User:Collect/archive 13

I have requested that WP:Josh Billings be moved to WP:KNOW. TFD (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work yesterday. Those are all good edits which nobody was discussing. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks. Collect (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel like Dylan is going over the line, most recently including some things that if were true (and demonstrably not) are illegal and other things that are demonstrably false. Is it time to pull in a moderator? I got frustrated and was a little inappropriate yesterday and I need to step back and be more cautious ... MBMadmirer (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All I try to do is follow da rules of WP. Collect (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just a short note to say that I had mentioned your name and a matter that you had raised in discussion here. I had intended to let you know at the time as a courtesy, but in the heat of the moment neglected to. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded of this users refusal to listen User:Mk5384 - there appears to only be crossover on religious articles.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

@editor who comments about me on other pages:

Nope. I have made many answers on such pages, and, as I have never "followed" you in any way nor made any comments about you on any such page, your request is insulting. I would, moreover, ask that you not comment about me on any page. I would point out that my answer about the Wikistalk tool was absolutely proper. Have a nice day. Collect (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved. I was having a headache as to what to do with the article. --Nlu (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Post by blocked user removed

FYI, the above is a sock who was immediately blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And I am not all that surprised. Collect (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(post by disinvited user removed))

"Due process"? This ain't a court of law. And the guy even admitted to being a sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Was there another sock hop? Kelly ^hi! 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oy. Suddenly, Danny and the Juniors are reverberting in my head. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(post by disinvited user removed)

They were obviously socks. Of who, we don't know. But it doesn't matter. They be gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My question is - why on earth would Dylan be concerned with whether clearly abusive accounts are, or are not, socks? Collect (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If I had been falsely accused (well, by someone other than a troll), I might be a bit sensitive to the issue, and tend to defend those who are undeserving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Post by VERY disinvited user removed

Heck - I was accused many times -- mainly by Ratel. And we all know what he turned out to be. Collect (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really mind being falsely accused by trolls. Those who know me, friend and foe alike, typically pile on the accuser and 'splain to him what an idiot he is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that the article was frozen. Left wing was removed and a "some media" added in per the RS discussion as a compromise. You accepted the RS amendment but amended the text to make the claim that four media outlets called it left wing, the Jonny reverted and the article was frozen before anyone could even discuss your claim. So you could revert to your original position (removing the left wing label) or you could more sensibly self-refert to the version that was frozen while it went to RS and NPOV where it is under discussion. You can hardly claim it is the consensus position with that history That needs to be closed off and the RS majority is for removal of left wing as you probably have realised --Snowded ^TALK 17:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit you undid was over a week old. The article was not "frozen" as you seem to insist, nor are you the arbiter as to whether reliably sourced information should be removed because YOUDONTLIKEIT. It meets RS and NPOV requirements, which is how WP operates. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article was frozen after an minor edit war see here , it was not agreed or discussed due to that. Now the article has been unfrozen I revered it per WP:BRD to the version that we know is being discussed and which needs to be resolved. Now you are an experienced editor and I suspect you fully realise this. However its your call how you behave during a dispute, at least its on record. --Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the back-story, I'm just saying it doesn't look good. You start an RS discussion about the Daily Mail and right-wing/left-wing political terminology and then you go over to the Daily Mail page and remove the words "right wing" from the article. Your explanation might be completely valid, but you're not doing yourself any favours. --FormerIP (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The word "right wing" was added AFTER the RS/N discussion -- kindly look at the times involved. If anyone "tampered" - it was Gr8opinionator. Collect (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was just wondering whether in your revision of similar to identical, the intent of which I completely agree with, you might not have had in mind "materially identical". When I use such notices, I use identical notices myself as a general matter. But I note that some editors leave notices for the K editors saying "for which you had voted K", and for the D editors by saying "for which you voted D", while contacting all editors. That doesn't bother me, as it is accurate, if done for all such editors on both sides. So I would have no problem allowing it. Others personalize their emails by identifying the recipient, which would be another non-material non-identical aspect. Still -- not a big issue, and either way my notices would comport, so this is more an issue as to whether you care to allow (or not) such a practice to continue. No biggie either way for me. I will "watch" this page, if you wish to respond (though no need to ... just offering up a thought for your consideration).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes - "materially" is fine. I don't think the notice should tell people how they !voted, though. Collect (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd welcome your perspective at Talk:David_Miscavige#Clean-up_of_lead. Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The article needs substantial pruning. The more specific it becomes about "Scientology" the worse the article becomes. Let'a make it a BLP which just happens to involve a person in that area, and not about the area which just happens to be about a person. Collect (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

By all means, let's try to avoid a miscavige of justice. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you around! Collect (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have very many users on my watch list. You're one of the lucky ones. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Collect. Thanks for your help with my WP:Activist contributions. I believe we have edited together before (can remember where) do you? Thanks Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Too many articles on my list to remember - but I think you were in the RFCU on Lar? Collect (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok ... thanks again. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Thanks,[1] good edits. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sure! Collect (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw your note on the BLP noticeboard. Please see my edits to the article and my commentary on the article talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5]. Please self-revert William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Self-revert made. Collect (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Falls into the "way too much information" category of posts here. You might note [6] among many English language sources which deal with the group. Collect (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Then you should read also this, and there are more texts about it:

But, may I ask you to let Jimbo Wales answer my questions first -before you add anything else to that section of his talk/page- as I am asking him?. Thank you. --ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making incivil comments and continually edit warring on political topics without engaging in meaningful discussion, as you did at Glenn Beck. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

This edit continued an edit war already in progress.
This comment to the talkpage is an ad hominem rather than a meaningful contribution to the debate.
While interactions in projectspace are often a bit more rough and tumble than collegial editing of articles, comments such as this edit summary should still be avoided. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I started an ANI thread here. Kelly ^hi! 02:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

• To John - thanks for unblocking, but you might also want to keep an eye out for the blocking admin, who was apparently way off base. Kelly ^hi! 06:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd that a single edit on a page becomes an "edit war." Or that "appears to be RS sourced and not contentious" can be an "ad hominem attack." Unless the claim is made that in reference to Mr. Beck It certainly states his own opinion of his own position -- the cavil that "dunno" somehow reduces the value of the statement is withot reasonable foundation is an attack on an editor? Collect (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This whole thing smelled like an IRC-coordinated block to me. Kelly ^hi! 06:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely. 2over0 has never been in #wikipedia-en-admins ^connect, and therefore likely has never even been in IRC.

Collect, regardless of the block's incorrectness, it would have been a much better idea to hash things out on the talk page before reverting. Obviously, DocOfSoc and Soxwon need to learn that far more than you do (and I think someone has already spoken to them), but even so, it accomplished little to jump into the article with a revert before making any comments on the talk page. Anyway, just my two cents. NW (Talk) 06:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh? A single and proper edit should never, ever used as an excuse for a block. As you likely should know, I am a vigourous defender of WP:BLP and WP policies in general, and this particular bit was not particularly reasonable as far as I am concerned. By the way, did you see the WP:Activist edit? And SB's comment on the talk page? Collect (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying the block was right. I'm just saying that in the future, things work out a lot smoother if discussion is attempted after the first revert (by anyone). NW (Talk) 07:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That edit was about as uncontroversial as edits can be on articles like that. Kelly ^hi! 06:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And the misrepresentation of diffs 2 and 3 deserves an explanation. ATren (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect, saw the block and sure seemed out of line. Glad it was quickly resolved. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And thanks to all who weighed in on my mute behalf. Collect (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus at AN/I is that this block was an error in judgment on my part, and I would like to extend my apologies. I would still like to encourage you once again to be more temperate in your comments and more careful when joining an edit war. I would also like to commend you for your BLP work; in reviewing your recent contributions, I saw a number of instances where you have taken a strong stance in support of the policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

1. I did not "edit war." 2. I made no "intemperate comments." 3. You well might extend apologies without having to have such thrust upon you by essentially unanimous agreement at ANI. 4. I fully expect that you should note such, as otherwise other admins may look at the log and assume there was an acceptable reason for the blocks. Thank you. Collect (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you he or she? I keep having to write your name because I don't know what else to write. I seem to recall that you're a she, but I may be getting mixed up. Don't say if you'd rather not. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious why you want to keep a user subpage of a blocked editor. He won't be coming back. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read my MfD opinions carefully, you would find me a strict observer of what is, and is not, "indefinite". Ny personal guideline is six months. Collect (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Elvis Presley has been rolled back, just as if you were a vandal. You should know better than to edit war to delete well-sourced material from a Featured Article, particularly when the specific matter is currently under discussion on the article's Talk page. Feel free to express your precious opinion there.—DCGeist (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WP is now Ancestry.com. Sure. Collect (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

DC, please read WP:VAND: "Edit warring over content is not vandalism". Please be aware that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and in this case Collect was not vandalising. Also, reverting edit warring is just contributing to edit warring. Further misuse of rollback may result in it's removal. You should not be treating Collect "just as if [they] were a vandal". Also there is no need for sarcasm in your warning, which is only helping to escalate this issue. Collect, you should know better than to edit war, please use the talk page of the article to debate this issue with others in a collaborative manner. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in - the issue about labelling people as "Jewish" has been the subject of a lot of discussion over the years on WP, and quite especially recently. I trust you are each aware of the issues involved. Collect (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have stricken your name at AE and responded on Sandstein's talk page. Sorry about all this. I'll try to be more careful. You were a victim of collateral damage. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Np and thank you. Collect (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Help me find this, PA you claim [7]. So I may address it appropriately. Thanks and apologies in advance. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

BullRangifer withdrew the attack that I am part of a "fringe gang" involed in "piling on." Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See his talk page where Sandstein gave him a warning about such. Collect (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

OK ... BullRangifer piled on me after JPS escalated to the wp:fringe without talk discussion or real cause. The effect was a pile on the article, with some benefit and some just nonsensical attack attitude. Thanks for your concerns. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Collect,

If you have the reference for Machan, "Revisiting Anarchism and Government" on a site other than liberalia, we ought to cite from there. Liberalia has no internal pages (check the sections of their website). They have no "About" page to indicate that they edit or control publications. I'm not contesting that Machan is interesting or notable or worth citing. I'm contesting that the publisher is any good. Liberalia demeans Machan's article, because Liberalia doesn't come up to the expected standards of publishers. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with the Netherlands site? [8] seems to indicate a formal organization, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is with "http://www.liberalia.com/htm/tm_minarchists_anarchists.htm"
• I'm happy with the reliability of the Dutch as publishers. But there is a problem with the Dutch site which I wish they would have fixed, the quality of their typesetting. See below. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

with hired help, are compensated for their worries. He claims there would still be
serious concern about the sides
effects of such defensive action on the part of those no compensated.
ssstyle="mso-spacerun: yes"> As he puts it,

36.0pt;line-height:normal'>Even
under the strongest compensation proposal which compensates victims for their
fear, some people (the nonvictims) will not be com­pensated for their fear.

• • Grin -- I concede their typesetting is poor -- but WP does not, as far as I can tell, allow that to be a disqualification of a source. Collect (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Of course it oughtn't disqualify a source (if it can be read)... the publisher needs a boot up the bum, but they're multiple times more reliable than the liberalia.com mob! I'm kind of concerned about the article because the standard of sourcing is slipping towards the level of "AK Press" or "Crimethink" or "NEFAC" if we were to use equivalent organisations from class struggle libertarians. This may present problems later on, as it is an inclusionist standard when dealing with long standing political organisations with a reputation for editorial reliability in the truthful transmission of notable opinions. Thankfully the sourcing standard is still maintained above the line of the "Anarchist FAQ" standard of editorial reliability. Thanks for the assistance in improving that reference. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Collect. Well, we are at it again. There was a short debate on the B.Harrison discussion page a couple of weeks ago, where the Harrison stamps were regarded as 'trivia' and you pointed out that it was not so because they are "official US government acts". After a little debate about centering, etc. we reached a compromise and the section was settled, so I thought. Not even two weeks later user Coemgenus has the same plans and wants to take the stamp section and lump it in with a statutes and memorials section that doesn't even exist yet. Also, I found some material about Harrison, his Postmaster General , and how they pushed the first US commemorative stamps through Congress in time for the 1893 World's fair where these stamps were first issued. Harrison and his postmaster general were present at this landmark event and Harrison gave a speech. User 'Coemgenus' feels this is too much about 'stamps' (section takes up less than a page) and that the article should not cover every event in Harrison's life, again, thinking that this whole affair is also 'trivial'. In any event, the discussion is in progress and your input, for or against, would be appreciated. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I took a quick look but it seems like there is already a range of views being heard on the talk page, so I'm not sure what I can add to that discussion. Plus, I can't quite figure out the issues there. If there's something specific I can help with please let me know.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't see your note as canvassing. Somewhat the opposite, as a matter of fact: more like reaching out to someone who might be on the other side.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Which was precisely my goal. Thanks for confirming this. Collect (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If someone is citing material to which you do not have access then it's reasonable to ask for a quotation. There's even an inline template for that. {{Request quotation|date=January 2011}}. You can alsogo to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. If it's a newspaper I might be able to help if you give me the citation.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

One I was able to track down - a single sentence "wrenched from its mother's breast" defining anti-communism as "radical right". When I pointed out a secondary source on the 1960 Democratic Party Platform making anti-communist statements, he told me that using the platform was "original research" so to speak. Many of the other :"references" are long ranges of pages John Mering, "The Constitutional Union Campaign of 1860: An Example of the Paranoid Style," Mid America, 1978, Vol. 60#2 pp 95-106 and the like, which is rather impossible for me to verify at all. Merci. Collect (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

TFD is roaming around making clearly personal attacks on multiple pages at this point (one on your page, one on RD232, etc.). He also fails to realize that asserting that an editor is an "expert" does not make bad cites better :). Collect (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please not canvassing other editors. There are proper procedures for dispute resolution which are available. Also, you may wish to research the subject before pursuing DR. TFD (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Kindly note that I made no POV push in any post. And I was not the one who posted on multiple noticeboards either. As for "research" you likely should be aware that I have had courses on the subject involving more than 4,000 pages of reading :). But I do not assert that I know the truth. Collect (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The description of the John Birch Society as "radical right" is sourced to Clive Webb's Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era. published by the University of Georgia Press (2010), which reads, "Radical right is commonly, but not completely, used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and John Birch Society..." TFD (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Which thus allows the SYNTH of Radical Right is a term used to describe various American political movements that are conspiratorial, anti-communist and "radical".[1] In this context radical means more than rhetorical tone or suspicion of the established politicians, it means a "readiness to jettison constitutional processes and to suspend liberties, to condone Communist methods in the fighting of Communism.? Nope. All you can do is say that some anticommunist organizations have been called "radical right." That is as far as that horse can run. 1960 Democratic Party Platform: This is not a partisan election-year charge. It has been persistently made by high officials of the Republican Administration itself. Before Congressional committees they have testified that the Communists will have a dangerous lead in intercontinental missiles through 1963—and that the Republican Administration has no plans to catch up. We pledge our will, energies, and resources to oppose Communist aggression To sell, we must buy. We therefore must resist the temptation to accept remedies that deny American producers and consumers access to world markets and destroy the prosperity of our friends in the non-Communist world. We believe your Communist ideology to be sterile, unsound, and doomed to failure. We believe that your children will reject the intellectual prison in which you seek to confine them, and that ultimately they will choose the eternal principles of freedom.. Nor will the United States, in conformity with its treaty obligations, permit the establishment of a regime dominated by international, atheistic Communism in the Western Hemisphere. And so on, and on. Thus proving by your cite that the Democratic Party is "Radical Right" I suppose. Collect (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a valid point. But in Wikipedia we do not engage in original research. Instead we reference this line of reasoning which was made by D. J. Mulloy and is already in the article. TFD (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Democratic Party platform is from a secondary source, and is thus WP:RS. Perhaps you did not know that the platform is available online from a secondary source? Collect (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is OR, not RS. TFD (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How can citing a reliable source for precisely what the reliable source says in black and white be OR? I think you are quite errant in such a claim! Collect (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

[9] UPDATE: Someone called g in the comments has sent me this link to a cache facility that could embarrass the SWP, yay even unto the third geneation, or the 3G even. It has a replica of the original page from the SWP website:

There has been some controversy surrounding our invitation for the musician Gilad Atzmon to perform at Marxism 2005. One or two small groups are claiming that Gilad is an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. We would like to state the following:

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli born Jew who served in the Israeli Defence Force and who now lives in “self-exile” in Britain. He is an internationally acclaimed jazz musician whose album Exile won BBC Best Jazz Album of 2003. The SWP would also like to make it clear, that we would never give a platform to a racist or fascist. Our entire history has been one of fierce opposition to fascist organisations like the National Front and the British National Party. We played a prominent role in setting up the Anti Nazi League in the mid-1970s and Unite Against Fascism two years ago.

Verbatim cite from SWP. [10]. Atzmon may be a loose cannon, but this is decidedly RS for the SWP saying what it did. Collect (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC) SWP cite [11]. Collect (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You have repeatedly claimed that SWP founded UAF, but your source merely says that they played a "prominent role" in setting it up. TFD (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Um - I said they started it. Are you saying that Jimbo did not "found" WP because others were involved? And what about your claim that the cite did not exist? Care to emend you coments on that? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to edit the Wikipedia article now to say that it is a left wing/right wing or whatever based on what his ideology may happen to be? TFD (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I seem to recall you claiming I invented a cite. If you wish, I invite you to acknowledge the cite publicly and to incorporate it in the article. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The role of the SWP is in the article - but your suggestion to misrepresent it is wrong-headed. Articles should reflect sources, not what we want to believe. You should be aware also that opposition to fascism is not left-wing - there are people in the center as well - conservatives, christian democrats, liberals, etc. TFD (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You said I lied about the source existing (in several places, in fact). Now you say it would be wrong to state that the SWP said it had a major role in setting up UAF. Unfortunately for you, the source is sufficiently clear. All you do now is act to further obstruction of an NPOV in an article. You have the choice of adding this source and its claim, or of continuing to deny its existence. Simple. Collect (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I never said you lied about anything. However the statement that "the SWP founded the UAF" is unsupported by the source you have provided. TFD (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) One editor has written Collect, you may present these ideosyncratic arguments at the neutrality and OR noticeboards., Collect, this is not a spin room, please use reasoned arguments not sophistry, No there is not and your discussion is therefore pointless, is The Times another newspaper that you have never read?, You have never have provided the link to the SWP claim that they set up the UAF. Is there any reason why you would consider the SWP website as more reliable than the mainstream media?, You have not provided any link to this claim. and no one has been able to find it. , So you think you saw something on the SWP website, cannot find it, but expect us to take your word and you want to use it as a source for a separate article on a separate organization. Those are the standards you apply to articles about organizations that you oppose, which are different from the standards you apply to this article, That "simple statement of fact" is OR if you cannot provide any sources to support it. In fact the term "radical" had a different meaning in the 19th century and the term "right-wing" referred to where one sat in a European legislature, not to political ideology , Republican and radial were interchangeable terms, Collect, this is not the place to correct your lack of knowledge of French history , I know that you spend a lot of time supporting right-wing groups and people in articles (Palin, Beck, etc.), but you should be aware that the BNP and EDL are far right, not the same thing., May I suggest that you stop objecting to every investigation I request without first reading through the evidence.

[12] is interesting -- since one editor opined the contrary of his argument when he wanted to use something published by that publisher.

One editor appears possibly to be fixated -- my list of watchlisted (edited) articles is at User:Collect/watchlisted articles Anyone is free to see how fixated I am on political articles in general :) Collect (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As a contributor to this MFD back in 2009 (resulting in keep), you may be interested to know this page has been renominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Collect. In you vote you said "If the user can mark it up into a real article..." Could you please help me with that. What it is missing to be a real article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks- I think the first part is to write the lede in a fully dispassionate tone - making it understated, rather than overstated. Second, any use of any phrase must be sourced to specific reliable sources, lest anyone feel that it is an editorial here. Collect (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. May I please ask to help me to re-write the lead? English is not my first language and I'd appreciate some help with this. About sourcing, every paragraph is sourced, but if you see something that is not, please do let me know. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to improve the article. If you are satisfied with it now, maybe you could change your vote yo "keep"? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Remind me why I even bother trying to edit some articles like Beck? I don't even like him. Arzel (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It is far more important to make sure that people you do not like have NPOV biographies than it is to make sure that people you like have them. Too many editors try to denigrate those they do not like, and praise those they do like. See WP:PIECE and WP:Advocacy among other essays. Collect (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Collect. I knew it was only a matter of time. Doesn't anyone realize how useless IPA is? Does anyone actually go to the IPA page to figure out how their hieroglyphics are pronounced? Here is a practical suggestion for a smart computer guy: build a bot that can look at the IPA symbols and add an ogg (or some other format) sound file of the pronunciation. The IPA hieroglyphs would stay, so the linguists would be happy, and normal people like me could click on the ogg file to hear the name. What do you think? --Kenatipo (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps- but we are pretty much stuck with seeking some sort of consistency on WP :). Noting also the "hobgoblin of little minds" problem, of course. Collect (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minimum! Isn't there a rule that says if a rule is stupid and inhibits improving this encyclopedia then we should ignore it? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Of all rules, that is the most pernicious in practice. Alternatively you can look at all the pronunciation discussions over the past years (masochist?) and see why it does not pay to worry about them. Collect (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably a cabal of cunning linguists mucking things up (sorry, I just couldn't resist). As far as you know, there's no rule about adding an ogg file with the pronunciation, is there? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Mikey, try it, youll like it? I think a number of places on WP use sound examples, as a matter of fact. Collect (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I found an example of something you mentioned above: [13]. Have a look. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be be approaching 3RR on Right-wing politics. If you do not like the sources used, could you please provide an acceptable source. Where are you getting this information? TFD (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Um - no. And I take it you delieve all racist and fascist groups are "right wing"? Collect (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What you or I believe or WP:KNOW is irrelevant, we must be guided by sources. TFD (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And so I reduced the material to precisely quoting what the cite says. Collect (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No you changed the meaning. Compare your edit to the source. TFD (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I read the source and quoted it exactly. Period. And yet you insist "avowedly" is there somewhere when it ain;t? Collect (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to keep you informed TFD has opened this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Collect_reported_by_TFD_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29Johnsy88 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnsy88, I was just about to notify Collect. TFD (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed my error. I was in a rush to notify all involved and prepare for Super Bowl guests. Please accept my apology. I don't recall ever making that mistake. That it happens here is embarrassing. Buster Seven Talk 04:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

NP - sorry for the brusque edit summary. Hope all is well with you. Meanwhile you might suggest to an acquaintance that keeping his talk page filled with attacks on me is of no further use? Collect (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No promises but I will see what I can do. Buster Seven Talk 13:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This statement by The Four Deuces [14] makes little sense to me, does this user often obfuscate like this? The source is quite unambiguous in stating "communist terrorists" how on earth does this not mean the author is talking of communist terrorism? Tentontunic (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

At a guess, in the same sense that "male terrorists" are no a sign of "male terrorism", or that a gay minister does not imply a gay government. In other words, the "communist" property can be purely incidental to the terrorism, or it can be linked to a broader movement ("communist terrorists, Buddhist terrorists and truck drivers were all part of the struggle for national liberation"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdam arguments hold very little water. There are plenty of sources linking communists and communist governments with terrorism. I know of no men's organization in any category linked with terrorism, nor have I heard of any group other than ACT-UP being associated with any illegal acts. Meanwhile, as long as the material is reliably sourced per WP, I know of no cogent reason to disparage an article this way. Collect (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the concrete instance, having not looked into it. I've shown a possible interpretation of the statement that the OP may not have considered. It's Reductio ad absurdum - notice the "u". Feel free to remove this if you fix the spelling above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you are a spelling corrector. I would not deprive you of the pleasure of seeing the error. You could, of course, use (sic) in a few hundred WP articles now. Collect (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not. My speling wud frequently invite retaliatiton. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Old line attributed to (far too many people): "One has little respect for a man who only knows one way to spell a word." Collect (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a famous quote by Mark Twain, George Bernard Shaw and Winston Churchill, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Noah Webster. Collect (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson could write? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think so - at least he has a very collectable autograph. Unlike JFK whose autograph was fully illegible (enough that fake autographs abound, including a famed large archive about Marilyn Monroe etc. If the faker stuck to dull stuff, he would have gotten away with it). Collect (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And out of all of this, no reply to the question? Quite amusing indeed. "One has little respect for a man who only knows one way to spell a word." Credited to many, yet written by none. Twain`s quote although similar, was very different. Tentontunic (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed your comment in an edit conflict, I am sure I restored it to the correct place [15] Please accept my apologies for this error. Tentontunic (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC) LNP. Collect (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to clean up your WQA request. "Article name" and "Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation" are just placeholders you forgot to remove. It would help helpful to introduce the problems, rather than just use quotes.

You've brought up WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF, and WP:DR problems as well as WP:CIVIL, so the scope might be outside WP:WQA. Many of the problems are repeated here (Note (06:40, 12 February 2011) and (23:50, 13 February 2011)) --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I used the default template - sorry. Collect (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Back in December, you were one of the people who supported User:QuackGuru when a site ban for disruption and POV pushing was proposed. There are once again serious disputes involving this editor. Please consider helping to resolve the current dispute at Talk:Chiropractic. I am hoping that since you are one of the few editors on record as supporting his involvement, that he will be inclined to listen to what you have to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted - does not seem to be at the "intervention point" quite yet. I will opine if it appears needed, for sure. Collect (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Quick help over interrupted refactoring?. Thank you.  Frank  |  talk  18:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that you undid my revision on the David Copperfield (illusionist) page, removing the information about DC I obtained from his appearance on The Howard Stern Show because I used marksfriggin.com as a reference. I am aware that the page I referenced does not contain the specific data I added to the DC wikipage, but that is the closest webpage I could use as a reference because it confirms DC was indeed interviewed on that day. The information I posted about DC is indeed accurate because I have access to the audio of the interview and the facts come straight from his mouth. To reference the data, I don't believe that excerpting the audio of the interview as an mp3 is an option. However, I do feel that the information is relevant to the page. What would you suggest? Should I re-enter the information without a reference? Thank you for the help. Sadchild (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Note especially the fact that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed from any BLP. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Would not a merge be a good first step? An AfD already failed. Would not one article be better than two? Also, was your comment at BLPN in reply to a vote? It's not clear from your formatting of the comment. People are already complicating the vote by inserting alternative proposals, and it might go better if people would just say "support" or "oppose". Thanks. P.S. You're correct that neologisms generally do not belong on WP as articles as a rule. The merge proposal would remove the article about the neologism. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Shall so note. Collect (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely did not mean to CANVAS, since my whole point was to contact everyone who was involved in editing Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute within the last few months, plus a few admins I knew who had been involved in the issue. I included editors who are both generally supportive of Tenmei, and those who are generally opposed to xem, and those for whom I was not sure that there was a position. The message was neutrally worded (I think, let me know if I was wrong). I thought that WP:CANVAS says that we can and should notify people involved in related issues. If I did something wrong, my apologies, but I sincerely thought I was following the requirements of WP:CANVAS. Is an RFC/U only supposed to focus on people not involved? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The requirement would be that everyone who has edited on the article in a substantial period of time be notified for any RfC on the article. There is no means for identifying a subset of editors who should be notified for an RFC/U on an editor, so presumably no such notifications should be sent out. Let those who randomly find the RFC/U then comment. The problem is that by choosing any subset of editors, one may get people who have preconceptions about the subject, while the RFC/U is properly supposed to have complete outsiders looking at the material presented about the editor. All too often RFC/Us are populated and "front loaded" with critics of the editor, making it impossible to get a fair and unbiassed view of the problems of that editor and, presumably, those who are complaining about him. Your position would be proper for any RfC on the article proper, by the way. Collect (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. I didn't realize there was a difference in how canvassing worked on RFC's and RFCU's. As I mentioned at the RFC/U talk page, it does appear that, at least so far, there hasn't been any "damage" from the canvassing, because only 2 notified editors have commented, one on each "side". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry too much -- if a bunch appeared, the issue would be of more concern. The worst case is where people view the RFC/U as a deliberate "trial" of anyone - the only good use is simply to apprise each editor or group of editors of concerns about behaviour (concerns about content belong only on the article talk pages, and using RFC/Us to complain about content is a poor way to handle anything at all). Naturally this means there have been too many RFC/Us used for bullying editors off of WP :(. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit you reverted here seemed only to be rearranging paragraphs, rather than deleting them. I agree that many of the edits are problematic, but that one seems only to remove the the note on it being regulated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty instantly suspicious of "re-arranging" as my experience has been that stuff generally goes missing. I clearly apologize if this is, indeed, a simple rearrangemnet (though to what end, I know not). Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm heading out. I think he (note that the IP is almost certainly the editor) is at or exceeded 3RR in Political activities of the Koch family, and possibly at other articles. I've warned both for 3RR, but if he exceeds it, the next step is a 3RR report. Have fun. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think McGlockin is in Taipei... and IP99 is in Texas. Most admins do not do much about IPs - but if either makes a statement directly calling any registered user a "sock" I think a WQA is well in order. Collect (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not being a checkuser, I can't confirm, but the edits of March 16 (Pacific time) certainly appear to be temporally separated, and they're making the same edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

McGlockin signed an IP post - and the IP is in Taipei. The other IP on whois is ATT&T Texas. Do I suspect anything? I really do not know. Collect (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

McGlockin was blocked in February for, among other things, signing someone else's posts. I don't think we can assume the IP whose post he signed was actually him. In any case, they've both stopped, for the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Signing someone else's posts? Arcane a bit. Collect (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I owe you an apology. While that thread did not belong on the main RFC page it also should not have been archived. I've moved it to the talk page for further discussion. Thank you for your effort in providing a summary. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NP as the old shorthand goes. Collect (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! Lionel (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

please see this to see my objections to the article. In my view, if one left in all content that represented mainstream or majority views of notable economic historians or jewish historians ... there would be a blank page. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My aim was to remove what was clearly problematic content - clearly Jews do have an "economic history" although the article is remiss in not handling early history of the Jewish people as (at various points) nomadic tribes and agrarian societies, later becoming a trading crossroads between Asia and Africa etc. Lots to add, but my effort was to remove the material not germane to the obvious topic. Collect (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This was an overtly anti-Semitic tract lifted from the Stormfront website. Anti-Semitic diatribes have no place in an encyclopedia and you should have voted to delete. TFD (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the topic is notable, and I removed the anti-semitic stuff as much as possible - removing a very large proportion of the article. No one at AfD stated it was a simple copyvio, and I do not read Stormfront in any case. Meanwhile, I find corrections from you to be of zero value here - the issue which I, and a large number of others saw, was one of notability. BTW, kindly give me the URL of the tract on the Stormfront site so that I can verify it was "lifted" thereform, and in which case the copyvio claim ought to have been raised. TYMK. Collect (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking an interest in the request for arbitration another editor started with me. I appreciate your efforts towards resolution and neutrality.

[16]

Best wishesLeidseplein (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw your note in the revert to my removal of the quote on the Terrorism page. You are correct; WP:N applies to pages, not article entries. I should have mentioned WP:DUE. My bad! Sorry!

I'm going to hold off on taking more action for a bit until we can talk. If you don't mind, would you please look at the article's Talk page?

Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

any reply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Discussion ?

Thank you for flagging my attention. Have you also flagged the attention of the other editors on this article who are deleting long-standing content that they are also approaching 3R? Davidpatrick (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You are at 5RR as far as I can tell. Cheers. I trust you self-reverted? Collect (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not wish to inadvertently exceed reversions. If I am at 5RR - how many RR are the others who have been reverting longstanding text? My restoration of the pertinent, cited, sourced text has been reverted by someone else. And restored by another diligent editor who has had HIS restoration reverted. Please confirm that you are keeping track of those who are deleting sourced cited text? And notifying those who approach 3RR. Davidpatrick (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to see a wheel war start, but I really think this kind of information can lead to genuine harm. With luck, deletion by two experienced editors will keep this from being re-inserted. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a glutton for punishment on making WP:BLP actually be followed - grin. Collect (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Collect. I have not 3R'd as I added a lot of new content including strong references this evening. 3R only refers to the same material being reverted, as I understand it. The material does not contravene WP:BLP as it's fully public text, quoting Richardson in interview. He has made nudity the focus of his photo shoots for many years. It cannot be said to be contentious or sensitive material as far as Richardson goes. I am not making a point or being argumentative. I do believe this material can stand. I'm not into edit wars. As a long standing editor on this page I'm happy to discuss changes. Best wishes Span (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the page WP:3RR. It does not just apply to simple reverts - it applies to any acts which are in conflict with edits by others. . A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. Collect (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's twice within 10 hours or so you've posted right after me agreeing with what I say [17] [18] - obvious stalking behaviour...

Only kidding, nice to see we can agree on some things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is to look only at the words - not at the poster. There are, alas, some who look only at the poster. You should note that I agree with you a substantial fraction of the time. I find those who have "knee jerk hatred" on their minds to be generally frauds (a bunch who stalked me / opposed me on everything turned out to be sock puppets <g> (actually now have outlived more than a dozen socks who attacked me, and one actual campaign worker who did so).) (BTW, I am going to get one stalker yelling at the old emoticon on general principles!) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

While we're oiling each other's backs… I know that you and I have been on opposing sides of content disputes; but, it is terrific to be on the same side when we both agree on policy and WP:MEDRS in relation to brains, minds, and single scientific studies. No matter what content disagreements I vaguely remember in the past; it is delightful to be brought together over agreed policy and agreed interpretations. It is the kind of experience that makes editing a good one in the encyclopaedic project—happy editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No oiling needed <g>. I just wish you had noted earlier that my disagreements with you were always founded in specific beliefs about Wikipedia and Wikipedia policies, and were not founded in personalities. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Since you participated in this merge proposal which was put in an AfD, and therefore was procedurally closed, your input would be appreciated for an actual merge discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Per your request at my talkpage, I have discussed the issue with Ohiostandard and am satisfied by their explanation, and am pleased to confirm that they have undertaken to further remedy the situation. Ohiostandard has asked me to reiterate his stance that you remain welcome to use his talkpages to bring up any concerns you may have in regard with him. I trust this brings this matter to a conclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile note that his concern about my page listing anonymous edit summaries seems not germane - WP has no search function for edit summaries <g>. Collect (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing you here as the talk page thread was disrupted. Are https://secureweb.mcgill.ca/mes/sites/mcgill.ca.mes/files/MJMESGoldsmith.pdf or http://web.uvic.ca/~thugs/files/2009Clearihue.pdf#page=50 "Peer-reviewed"? Even if they are, does not the fact that those autors have (as far as I could find) nothing else written on Iranian history in scholarly journals or scholarly books, in fact nothing else written in scholarly journals or scholarly books period, make of much less WP:Weight then the sources I've mentioned. The coup is a major event in third world history (not to mention Iranian history) and thus there are many things written about it. Why not use the most notable? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP has no page which says "peer-reviewed articles must be written by someone who has written x-number of articles" that I can find. And determining "most notable" is not something supported by any WP policy or guideline - if a source meets WP:RS for the claim being made, it can be used. Collect (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, neither of these two articles have been published in peer-reviewed academic articles. See Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Discussion thread for details. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Clearihue Review is a Journal complied and published each year by THUGS. Undergraduates are encouraged to submit historical essays to published. A review panel decides which essays will be included into each issue. Sounds to me like it is reviewed. YMMV. Collect (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Peer review" normally refers to a formal process where competent scholars vet the content of submitted papers. Undergraduates may be "peers" of other undergraduates, but whatever they produce is not academic peer review in the sense of WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I had presumed the "review" was by faculty - which would make sense. Collect (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It might make sense, but it's not what is. As you can easily see, there is a great overlap between the authors (all undergrads), the editorial board, and the review board. The complete journal is produced and published by an undergrad society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am used to a college where "reviews" were, in fact, closely reviewed by faculty. Even if the faculty names were not on the review masthead. Collect (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Even assuming that that might be the case, faculty certainly applies different standards to an internal undergrad paper than to a proper academic journal article. Otherwise, bluntly, the college journal would not have enough articles to publish. Anyways, we can keep this discussion up forever. Do you agree that the two undergrad journals in question are not reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense? Or should we get additional opinions at WP:RSN? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the book published by an RS publisher remains though. My only edit on the article was to make the lede short and factual - do you prefer the long lede? Collect (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article beyond a cursory view, and I have not looked at the contents of the sources at all. I was only concerned with the misunderstanding about the status of the two sources. That said, the current "lede" is much to long and rambling. Shortening it somehow is certainly welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Gaze at the one I suggested (moving all the current rambling stuff - though I suspect half or more is non-utile). Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

While you're not the subject, you were mentioned in an incident here. Lionel (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to comment here? Cheers. CycloneGU (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The admonitions by three separate admins regarding his AE actions do not count as "warnings"? I rather thought them quite clear that his behaviour was a problem, and that the "next time" he did anything, he would be strongly sanctioned. Also he was clearly aware of the Digwuren sanctions as he appealed his notification thereof :). Collect (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Note also that one of them (Ed Johnston) weighed in just above - suporting a one year topic ban. Collect (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I never warned that gaming was over and that he faced serious sanctions. I haven't been following him. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed and two others had warned him on AE specifically - and Ed specifically suggested a one year vacation on your UT page, IIRC. This business about getting innumerable warnings sans any results seems a bit futile IMO. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Collect, do you consider yourself "uninvolved" with respect to TFD? I had at first tended to accept your voice as such, as I didn't remember you as being among the perpetual Eastern-Europe warriors, but it's been called into question, and I do see now that you have had recent involvement with TFD in disputes such as "Communist terrorism". If you are not uninvolved, please remove your contributions from the "uninvolved" section on AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am fully uninvolved in the case about Vecrumba. I will note that TFD has filed cases against me, but using that as a criterion, he has hundreds of involved editors. He, in fact, has accused me of "stalking" him on some AfDs, though he failed to note that I have !voted on well over five hundred XfDs <g>. Does that make me involved due to his unfounded charge? Again, I trust not. Do you find that having someone file AE against you would make you instantly involved? I note that ArbCom specifically found that such did not make an editor or admin "involved" with regard to other cases, and, as I am not an admin, there is no issue of me conflating two hats at all. And note specifically that I only made additional posts after a specifically involved editor sought to involve me here. I have the funny feeling that this has happened before (heck, I know it has, vide the long history of Ikip/Okip/TravB/Inclusionist's "interactions" with others.) Did you find my initial post in any way whatever non-neutral with regard to TFD? Collect (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• One can have prior relationships with editors and still be uninvolved in a particular dispute. I too have edited around Communist terrorism, etc… but my only involvement in the discussion at A/E/R is to have responded to the RS:N thread on textual reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Collect (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You should not make vague accusations of sockpuppetry against other editors. If you have suspicions, then the appropriate place to discuss them is at SPI. TFD (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Anent what post precisely? Ikip apologized to me - is that something which means something? Other than that, I have not the foggiest idea what the point of your comment is whatsoever. Collect (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You said, "I have the funny feeling that this has happened before". TFD (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the post before making rash assumptions as to what you think it means. My intersections with you are few indeed. Collect (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Stephanie_Booth

Hi, the main creator of this BLP has returned to editing it I have unarchived this un-actioned report. If there is no comment from them would you assess the current content for and self published issues in the content, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I got rid of most of it. Hope you approve. Collect (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that, I should be in bed - I will have a look tomorrow but as we agree on the problems associated with selfpub your edits are likely comparable with ones I would also have made. I have an idea that the main creator of the content will perhaps move to discussion, so lets see tomorrow. Best. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In making this comment, User:Collect was entirely correct. Closure by an involved person in a discussion is simply not wise (to put it mildly), unless perhaps unanimity can be shown to undeniably exist, which was not the case here.

At the same time, I agree with User:Eraserhead1's point that a discussion taking place in multiple places is not productive (again, that's putting it mildly).

There are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of this merger issue. They need to be brought to bear in one venue. I ask that we do it here. We need to keep it calm, cool, and we need to realize that, with the clear voices of concern regarding the merger, that at this time, WP:BOLD is no longer sufficient grounds for conducting the move. We need to seek consensus, and that consensus must be found in the eyes of a non-involved administrator. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that discussions once started should be allowed to run their natural course on each page, seeking consensus therein. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is linked from all the talk pages. And the effort to watchlist another article is trivial compared to the confusion of having the discussion in multiple places at once. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As I have iterated - I am not linking other pages to my watchlist when a discussion is ongoing. Cheers. Now stay away from here. Collect (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)