, I wanted you to be aware that I am initiating a discussion regarding the proposed deletion of the Wikiproject for Paid Advocacy Watch/Editor Registry. You can view this discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paid_Advocacy_Watch/Editor_Registry#Unethical_indictments 71.237.2.24 (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
RE Dickens and racism article
Hello - I noticed this contribution by you on the ANI page, and I wasn't sure how to interpret your remarks about Dickens' editors. Were you perhaps referring, at least in part, to the article on Dickens and racism? If so, I for one would be interested to read any observations you may have about the article itself on its Talk page. In particular, leaving aside the personal issues currently under discussion at ANI, do you think that the page regards a legitimate, encyclopedic topic broadly amenable to NPOV treatment? If so, what areas/issues do you feel are most in need of editorial attention, especially as regards NPOV? Thank you. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Personal disclaimer: Since I was a proponent of creating a subarticle of this sort in order to free up development of the main Dickens page, I find it difficult to be impartial here. My continued involvement stems from a feeling that it would be wrong for me just to walk away now that the page has been created. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am glad it is not a BLP as otherwise it would run severely afoul of that policy <g>. It contains an unhealthy amount of hindsight, opinion, conjecture, surmise and more. Collect (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thank you. I was just adding, "I think your contributions, however limited, could help the page eventually find broader consensus." I still think that. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Polandball at AE
In the AE discussion I compared the attitude to a lynch mob. You said I shouldn't attack the ArbCom like that. I was not attacking the ArbCom – or at least I did not know I was. WP:AE is not a forum for arbitrators. Requests are handled by administrators. In fact even I have closed a WP:AE case!
I have not really read the administrator comments. Are you saying the arbitrators have taken over the case? If so, I do not think AE is he proper place to handle it. The formal issue at AE is IBAN. It seems that admins and arbs really want to talk about Polandball and hate speech. If that is the case, then the proper thing to do would be to open an arbitration case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Polandball. This would be an interesting case, as for once the arbitrators would have to rule on content, not technicalities of behavior. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I noted that it was less than sublime that Russavia posted the same questions to each arbitrator. That is not, in my experience, the best way to win Arbitrators over to one's position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
NORN
I did not say Courser "must mean the Tea Party movement is "radical right"". Could you please strike your comment at WP:NORN#Radical Right. TFD (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- You use the "fact" that Courser used books which have "Radical Right" in their titles to aver that the TPM, since Courser used those books, is "Radical Right." That is nicely clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have never stated that Courser is associating the TPM with the radical right. Could you please strike out that comment. TFD (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- And then immediately adds the equivalent of "It ain't." BTW, you elide a goodly part of the quote from Courser:
- What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. The comparison is not flattering, as social movements that originate from the right have almost invariably been portrayed as intolerant, resentful, ignorant, and paranoid.
- This characterization does not bear up under scrutiny and falsely places the Tea Party in the context of an academic tradition of marginalizing populist and conservative social movements as illiberal, intolerant, and radical. On the whole, Tea Party movement is neither racist nor radical, and its political demands fit within the mainstream of American politics.
- And then immediately adds the equivalent of "It ain't." BTW, you elide a goodly part of the quote from Courser:
- Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Since an editor said, "you struggle to find even one reference", I showed that there are sources that describe the TPM as radical right. However it is preferable to rely on one good source that explains it has been so described then to search for examples. The third source is by two professors at the London School of Economics and is not a political manifesto. (Note that you defended using a similar source at "far left politics".) None of these sources are "scholarly indictments of the Tea Party", merely sources that use the term radical right to describe the Tea Party.
However you have not addressed the question at the noticeboard: Is it synthesis to conclude that Courser is referring to the writing by Bell, Lipset and Hofstadter when he says "past scholarly work"?
TFD (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your use of clearly polemical sources indicates that you have not found a scholarly source calling the Tea Party movement "radical right." Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incompatible with building an encyclopedia?. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Collect. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you
Thanks for stepping in there. That was a good result. I think my problem was getting across to him how we use sources. I'll work on a form of words that conveys that more clearly for future such encounters. Thanks again. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Pink slime edit summary
I liked what you did here and I noticed your edit summary. I wondered if you were acquainted with an essay I wrote? If not it might interest you. --John (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I find "however" to be rarely used properly used on Wikipedia, and never so needed that removal harms an article <g>. Nice essay - are you going to expand on it for projectspace? Collect (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Newspeak and the essay
Prego. As a relative newbie, I find the status of Wikipedia "Essays" confusing. I often see them cited as if they had quasi-guideline status, and I'm sure I've done something similar itself, at least in reference to WP:CREEP. So I find your attempt to clarify the issue intriguing. Personally, I find newspeak tendencies irritating and worrying both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Essays have no special status - though ones which get routinely cited get to be well-known. I try to make essays based either on ArbCom statements, or on famous quotes, trusting that few will try to assert that the essay is not useful <g>. And feel free to add to any essays I have written. Collect (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Not your work, but one which has attracted my attention is WP:Don't assume. I've sometimes toyed with the idea of recasting it a bit less aggressively perhaps. But then again... —MistyMorn (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Holy moly
See this, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festes. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure they are socks - but the IPs, Ocelot and Festes seem suspicious as a possible group. Wiki, Blue and Charles I dunno about. Wish they were more obvious - but maybe we will get a CU on the lot. Collect (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but I can not agree with your actions concerning this page. The painter's gallery is very useful, and as a compromise I've left only the books which have ISBN. And the lost files with his pictures will be undeleted soon because there was the author's permission. --Ozolina (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- The pictures have been undeleted! --Ozolina (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Author's permission"? Nope - that is not how WP:BLP works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- There was the author's registered permission # 2009062810038434. The situation was described and solved here: [9]. And I think that it is a good compromise to leave only books with ISBN. --Ozolina (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Author's permission"? Nope - that is not how WP:BLP works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your good note on my edit on Page Ranina Reddy. Vithurgod (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ozonlina is going on putting the paintigs of this hobby painter in WP. There is much disussion about this COI in russian and German WP as well, french WP deleted him. User Ozonlina spams many WPs. --Robertsan (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that there is no citation for being an artist but the own website! The two catalogues with his work have no ISBN number and cannot be found in any library. The art crtics are taken from the own website. There is no important exhibition, no museum, no famous collection. They want to push him as an artist in any possible way.--Robertsan (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Joe the Plumber edits
Hi there. I don't understand the objection to the Joe the Plumber edits that you undid. All of the information is accurate, verified, referenced and comes from reliable sources. My understanding is that wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic. That means edits should be based on fact.
The entry was clearly counterfactual before I edited. Your undo contributes to maintaining that counterfactuality. Please give a better explanation rather than initiating an edit war. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Read the policies. Heck -- why not go to WP:RS/N and show the folks there the edit you desire and see what their unbiassed input is. Or at WP:BLP/N which is basically applicable here as well. Collect (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Come on, buddy. Seriously? Initiating an edit war? Yeah right. Your explanation was clearly given in the edit summary. Calabe1992 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
False report of Canvassing
Could you please stop canvassing for your WQA, which is in violation of behavioral guidelines. TFD (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Notification of people mentioned is required - did you miss that on the noticeboard? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sock record
Not a record when compared to folks like Mikemikev, but as it pertains to a specific Afd, possibly: but compare to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haeretica Pravitas/Archive, which came out of two similar AfDs, one for the theory and one for the person, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis González-Mestres. Ah, happy days. Poor Kevin really got his feet put to the fire after proposing the person. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wow! Most socks I ever caught on CompuServe in one forum was about 15 names for one person. But we had tools far different from CU in those days. Collect (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, with this type of sock it's usually over quickly as soon as the AfDs close. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knowitallfortoday/Archive wasn't a lot of fun to deal with, but the edits were so obvious (as with our current case) that DUCK suffices. Our present case involves a bunch of different IPs as well (and I'm not good at those Who-is searches), but I think that the party will be over as soon as the AfDs close, which hopefully will take place this millennium. Hey, did I already say "thanks for your help" anywhere? Thanks for your help! Drmies (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
How intersting
That you are at 3rr also! Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Really? I think you need to count better than that!
Your reverts on Lyndon Larouche are at 11:10, 13:14 and 13:20 today. Mine are at 12:44 and 13:12. Cheers - but my math professors at MIT taught that 2 != 3. I guess you likely did not have them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- How interesting. I wonder, when was the article last tagged with {{pov}}? I assumed you were having a hard time with 2 and 3 also. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Adding tags that haven't been on the article in months, perhaps years, have not. But if you want to make aggressive edits and then revert repeatedly to defend them without substantial talk page engagement in an article covered by sanctions, please feel free to continue. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
YCSI
I had no idea that YCSI was a texting acronym when I wrote it, and certainly did not intend that meaning. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Right-wing socialism
The best way to ensure tha the article survives AfD is to ensure that the article describes a specific topic. Saying for example that "rws is a term that describes Hitler's brownshirts or Tony Blair's New Labour" probably is not a good idea at this point in time. TFD (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi I am Robertsan from German WP. There is a one purpose account who tries to push this man as a famous painter. There are no sources for that, but the own website. I therefore will take away the section about art, because this is original research only. I am sure the Ozonlia account will not be amused. Regards --Robertsan (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Mervyn King
What is the issue? Since when did the Financial Times become an unacceptable source? Every single thing on that BLP has a source for it, a mainstream source. The section I am posting in is called Criticism, do you want me to post praise in it? King himself accepts some of the criticism the article mentions whilst rejecting other parts of it (as I was about to add before being so needlessly interrupted). Please cut out your whitewashing activities. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am having real difficulty getting anything out of you other than the fact that you are hurt and upset that there are people in the world who are critical of 'Sir' Mervyn. Any response, or shall I assume your reversions are vandalism and undo you? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Ur user name featured in two Yahoo News graphic about the various GOPers' Wikiblps...
LINK: the one for Santorum and the one for Mitt. Hey, you think their semi-realtime, "live" graphics, set up to automatically register a click as a one or a batch of new edits get made? suppose not. Probably....--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- No idea -- sort of a "fun" article, but it does not remove the "vandalism reverts" from the counts. If they made t more accurate as to how major the edits were, it might be a good tool. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Dear Collect, thank you for the kindness that you've shown towards me recently. I do not believe that we've ever interacted on Wikipedia before but nevertheless, you stood up for me and the positive contributions that I've made here at Wikipedia. I really appreciate this act of charity and hope that God will bless you and your family in abundance. The image in this barnstar has a smile in it, which you brought to my face today. I hope that this barnstar will do the same to you. Your new friend, AnupamTalk 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC) |
Your recent edits to this article are not helpful. Some editors, including me, are trying to find a balance between including the 16K+ of stuff from the book article, and failing to mention Bellesiles' fraudulent scholarship in writing the book. Others seem to be trying to sabotage that effort, or are at least avoiding rational discussion of it. Lou Sander (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note my position that the section should be a summary of the article, and not the entire article. And note that, to that end, I presented a limited summary thereof. As called for by policy and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not your best work, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- But far superior to adding an entire subarticle into the article, for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Lou, please point out any recent versions of the article which "fail to mention Bellesiles' fraudulent scholarship". As best I can tell, all recent revisions prominently mention the Armed America incident. All editors seem to be trying to find the balance you're describing, and it's not helpful to pretend otherwise for rhetorical purposes. MastCell Talk 22:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Lou won't be with us anymore... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Lou, please point out any recent versions of the article which "fail to mention Bellesiles' fraudulent scholarship". As best I can tell, all recent revisions prominently mention the Armed America incident. All editors seem to be trying to find the balance you're describing, and it's not helpful to pretend otherwise for rhetorical purposes. MastCell Talk 22:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- But far superior to adding an entire subarticle into the article, for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not your best work, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth
You make good points, I follow your reasoning, and I think you're smart. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you - Kind words work better than almost anything else. Collect (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
College cheerleaders
You think this category is trivial? Hard to believe. I've nominated it for deletion. No outcome would surprise me, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- <g> And it has now been repopulated with a slew of Republican politicians -- do ya think that is a random occurrence? Collect (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with your concerns about Jon Wiener
Wondering what you would like to do here and how I might help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks - all that really is needed is a person to check out his edits and to suggest that his "there is no problem" position might not work in his favour. It is far from the worst puff pastry of an article on WP, but I think having a second voice in his ear might work wonders (fingers crossed). Collect (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Tell you what. I'll put it on my to-do list; what I was thinking about doing was revamping the article, doing newspaper/media sweeps with his name (probably law-related publications), possibly rewriting the lede, cutting out dubious sources, and posting it into a sandbox for your perusal first; right now I am doing other stuff, so it may be a few days, okay?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Corrections Corporation of America
The prison riot yesterday didn't say anything about CCA? That's a bit like contending the sinking of the Titanic didn't have anything to do with the White Star Line or an iceberg or the Atlantic Ocean. Activist (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- The only connection was running the place - which is rather insufficient for any implication about a corporation which was not in any way implicated otherwise in the "riot." The White Star management, on the other hand, was implicated in the poor decisions about the Titanic - so thanks for showing where you are coming from. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- No implication was intended and no implication was made. The edit simply noted a workplace death under exotic circumstances (riot) of one of the company's employees. This is an established and undisputed fact. The edit made no judgment on the competency or efficacy of CCA in operating this facility. BlueSalix (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- CCA has had riots in its institutions on a regular basis. There have been reports regarding them made by contracting and hosting states and monitors. These included, for instance, reports on riots in May and July and September of 2004 in Watonga, Oklahoma, Crowley County, Colorado and Beattyville, Kentucky, that excoriated the corporation and mentioned similar specific shortcomings that existed in all three prisons. There was another riot in Tallahatchie, Mississippi the day after the 2004 Crowley riot but I don't know if the sending state, Colorado, webposted a report. The Crowley report was almost 200 pages. The extensive Watonga report was posted by the sending state, Arizona. Hawai'i has written numerous reports about riots and other incidents in CCA's Arizona prisons. I'm posting this to the Noticeboard. I'm not able to notify user BlueSalix as he or she doesn't have a User page. If you would like to add material on the riots I've cited, they and many others should be fairly easy to find on the Internet. Activist (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Collect; Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Corrections Corporation of America has been opened. Activist claims that the above posting consists of notifying you of a Dispute that has been Administratively opened.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Your deletion of another user's edits
With this edit you deleted the previous edits of another user (Unscintillating): [10] Please could you clean up this error, undoubtedly accidental? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Third time it has happened to me - and about fifteeneth time I have seen it - likely due to server miscomunications for "edit conflict". Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of a sheer penchant for drivel, I've penned an essay on BLP noteworthiness. I don't know what I expect from having done so. But I thought I'd share it with you because you're a regular BLP contributor, and I value your understanding of current policy and guidelines, as well as you opinion of if and how they might be improved. If you don't have time or interest, no hard feelings. In fact, if you think I'm being wrongheaded, please leave a comment to that effect. All the best. JFHJr (㊟) 10:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thanks for being on the case, Collect. Drmies (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
DDR / SED / Terminology
I hope my contributions helped your thinking on these issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber
Dear moderators,
I am writing you in response to the warning you have posted on my talk page dated May 29, 2012, and regarding my contributions to the article "Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber".
Kindly note the following:
- As I have read many articles in the media on Mr. Al Jaber, I was struck by the unrepresentative content on the individual in Wikipedia and on the differences in content between the German and English versions.
- I have bought the book entitled “Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber - High Quality content by Wikipedia articles” by Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome and John McBrewster – Published by Alphascript publishing, 2011 (ISBN: 6135590138, EAN: 9786135590135, http://www.valorebooks.com/textbooks/mohamed-bin-issa-al-jaber/9786135590135 - Price: Euro 35), and I was also struck by its lack of accurate information.
- Accordingly, I have completed the article with sourced and reliable information that refer to the professional track record of this public international figure that is Mr. Al Jaber.
- And as you can see when referring to the sources, the media coverage on the individual is sometimes negative.
- Please also note that I have kept and added positive references regarding Mr. Al Jaber’s track record (such as Forbes mentions, philanthropy, education, awards, etc.).
- Furthermore, please note that I have also referred to the Wikipedia page in German that is very well sourced.
Awaiting for you kind reply,
Best regards,
--Oil.sharon (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are never "reliable sources" for Wikipedia articles. Collect (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Collect. Yep that's about a comment I made on his talkpage. I'll reply to him there later today saying that & the rest. Cheers, --92.6.202.54 (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for having brought you into the stupid mess at WQA
I just want to apologize for bringing you to WQA. I thought the WQA volunteers could have helped you guys find a way to have more peaceful disagreements. But the incompetent mudslinging there by Writegeist has ruined it. I wanted to help you guys out, my apologies for failing. I will try to see if the other users there can give you tips to avoid confrontations.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
re this edit
I really agree with you that national identity should be part of this rule. I'm a little worried though that the more we add, the harder it will be to get consensus on this rule change...... Anyway, let's leave it in for now and possibly remove it if it looks like it will cause a great deal of contention. NickCT (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me -- considering the "Israeli/Palestinian" mess for some articles - let the person determine what they are. But let's see how others feel. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Chip Rogers
Not sure why you consider my edit a revert back to a version marked as a WP:BLP violation. I added extensive sourcing and also added in Rogers' defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is a matter that the sources used do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP. I suggest you read WP:BLP to acquaint yourself with the policies and requirements of Wikipedia when dealing with biographies of living persons. Meanwhile, please be well advised that continued insertion of material conttrary to policy is heavily frowned upon and may lead to administrative action regarding your account. Collect (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Please enlighten me as to what you believe does not meet the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. To refresh your memory, the guidelines state that edits "must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source." You clearly must not be from Georgia, because the main story referred to in the edits was published on Atlanta Unfilitered, a highly respected news website that is run by a longtime editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (the biggest newspaper in the state). Furthermore, the article contains primary source documents, including video and court records. And in case you still weren't convinced, the story was picked up and verified by Atlanta's ABC affiliate, Atlanta's Fox affiliate, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Associated Press, and several local papers. Rogers responded directly to the stories from each of these outlets, including Atlanta Unfiltered. So to summarize, please explain to me how you think that the edits in question may be good enough information for literally every reputable news outlet in the state of Georgia, but not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- When you read WP:BLP and WP:RS please note that Wikipedia does not use or allow "primary sources and court records." On addition, blogs are also specifically disallowed unless under the direct control of a reliable source known for fact-checking. Lastly - Wikipedia is not the place to do campaign work during political silly season. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Then just use the ABC, FOX, AJC, and AP reports. What makes you the judge and jury of what news articles get to be kept out of an article because they aren't flattering for the subject. If multiple TV stations and newspapers are reporting it, it's news, end of story. You're the one acting political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is not up to me to "fix" edits which violate Wikipedia policies. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper - it uses material of encyclopedic value with claims backed by reliable sources as stated in policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You lose. Blow me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Report that diff you showed me to IRWolfie-'s administrator noticeboard report
Reporting that to me isn't going to help with anything, I advice you to place it on IRWolfie-'s administrator noticeboard report. It demonstrates Writegeist's completely uncivil, cynical, and disruptive behaviour, and that he holds the WQA volunteer IRWolfie- in contempt and that he holds the whole WQA in contempt as a "dramaboard", odd that he volunteers for something he hates.--R-41 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I know - see also WP:Mutual admiration society if you wish my "take" on it. At some point, it will be a teensy bit obvious to a lot of others, I hope. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC) w -
Rue Cardinale
It may be worth noting that Mathsci is framing his content dispute with Nyttend in terms of removing material by a banned editor. In fact, Mathsci has been edit warring to remove well-sourced material by User:Silver starfish, who has not been shown to be banned. In fact, no checkuser was run on Silver Starfish because [11] do not see enough evidence to connect them to Echigo Mole. Rather revealingly, that comment goes onto say Those accounts did not come up in my check of Rita Mordio or Thrapostulator. So in fact, Silver Starfish and the rest of the Guozbongleur group are not Echigo Mole. In other words, the weight of evidence was against Mathsci's assertion before the checkuser was run, and afterwards it was even more, even conclusively, so. Undeterred by these results, which he is now attempting to deny [12], Mathsci is determined to have Silver Starfish declared a banned user in order to win his content disupte with User:Nyttend at Rue Cardinale (which he is now disrupting AN with). 94.197.236.96 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I note that you may be acting for a banned user, and assign your position the weight it merits only. Collect (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
murder of lin jun
hello. the retitling discussion seems to have been archived. presumably the discussion is over. -badmachine 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- And note that creating a content fork does not work. I supported renaming, I do not support forking on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- i know you supported it. thank you for your level headedness. :) -badmachine 12:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- The requested move to Murder of Lin Jun was archived by a robot in error. It is still active, as we've only known the victim's name since June 1 (the move was requested in response to user:Tokyogirl79's proposal on Talk:Luka Magnotta which started at "Hey all, we have an ID on the Asian man that had been killed. It's Lin Jun, a 33 year old Chinese man. Tokyogirl79 04:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)") and the discussion runs for a full week. The soonest this can be closed, even if a consensus is reached, is therefore June 8 (one week of discussion). Unfortunate that this was archived while still active (the 'bot is only supposed to archive threads which have gone a minimum number of days without an edit, not sure what went wrong) but this is still under discussion with no consensus. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Sean Sherlock
Hi, Please give reasons for removing expenses and salary data from 'Deputies 2008 Salary, Allowances and expenses payments made to members 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2008' and corresponding 2007 Irish state documentation released as pubic data under Irish Freedom of Information Legislation from this article?
It is
a)Pertinent b)Sourced and verifiable It is not 'undue' as you state or in any manner speculative but directly cited from public domain information released by the Irish government (document title above)
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedoia deprecates material from "primary sources". If you wish the material in the biography of a living person (WP:BLP), you should find a WP:RS source for the claims made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Primary sources are not prohibited per se by WP:RS, but it is advisable to avoid relying entirely on one primary source in order to avoid bias, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- They are discouraged, and since there is no particular rationale for the use of that source, I am of the opinion that it does not belong in the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion the data has an excellent primary source - the Irish Goverment itself (the data is available relating to salaries and expenses for all Irish Politicians. This issue of the primary source is not really debatable.
As regards whether it is appropriate - clearly factual data without opinion offered on it relating to the subject without opinion or suggestion is relevent.
I suggest that it would be appropriate that it be added for all Irish politicians as it is information that has an irrefutable source, is entirely relevent and is in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- In which case, start an RfC on the idea - unless you get consensus for it, it will not fly. Collect (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Actual COMMON usage
Pedants claim limiting usage the way you've suggested would render a more, sniff, prestigious dialect but actual practice (see Descriptive grammar) countervails any suggestion such a usage is universally maligned.
- From that unreliable source (who shall remain nameless--for now):
Some books[...]have one or more eponymous principal characters: Robinson Crusoe, Moll Flanders, Emma, the Harry Potter series, The Legend of Zelda series, I Love Lucy, for example.---WIKIPEDIA: "Eponymous"
Prestigious (if, obv., "descriptive"-) lexicographers at American Heritage:"...deriving from an existing name or word: 'Programs such as He-Man and Masters of the Universe ... were all created with the explicit purpose of selling the eponymous toys to children' (Susan Gregory Thomas)."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Smile
Statυs (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Repeated forking of the Luka Magnotta article
It appears that, once again, someone has attempted to fork the Luka Magnotta article with the recreation of Murder of Lin Jun. I'm opposed to this for several reasons: #1, We have a clear majority of Oppose votes to move the article there, and #2, having two articles covering much of the same information means that, if/when we reach a final consensus with regards to whether we should keep the article here, there, or "split" them, people's work and research will be spread around over two articles, requiring a complete rewrite. It's not a smart idea to take it upon oneself to begin spreading information out over two articles without clear consensus IMO. Would you please offer your opinion on the discussion at Talk:Luka Magnotta? Thank you. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CANVASS and try to use neutrally worded notifications - I have evinced some opinions, but you will find others may well decide to point out CANVASS in their posts, which means my participation might be discounted there :(. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
A/n/i courtesy notice
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Collect --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Dollar short - already responded to. Cheers - but your attempt to rehash what others already opined on at the template deletion discussion etc. for Romney is all too evident. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please re-read wp:EDIT. Whereas this page indicates that sourcing issues can reasonably be template:Fact-tagged, it plainly says only to delete controversial assertions. Nothing in the chart you removed is in dispute.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Mathsci and Echigo Mole and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystone Crow (talk • contribs) 04:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Noting that any such case was elided by ArbCom as being filed by a sock and this notification is non-utile. Collect (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Ace work
Thank you for applying the broom to the Craig Thomson affair article. Well done. Best wishes. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Craig Thomson affair for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Craig Thomson affair is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
.
Warning
Please be aware that you are a on bright line of WP:3RR yourself, and also in violation of WP:TEAM. (Igny (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
- Oh? I suggest you file then - your tendentiousness, personal attacks, etc. should be fun as WP:BOOMERANG <g> Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Collect, I notice that you were active on the Bill Jean King article in 2009. It has some major unresolved problems and I'm trying to address and correct them. If you have any input, I've started a few threads on the talk page. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Kim Jong-un
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kim Jong-un. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
<g>?
Hey, Collect, I've noticed you write <g> in your posts on occasion, and I was just curious what it meant; I've never seen it before. if you were wondering, got here from stalking User talk:Drmies, and didn't want to interrupt the un-fun conversation there Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- It just shows my age - I have been online for three decades now - and <g> was the old shorthand for "grin". <+g> was "evil grin" (meaningful only if you played D&D). Collect (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense; thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Please point out the text in WP:UNDUE that supports your assertion that "UNDUE applies to talk pages as well as to articles". Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 15:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- In fact, all of WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. Where UNDUE comes in is that the lengthy list of sins of a living person is contrary to WP:BLP and this particular article ran well afoul of WP:BLP before its renaming. The material did not contain any balancing material as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The material is a summary of the findings of the FWA report, one of the major components of the article. It was collapsed and added there for discussion. If editors must find "balancing" material before adding content to talk pages, then I suggest you make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to make that explicit. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Read the article history and AfD, as well as the multiple discussions at WP:BLP/N on the prior article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of the article's history, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Read the article history and AfD, as well as the multiple discussions at WP:BLP/N on the prior article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The material is a summary of the findings of the FWA report, one of the major components of the article. It was collapsed and added there for discussion. If editors must find "balancing" material before adding content to talk pages, then I suggest you make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to make that explicit. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sow-Hsin Chen
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sow-Hsin Chen. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
Right about now I think you could use the caffeine – Lionel (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks...
...for your contribution to the article NXIVM. Please do have a look at the available WP:RSes on which the article may be based. Would you say the article reflect them particularly well? Chrisrus (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Before you came along
I was doing there things like that or that for months. So don't interfere.
Alos people generally believe he WAS caught masturbating, and here the article gets things straight. --Niemti (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- What you "believe" has nothing to do with what WP:BLP requires. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Read WP:BLPCRIME etc. NPOV is not the only criterion for biographies of living persons. Collect (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring warning
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Political activities of the Koch family. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Blue (English band)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Blue (English band). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Lily Cole
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lily Cole. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard
Here is the link: [13]--R-41 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Beatles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Beatles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Re: TFD
I am not meaning this as a joke or an insult, Again I am not meaning this as a joke or insult, I am serious. I need advice on what to do.--R-41 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- We could have an RFC/U -- but unless they are "orchestrated" they tend to go nowhere. I was victim of an "orchestrated" one with 14 people CANVASSed for it. I tend to think Wikiprocesses do not work really well <g>. TFD also asserts that the Swedish Social Democarats are not "liberal", that Ken Livingstone is not on the left, etc. Bide your time - I suspect we are not the only ones who have noted his idiosyncratic attitude towards articles. Cheers. And my email link works. Collect (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe the user Writegeist is Wikihounding either you or me.
The user Writegeist has looked into the edits I made on your talk page. I admittingly made a rather crude comment about TFD, and I have sent an apology to TFD for it. You deleted the part of it that you thought was improper for being on a talk page, but Writegeist has been looking into your diff record to find the comment I said. Since Writegeist has been inactive on both your talk page and my talk page, I am very certain that Writegeist is Wikihounding either you or me. I have reported Writegeist for Wikihounding here: [14]. I would appreciate hearing your view on this matter.--R-41 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Writegeist has stalked me for more than three years (a very large part of his UT page is a colloquy to which he adds his own interpolations! - totalling over 3500 words which has now been there for more than three years ) - and has routinely made snide asides about me to another editor who does the same. The odds of Writegeist showing up on any noticeboard just to contradict me is about 75% at this point <g> and I view him as one of those gnats which always get in through the screens. Odds of him posting again on my page approach 101% now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Feedback requested for article on Daily Mail: Quotation from Lord Rothermere's "Youth Triumphant"
Hi Collect,
I would like to discuss the reason for excluding the quotation from Lord Rothermere's Youth Triumphant editorial and have outlined my justification here. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Thanks,
— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 08:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Beatles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Beatles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Opinions about people stated as "fact"
I saw your query about this on the BLP talk page. You may want to use a source from a recent edit I made in Katherine Ann Power. The first edit I did on July 17. The statement was sourced to a POV website which had no citations. It had one quote from a reliable source and based the whole 'essay' on other unsourced facts. "I place before the reader certain facts relevant to forming a judgement" is a statement made early in the text.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I rather think you found a red flag <g>. Collect (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I also added another example to your thread. The wp article about that source has a section that mentions its credibility. The New York Post.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Vassula Ryden
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vassula Ryden. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Collect, thanks for calling to our attention the broken reference on our List of Notable Freemasons page. It appears the cite source altered their link formats to several of their pages. Additional sources, for Charles Lindbergh and others have been updated. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
started a WQA
I actually find that an editor calling me a "Holocaust denier" and "Neo-Nazi" or the like is sufficient to go to WQA for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sandra Fluke
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sandra Fluke. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Sowell
(personsl attack removed by Collect) -- Scjessey (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Now at WP:WQA Collect (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
List of Thingian Fooians
To be fair, articles which go into the minutiae of Thingian Fooians seem to me to be bizarre uses of Wikipedia anyway. The idea of a list of LGBT Jews is as bizarre a list as one of left handed dwarves. Rather than single out one entry, why not look at them all, for they are, surely, all unsuitable to be here? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have Quest on my watchlist - and "lo alecha hamlacha ligmor" applies. Collect (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm afraid. Would you mind translating and clarifying? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- "It is not up to us to finish the task, but we are not to shirk from the task." Collect (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. It sounds like a proverb with many potential interpretations depending on the viewpoint of the reader, though. I still have grave doubts about intersections of Thingian Fooians but two and a half AfDs have chosen to keep this particular article, thus again showing the interesting academic exercise that the alleged wisdom of crowds turns out to be. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- The current mood at BLP/N is far more ant-categorization of people then was the case two years ago. Collect (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Then perhaps it is time for this bizarre intersection list article to be sacrificed on the altar of common sense. My view is simple. If it is valid for it to exist, which I doubt, then it should be complete. I do not, however, think it should exist. But I see the overall banality of the lowest common denominator effect of the wisdom of crowds as something that will insist it be kept. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just be glad we are not at Commons <g> Collect (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- This may be a discussion that you wish to add value to. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am not at all surprised with the direction the discussion is taking. We now have the rhetoric from the "How dare you criticise my oppressed minority" camps who speak without necessarily understanding the true topic at hand. They fail to see that no-one is criticising their oppressed minority. This is the "beauty of WIkipedia", that the lunatics run the asylum. I speak as a lunatic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- And I as a heretic <g>. Ever read Poe's "System of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether"? Collect (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, but it sounds just the ticket! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- And I as a heretic <g>. Ever read Poe's "System of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether"? Collect (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am not at all surprised with the direction the discussion is taking. We now have the rhetoric from the "How dare you criticise my oppressed minority" camps who speak without necessarily understanding the true topic at hand. They fail to see that no-one is criticising their oppressed minority. This is the "beauty of WIkipedia", that the lunatics run the asylum. I speak as a lunatic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- This may be a discussion that you wish to add value to. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just be glad we are not at Commons <g> Collect (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Then perhaps it is time for this bizarre intersection list article to be sacrificed on the altar of common sense. My view is simple. If it is valid for it to exist, which I doubt, then it should be complete. I do not, however, think it should exist. But I see the overall banality of the lowest common denominator effect of the wisdom of crowds as something that will insist it be kept. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- The current mood at BLP/N is far more ant-categorization of people then was the case two years ago. Collect (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. It sounds like a proverb with many potential interpretations depending on the viewpoint of the reader, though. I still have grave doubts about intersections of Thingian Fooians but two and a half AfDs have chosen to keep this particular article, thus again showing the interesting academic exercise that the alleged wisdom of crowds turns out to be. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- "It is not up to us to finish the task, but we are not to shirk from the task." Collect (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm afraid. Would you mind translating and clarifying? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
pink slime
I don't own the entry at pink slime, it has been peer reviewed, and whether I created it or not does not effect the ruthless deletion process and strict editorial guidelines of wiktionary. The idiomatic compound pink slime meets the guidelines there and is not a neologism nor a protologism, it is the correct scholarly term for this product.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- You created the entry on Wiktionary. You repeatedly pushed the entry on Wiktionary. You then cite the entry as being the reason it should be used on Wikipedia. That is evident. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of my edits
Could you please not misrepresent my edits as you did here. You represent that I stated "4RR in under 24 hours is [not] a clear and absolute bright line violation". In fact I was agreeing that an editor who had made fewer than 4 reverts in 24 hours could still be considered to be edit-warring because "the edits do not have to be the same to break the rule and 4 reverts within 24 hours is not the absolute rule". TFD (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I did not think I misrepresented your edit "4 reverts within 24 hours is not the absolute rule" as I was simply elucidating my earlier comments where I said the 4RR was in under 24 hrs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- You had written "4RR in 24 hours and 11 minutes is generally considered passing the line."[17] TFD (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually - the 11 minutes is usually considered as breaking the line - one is not supposed to be watching a stopwatch to then aver one was not violating the EW rules. Cheers. Note that I also fixed the time on the complaint to show the lower elapsed time as well. Collect (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- You had written "4RR in 24 hours and 11 minutes is generally considered passing the line."[17] TFD (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Simon Walsh
Am not entirely happy with POTW's arguments on that. He appears to be using the (incredibly minor) notability of the subjects career/accomplishments to justify (and avoid BLP1E arguments) including the details of his (acquitted) court case. Either he is notable for the court case, in which case BLP1E should apply, or he is not notable for the court case, in which case accusations of a (low-profile) crime (which he was acquitted from) shouldnt be included. I am tempted to just remove the section entirely, but at that point the article is basically a stub on someone who hasnt really done anything of note. Your thoughts? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Fall Out Boy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fall Out Boy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Your comments on improving the Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke Controversy article on the Fluke AfD
Hi, Collect; Just FYI, I've put my outline of what needs to be done on the Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article page; you commented on some aspect of the need for improvement on that page on the Fluke AfD, thought you might take a look; it is due to come off protection tomorrow (though it might be a good idea that it NOT yet, until issues are discussed)209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You are being discussed
At ANI. Also one of your comments at AN3 has been hatted as a "Personal attack." – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 12:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
BLP at Tea Party Movement
Hello, Collect. I see you've deleted the material on the grounds that we should set aside WP:BRD in favor of WP:BLP (your statement was "Let's observe WP:BLP for contentious claims about living persons first - which is an absolute requirement by policy".) What are the specific Biography of a Living Person policy problems you see with that content? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The claim that a specific living person made a specific post on a blog is a "contentious claim" aboiut that person, hence requires strong reliable sourcing for the specific claim about that person. Not just "well the blog has a post which has that name on it" since the blog is not a reliable source as to who any poster thereon is. Etc. Anything less than a strong source should be removed. In the case at hand, more than one of the claims appeared on their face to fail that test. Collect (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- There was 10,000 characters worth of text you removed with your deletion. Which specific living person/incident are you referring to involving an unreliable blog post? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- AFAICT, the section was replete with BLP problems - long passages are not immune to that finding. Including references to living persons making blog posts for which the blog is not actually a reliable source, and sources making claims about the motivations for such posts, claims based on anonymous sources ("A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying “Kill the bill, then the n-word.”" is a claim from an anonymous source - and one which has, to date, not seen any strong sourcing). Claims made about people where only anecdotal and anonymous sources exist are not strong enough to go against WP:BLP. Etc. Collect (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I re-read the text in question, and do not see any WP:BLP violations. If there is one, surely you can specifically point it out and indicate the portion of WP:BLP it violates. Please provide a specific example. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Read again - and note 1. allegations by anonymous sources and 2. claims that acts by individuals are attributable to a group and 3. that posts in blogs are claimed as a matter of opinion to be attributable to a group and 4. that where there is a strong claim about acts of a group that strong sources are required by Wikipedia policy. That you saw none of these is remarkable indeed - much like Alice seeing No one on the road - it rakes tremendous vision to see No one. Collect (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing how those things apply to the material you removed in the context of WP:BLP. As you're a frequent contributor on WP:BLPN, I'll make a post there and ask if someone else can shed light on how the items you've stated above specifically apply to the deleted material in the context of BLP. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Read again - and note 1. allegations by anonymous sources and 2. claims that acts by individuals are attributable to a group and 3. that posts in blogs are claimed as a matter of opinion to be attributable to a group and 4. that where there is a strong claim about acts of a group that strong sources are required by Wikipedia policy. That you saw none of these is remarkable indeed - much like Alice seeing No one on the road - it rakes tremendous vision to see No one. Collect (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I re-read the text in question, and do not see any WP:BLP violations. If there is one, surely you can specifically point it out and indicate the portion of WP:BLP it violates. Please provide a specific example. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- AFAICT, the section was replete with BLP problems - long passages are not immune to that finding. Including references to living persons making blog posts for which the blog is not actually a reliable source, and sources making claims about the motivations for such posts, claims based on anonymous sources ("A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying “Kill the bill, then the n-word.”" is a claim from an anonymous source - and one which has, to date, not seen any strong sourcing). Claims made about people where only anecdotal and anonymous sources exist are not strong enough to go against WP:BLP. Etc. Collect (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- There was 10,000 characters worth of text you removed with your deletion. Which specific living person/incident are you referring to involving an unreliable blog post? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Re 'left wing terrorism'
Regarding your recent addition of material to the article, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Attempted WP:BLP violation in our left-wing terrorism article AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Noted - also note that my edit was scrupoulous wrt BLP policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, then defend it at WP:ANI. That is bullshit and you know it. Or have you found a source that supports the suspect being a leftist out to overthrow the capitalist system? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- P.S: '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. Can I suggest you read our article on cognative dissonance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Andy - I made no improper edit, nor did I allege anything - the claims are reliably sourced, and my edits specifically did not mention a specific person by name. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Utter bullshit - but I note you aren't trying to defend your ridiculous position at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You deleted material on the the specific basis of WP:BLP. I cured the edit's failings in that department. That you are being grumpy is part of your charm - but please recall that I have defended you on numerous occasions. Cheers and have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's right. I deleted material on the basis of WP:BLP. More specifically, I deleted material that on the basis of no evidence whatsoever implied that an individual that hadn't been convicted of anything was a Marxist terrorist, out to overthrow the capitalist system. Or hadn't you noticed where this bit of ludicrous POV-pushing was going on? And if you claim to have "cured the edit's failings", why aren't you arguing that your edit should be restored? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You deleted material on the the specific basis of WP:BLP. I cured the edit's failings in that department. That you are being grumpy is part of your charm - but please recall that I have defended you on numerous occasions. Cheers and have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Utter bullshit - but I note you aren't trying to defend your ridiculous position at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Collect, were you aware that Communist regimes were socially conservative and saw homosexuality as caused by the decadence of capitalism? TFD (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I actually do not care -- I had thought the regimes most opposed to gays were in Africa or in the Muslim world. Russia post-WW II was opposed to abortion and homosexuality on a strictly pragmatic basis - Stalin sought repopulation of Russia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- So why would you think that anyone opposed to the the FRC would be trying to set up a Communist state? It seems that the Communists and the FRC are soul-mates on these issues. From which blog are getting this analysis? TFD (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The FRC is hardly a soul-mate with communists (or Communists) WRT abortion (if I may chime in).108.18.174.123 (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)'As I never said any such thing, I wonder what you think you actually are trying to prove? Sp please stay off this page if you are going to accuse me of saying things I did not say -- it makes it hard to keep fictitious charges off this page when you add things I did not say, TFD. Really. Collect (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- So why would you think that anyone opposed to the the FRC would be trying to set up a Communist state? It seems that the Communists and the FRC are soul-mates on these issues. From which blog are getting this analysis? TFD (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I actually do not care -- I had thought the regimes most opposed to gays were in Africa or in the Muslim world. Russia post-WW II was opposed to abortion and homosexuality on a strictly pragmatic basis - Stalin sought repopulation of Russia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Misha B
Maybe I went too far, my approach was if the unproven publicly made accusation had to be included, then it should be balanced with the truth and witness accounts. I may have gone too far, esp with the Misha B quotes. I am happy to see its removal. A co-editor is questioning its removal though....and I fear that more bullish others will wake up.
It is also here Controversy allegationsI have edited it down but should it remain or be edited further.
Regards the talk page bully accusations, mostly about her early teens, what should I do, though if I do it I will be accused of bias. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Joseph Grimaldi
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joseph Grimaldi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Two quick comments
- Saw on ANI that you watch the JB article - you're made of stronger stuff than I, and I for one admire your fortitude.
- Saw your comment to JM on the Arb Request page - you may wish to add a blank line between your comment to me and your comment to him, as the two run together as currently formatted. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Dang the editing system <g> Collect (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's probably a conspiracy. ;-) KillerChihuahua?!? 00:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You are a STAR!
I give out a lot of barnstars--this is the only one that is serialized.
The Burkie Barnstar | ||
You are hereby awarded the Burkie (serial# 3) for your tireless and unwavering commitment to upholding Conservatism-related articles to the highest standard of excellence and quality. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 11:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
Peter Jensen
Hi Collect. Significant and credible BLP concerns have been raised with respect to this article, which I'll not go into but I hope you'll take my word for it that they exist. In line with the general duty to write conservatively about living people, if you wish to provide sourcing for the article, particularly for information along the lines that you recently added, it would be useful to try to find sourcing that is authoritative and independent of the subject. This is not to criticise your recent edit, but to draw your attention to the fact that there are unusual circumstances. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- We have reliable sources. Wikipedia uses Reliable Sources. The CBS, Toronto Star et all are Reliable Sources. The claim is not damaging to the person, and if OTRS removes the article - that is fine, I suppose. The person meets the notability guidelines by a mile. And note also that the laws of Canada do not apply here -- only the laws of the US and of Florida (assuming they did not move the WMF headquarters to CA) are of legal value. If the claim were "contentious" -- but the RS sources are within the past month. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Re User:Collect/Peter Jensen (trainer): I wasn't sure what you meant and, after checking, suppose that you may be confusing me with User:Wnt. Warden (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You Edit Warring
It takes two to edit war. I have not checked if you have blanket reverted the edits again, but I assure you this Matt Drudge issue will not just 'go way'. I suggest you reach a consensus on the article's talk page. حرية (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- It has been discussed a few times - also at WP:BLP/N. Each time the same result. Collect (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deletion Review of Sandra Fluke
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you participated in the original deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wow -- finally -- but the !votestack has already occurred. Collect (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Naming Children in a BLP
I know you are quite knowlegable about BLP's. I've run across an article, a BLP, that includes the names of the persons children...in the body and the infobox, I think this information is un-necessary and, in a real world sense, may be hazardous to the children. Predators use a childs first name to gain trust and remove the fear of "stranger danger'. "He knows my name. He must be safe." Ive asked at the help desk and they referred me to the privacy threads at WP:BLP but there is no mention of this issue. Any thoughts? ```Buster Seven Talk 20:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I oppose the naming of minor children as a matter of principle - though some seem to think that if a tabloid publishes a fact it is fair game. Jimbo holds the same position, as do several other editors at BLP/N. If I see the BLP at BLP/N I shall surely keep this position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your response is confusing in regards to Jimbo and other editors at BLP/N. Does (do) Jimbo (and the others) hold the same position as you? Or...do they hold the same position as the some who think its fair game if the childs name is in People magazine? You present two opposing possibilities and then claim that Jimbo agrees. Which one does he agree with? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think not -- Jimbo has made eminently clear his position about using tabloid claims in BLPs. And the claim "other places think nothing of violating the right to privacy for children" is not a strong reason for saying "therefore Wikipedia should say 'anything goes'". I thought I made it clear that minor children who are not otherwise notable in their own right generally should not be named in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nevermind! Jimbo may have made it clear, but you did not make clear what Jimbo had made clear. Your ability to confuse a simple request is expected. I should have asked elsewhere. Your incapacity to recognize an olive branch is not surprising.```Buster Seven Talk 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think not -- Jimbo has made eminently clear his position about using tabloid claims in BLPs. And the claim "other places think nothing of violating the right to privacy for children" is not a strong reason for saying "therefore Wikipedia should say 'anything goes'". I thought I made it clear that minor children who are not otherwise notable in their own right generally should not be named in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your response is confusing in regards to Jimbo and other editors at BLP/N. Does (do) Jimbo (and the others) hold the same position as you? Or...do they hold the same position as the some who think its fair game if the childs name is in People magazine? You present two opposing possibilities and then claim that Jimbo agrees. Which one does he agree with? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Statement A: I oppose the naming of minor children as a matter of principle
- Statement B: though some seem to think that if a tabloid publishes a fact it is fair game. (A contrary position to Statement A)
- Statement C: (The very next sentance) Jimbo holds the same position, as do several other editors at BLP/N.
- Since A is followed by B, and B is followed by C, the common, logical interpretation is that C refers to B rather than A. But...I know that interpretation cannot be the case since Jimbo would not hold that position. When you say "Jimbo holds the same position" its logical to assume that "...holds the same position" means the one just preceeding it...which is Statement B. Not Statement A. If you had said, "Jimbo holds the same position as I do" there would have been no confusion. Anyway, I knew the answer before I asked it. It really was an attempt at communicating normally. Not that I want to chat or have tea. I just hate the thought of having an enemy in WikiWorld. But...alas...my branch has withered and died. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I said that some disagree with me. Seems that should have been clear enough. I then stated that Jimbo and others agree with my position. I have no "enemies" that I know of - at least none that I call "enemy" nor do I keep a "list of enemies." The "though some seem to think ..." was a parenthetical observation and not a separate statement. Consider "Red and green are seoarate colours -- though some appear to be colourblind" -- would you not see the reason for the parenthetical observation? Would you see that as meaning that Jimbo and others are colourblind? I would hope not! Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Muhammad Iqbal
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muhammad Iqbal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
A picture for you!
I am not going to say exactly who/what the following reminds me of OK, it's Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive160#Matt Drudge (again)... (hint: not you) but somehow it seems appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
PNAC
Let's review the edit: I had changed "an educational and political advocacy organization" description of PNAC into "a neo-conservative political advocacy organization". You then reverted because of "unsupported claim categorizing an organization". You've got to be kidding!
Let's review just from the Wiki PNAC: "co-founded ... by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." 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." So the co-founders are two of the more prominent self-described neo-conservatives and the stated policy positions are neo-conservative, but, somehow, the organization is not neo-conservative. Is this a joke? "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity" is precisely what neo-conservatism is! Every member of PNAC is routinely described as neo-conservative--including Perle, Gaffney, Wolfowitz, Schmitt, Rumsfeld and the founders Kagan and Kristol, who are the heart of the neo-conservative movement, which is an implementation of Straussian philosophy in foreign policy, characterized by several doctrines, two of which have been clearly identified in PNAC's own documents quoted above. PNAC is not dedicated to all neoconservative positions, but the entire goal of PNAC is a part of those positions.
Let's look from the other end, from Neoconservatism. "Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle. In the late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan ..." Then, quoting Michael Lind, "The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists." That's three people that are directly mentioned as top members of PNAC--Kristol, Wolfowitz and Perle. A bit further, PNAC is directly mentioned as a "related organization": "On February 19, 1998, an open letter to President Clinton appeared, signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with neoconservatism and, later, related groups such as the PNAC, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power."
Note that this is the background available just from reading Wiki. Looking at outside sources on foreign policy is even more direct on the relationship, although I don't want to spend the time searching for trivial information for a trivial fix. Your "correction" was based on the perception that the claim of association with neoconservatism is somehow disparaging. Neither the members nor I would look at it that way. Unless you're prepared to claim that an organization that was founded by top neoconservatives and had membership that was nearly entirely neoconservative is not a neoconservative organization, I suggest you undo your "correction". I will not engage in edit wars and will let you undo your own error. Alex.deWitte (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The rule is that claims must be directly supported by RS sources. In the case at hand, you did not so support your claim. Ot os clear that you are not doing so, but arguing that you "know" the "truth" - while you may be the world's greatest authority, that is not how Wikipedia works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is why so many people hate Wikipedia as an inaccurate source on anything other than hard science. Your description is correct for factual information that is possibly in dispute. There is no dispute here--only ignorance. It has nothing to do with my expertise. OTOH, "educational" is lifted directly out of PNAC's own promotional literature. PNAC's "educational" component had been winning converts for neoconservatism. Why is "educational" preferred to "neoconservative"? Where is the citation? Do you expect every single word to be cited? And even when there are citations, independent sources are preferred over self-promotion pieces--that's also Wiki policy. Yet, you uncritically accept some words and not others. Please stop micromanaging and address substance. Alex.deWitte (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- No -- it is the only way Wikipedia has of preventing really bad claims on a topic. Find reliable sources for the wording you want - the charter of an organization is reliable for what it views itself to be, for example. But insisting that you "know" what is the "truth" on a topic, even if you are the "world's greatest authority" generally will avail you not a bit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is why so many people hate Wikipedia as an inaccurate source on anything other than hard science. Your description is correct for factual information that is possibly in dispute. There is no dispute here--only ignorance. It has nothing to do with my expertise. OTOH, "educational" is lifted directly out of PNAC's own promotional literature. PNAC's "educational" component had been winning converts for neoconservatism. Why is "educational" preferred to "neoconservative"? Where is the citation? Do you expect every single word to be cited? And even when there are citations, independent sources are preferred over self-promotion pieces--that's also Wiki policy. Yet, you uncritically accept some words and not others. Please stop micromanaging and address substance. Alex.deWitte (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
TPM revert
I don't see the outrage over North8000's two reverts, that aside the reverts were done in response to his reverts and everyone at WP:EW/N will see that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your problem is the bright line rule. I take your post as a refusal to self-revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: Charges
- All I am reminded of is "I have a list" .... which is to say, absent any evidence you are willing to bring forth, you are willing to make charges about Wikipedia editors
I'm sorry, do you have me confused with someone else? I don't recall any such "charges". What I do recall saying is that we have no evidence that can be proven. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- In which case you well ought to have said nothing at all. Evidence which is not presented, and may not even exist, has exactly zero weight in reasonable discourse. Collect (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't follow at all based on the discussion that took place. The question is whether the IRC logs are real or fake and whether the IRC channel exists or not. It seems almost impossible to have a discussion with you about anything. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- When allegations are made about an IRC channel which may or may not exist (and I assure you that I know nothing whatseover about any such channel, and I am not part of any Wikiproject), and the logs may or may not exist, and, if they exist, may or may not be genuine, I consider the entire matter so intrinsically speculative that anyone raising it falls in my esteem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- All I know is that this IP claimed there was a channel. I asked for evidence and I was sent several IRC logs, which could very well have been faked. I've also asked for evidence that such a channel exists and I have received none. If those facts and attempts to get to the bottom of it disturb you, then that's your problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- IOW, you gave credence to rumours. For some odd reason, I try not to do so. Cheers.Collect (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- The complete opposite is true. I gave no credence to such rumors, and I did not forward the "evidence" to arbcom because it lacked any and all authenticity. Asking for evidence isn't giving credence to a rumor. It's doing the opposite. If no evidence is presented, then the rumor is clearly false. For some reason, you and I see the world very differently. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- My theory is that the rumour should not be promoted in any way whatsoever when no solid basis exists. Asking a person "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the classic example of such implicit rumour-mongering, and following that example is not, in my own personal opinion only, wise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation. It was claimed that X exists. I asked, does x exist? If so, show me the evidence. Because there is no evidence, I can conclude that X does not exist. There's no leading question here at all. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- My theory is that the rumour should not be promoted in any way whatsoever when no solid basis exists. Asking a person "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the classic example of such implicit rumour-mongering, and following that example is not, in my own personal opinion only, wise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- The complete opposite is true. I gave no credence to such rumors, and I did not forward the "evidence" to arbcom because it lacked any and all authenticity. Asking for evidence isn't giving credence to a rumor. It's doing the opposite. If no evidence is presented, then the rumor is clearly false. For some reason, you and I see the world very differently. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- IOW, you gave credence to rumours. For some odd reason, I try not to do so. Cheers.Collect (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- All I know is that this IP claimed there was a channel. I asked for evidence and I was sent several IRC logs, which could very well have been faked. I've also asked for evidence that such a channel exists and I have received none. If those facts and attempts to get to the bottom of it disturb you, then that's your problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- When allegations are made about an IRC channel which may or may not exist (and I assure you that I know nothing whatseover about any such channel, and I am not part of any Wikiproject), and the logs may or may not exist, and, if they exist, may or may not be genuine, I consider the entire matter so intrinsically speculative that anyone raising it falls in my esteem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't follow at all based on the discussion that took place. The question is whether the IRC logs are real or fake and whether the IRC channel exists or not. It seems almost impossible to have a discussion with you about anything. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a bad idea to ignore the rumour when it can be dealt with; that only propagates it. The issue was dealt with head on by asking for the "logs" from the editor and forwarding them to arbcom; we now know the logs are false. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
About the "sanitisation" of the Dan Roodt article
In this edit you claim that that the statement in the article implied that "Roodt loves Hitler". I'm sorry but are you sure you really understand the English language fluently? The statement says he met with a Swedish organisation which is on record as admiring Hitler - the junp from that staement to an implication that Roodt loves Hitler is patently absurd. BTW Can you understand Afrikaans sources? I'm a bit concerned that we might be going too far to pander to the "concerns" of someone claiming (without any proof so far) to be Dan Roodt. Roger (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- And the only reason for including "guilt by association" claims is not to follow WP:BLP -- it is not our function to show how evil a person is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I do not agree that it is a "guilt by association" claim - Roodt met with a Swedish neo-nazi group - he didn't become a member of the group or in any other way associate with it - he just met them. Nowhere in the paragraph you removed is there any implication that Roodt himself is a neo-nazi or "loves Hitler". To make a "guilt by association" claim from the paragraph as it was written requires a very large assumption - and/or poor understanding of statement in fairly simple English. The people he met are neo-nazis - they proclaim it on their own website - it's not a "claim"/"implication"/"accusation" or even remotely disputable. I'm sorry but I'm of the opinion you are going too far in whitewashing (excuse the pun) the article. Roger (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- If there is no reason to impute anything about Hitler to the living person, then that info is not relevant here - put it in the article on that organization, not on a person who simply meets with someone from that organization. That is what is called for by WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I do not agree that it is a "guilt by association" claim - Roodt met with a Swedish neo-nazi group - he didn't become a member of the group or in any other way associate with it - he just met them. Nowhere in the paragraph you removed is there any implication that Roodt himself is a neo-nazi or "loves Hitler". To make a "guilt by association" claim from the paragraph as it was written requires a very large assumption - and/or poor understanding of statement in fairly simple English. The people he met are neo-nazis - they proclaim it on their own website - it's not a "claim"/"implication"/"accusation" or even remotely disputable. I'm sorry but I'm of the opinion you are going too far in whitewashing (excuse the pun) the article. Roger (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Collect, why can't we call people who claim to be nazis neo-nazis? Is it because they believe that they are the real
malarkeymccoy and "neo" is abusive? TFD (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)- People who self-desxribe as such can be called such. In the case at hand, the use of descriptors for the people he met was being used to indirectly ascribe a term to him which is not applied by reliable sources to him. It is exactly the same sort of problem as was found in McCarthyyism - where if a person met with Communists, that meant they were Communists. Of all people, I would have expected you to understand this sort of indirect connection is improper on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- To draw a parallel with that example, it appears that the analogy is you don't want to describe the Communists as Communists. If someone has met a neo-nazi group, it doesn't make him a neo-nazi, but it also doesn't stop the neo-nazi group being a neo-nazi group. It's NPOV to describe a neo-nazi group as a neo-nazi group. The neo-nazi group is also described as neo-nazi on it's article page. There is no BLP violation. Your change also removed the name of the groups, so people can't even read about the neo-nazi group on the respective article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Icorrect. I suggest that where a person or group self-decribes as something, then we can use their self-description for matters of ideology, ehtnicity and religion. What I do not support is using Wikipedia's voice to describe people or groups as being anywhere on a problematic "political spectrum" as there is no accurate definition thereof covering all places and all times, and further that using opinion sources should always then be restricted to citing opinions as opinions, and not as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. In the case at hand, a neo-nazi group so self-described can certainly be described on it's own page as "neo-nazi" but that does not mean "John Gnarph met with a neio-nazi group that admites Hitler" belongs in the article on "John Gnarph". In the case at hand, the intent was to use "guilt by association" un a political article - the sort of thing McCarthy was noted for, and for which I find no excuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- To draw a parallel with that example, it appears that the analogy is you don't want to describe the Communists as Communists. If someone has met a neo-nazi group, it doesn't make him a neo-nazi, but it also doesn't stop the neo-nazi group being a neo-nazi group. It's NPOV to describe a neo-nazi group as a neo-nazi group. The neo-nazi group is also described as neo-nazi on it's article page. There is no BLP violation. Your change also removed the name of the groups, so people can't even read about the neo-nazi group on the respective article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- People who self-desxribe as such can be called such. In the case at hand, the use of descriptors for the people he met was being used to indirectly ascribe a term to him which is not applied by reliable sources to him. It is exactly the same sort of problem as was found in McCarthyyism - where if a person met with Communists, that meant they were Communists. Of all people, I would have expected you to understand this sort of indirect connection is improper on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a false dilemma here, a reasonable balance would be: John Gnarph met with neo-nazi group X. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Did you read my edits? Did you see the one where I removed the "Hitler" stuff? Did you note that I specifically made the edit [18]? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I've rewritten User:Collect/Peter Jensen (trainer). Best, Cunard (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think the article would pass AfD now because the sources provide nontrivial coverage of the subject. Per the closing admin's comment, {{db-repost}} wouldn't apply to the article because of the substantial revisions. Would you consider returning it to the mainspace now? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it meets the rules -- you might wish to cut down the duplication of "sports pyschologist" uses to keep the ones who were really upset at it <g>, and the anme should be Peter Jensen (Canadian Olympic sports trainer) to also keep them from saying "it's illegal" <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- The seven references I provided should clearly demonstrate that reliable sources from Canada and other countries consider Jensen to be a "sports psychologist". As you noted on the talk page, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, not editors' interpretations of Canadian law. The main proponent of removing any mention of "sports psychologist", Hillabear10 (talk · contribs), has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so hopefully there will be no further trouble with this issue.
Thank you for moving the page to Peter Jensen (Canadian Olympic trainer). Best, Cunard (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- The seven references I provided should clearly demonstrate that reliable sources from Canada and other countries consider Jensen to be a "sports psychologist". As you noted on the talk page, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, not editors' interpretations of Canadian law. The main proponent of removing any mention of "sports psychologist", Hillabear10 (talk · contribs), has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so hopefully there will be no further trouble with this issue.
- I think it meets the rules -- you might wish to cut down the duplication of "sports pyschologist" uses to keep the ones who were really upset at it <g>, and the anme should be Peter Jensen (Canadian Olympic sports trainer) to also keep them from saying "it's illegal" <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ante Pavelić
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ante Pavelić. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the material that User:Svikalovitch re-added the same that you removed earlier? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Joan Juliet Buck
I put back your deletion of the wowowow.com line. There were references earlier but they were taken out by malicious editors, and to not even CHECK the website that's listed? That's lazy and counts as a BLP violation.--Aichikawa (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. "wowowow.com" is not a WP:RS for anything other than (at most) opinions cited as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Dude, it was. If you go into the history, I had stuff from the New York Times. Please have some faith before you just dig in. Wikipedia's record with women is NOT the best.[19]--Aichikawa (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I only see what is on the page when I edit - I do not look everything up in the NYT which is RS for such things as who started what. The problem is SPS sources is that sometimes what is claimed does not coincide with what third party sources say. Would you prefer that we accept such sources at face value? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Dude, it was. If you go into the history, I had stuff from the New York Times. Please have some faith before you just dig in. Wikipedia's record with women is NOT the best.[19]--Aichikawa (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Collect. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Paul Ryan and speech reception. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Removal and editing of your comments on the NPOV board
Still has been removing and editing your comment on the NPOV board. Just thought you should know. I returned your comment twice, but have no interest in a 3RR for somthing so stupid. I reported to ANI as well. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mitt Romney
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitt Romney. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 08:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)