User:Collect/archive 17

Christian Science

Just a note to say thanks for dealing with those edits. It's a shame to watch this happen just as it's up for GA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And thanks to you as well -- it was just getting stable when the new editor entered in with the "truth"/ Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note for Khazar [1] to say that I've stopped making any substantial edits for now to let the article stabilize for the review. I may make some writing tweaks, but if I want to work on anything major I'll develop it on a user subpage and wait for the review to end. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can not figure out why IRWolfie is so upset that "science" has a different meaning now than in the 1870s - did I give enough cites for it? I was amazed that he thought I would make any claims without pretty good sourcing <g>. Collect (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the point he's making with his focus on definitions of science. His main aim when he was editing the article was to make the point that CS was "pseudoscience" and "quackery" – based on poor sources, or sources who didn't actually say it, or sources who said it but only in passing – but those are words that don't add any meaning at the best of times. To apply them to religious belief is just odd. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ortiz

Hi. Please review this explanation of this edit. Please consider discussing on talk page rather than reverting. I understand the sensitivity of BLP. But I do not think this is so clear-cut a matter as to require summary reversion. There are enough WP:TRUTH-seekers haunting these articles. As long-established editors, let's try to show them how collaboration works. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel

Hi there, Collect. I saw you made some small adjustments to the Licensed products section of the Cracker Barrel article, and since then I've discussed a few additional changes with User:Jerem43 (Jeremy) who has agreed to two changes: the new deal is not for frozen foods but packaged meats, and a sentence about Kraft's use of the brand for cheese should be simplified. Jeremy has said OK to the changes and encouraged me to implement them, however because I've made the requests on Cracker Barrel's behalf, I'd like to avoid doing so. Would you be willing to consider doing so? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverting Marco Rubio edits

I've restored my edits to Marco Rubio that you reverted. All of the edits used the sources correctly, improved sources, or fixed erroneous information. If you would like to specifically challenge any of the current sentences, please state your case on the talk page. Thank you. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please READ WP:BLP. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Surrealism lives on at WP:AN/I. Collect (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes. It is ANI, after all. Also known as the drama pit of the universe. *shrug* KillerChihuahua 20:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

question

Hi Collect, you mentioned on the TPM talk page about it being okay to use an organization's website when it talks about itself/mission. What about using a BLP's website or even something like this in a bio? [2]. It's a 'viewpoint' piece where she mentions her background. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The only issue when using an SPS for information about onseself is whether the material can be viewed as "unduly self serving" - a person can not use their own website for calling themselfves "the world's greatest authority" on anything - but for normal stuff such as what they write about something or why they hold a position, it is generally acceptable. Collect (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'd like to use the Time piece because Time does fact-checking and in this instance she's talking about the tea party and mentions her background and how she got into it, so it doesn't seem self-serving but rather just giving information. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fred Hiatt BLP issues

Hi there,
You responded quickly and helpfully to my posting on the BLP noticeboard regarding the Fred Hiatt article. I'm reaching out to you again because the principle editor of the page has since rewritten a substantial portion of the article to incorporate some -- though not all -- of the text you wrote without maintaining the spirit or tone of the text, and reinserting much of the text s/he wrote that you edited out. Once again I think there are NPOV issues, especially as the partisan name-calling (one way or the other) makes up the bulk of the article, now, out of proportion with the informational content therein. On top of that, Wormcast's sense of ownership of the text is yet again preventing the article from growing organically towards a more encyclopedic, balanced article. I'm at a loss for how to proceed without turning this into a pissing contest, if you'll forgive the phrase. Any advice or help you could furnish would be gratefully accepted. I'll watch for your response here,
Thanks,
Joehjoeh (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

		Possible compromise resolution
		The Dispute Resolution Noticboard volunteer, Noleander has offered a compromise solution here. Please take a minute to add your response as to whether you agree or disagree with this solution. There are no "ground rule" limitations but please consider using brevity if commenting . Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion about the genocide article

Collect, I liked your suggestion the other day about what to rename the genocide article. But I have suggested a tweak for readability. Do you care to comment about this edit suggestion? I haven't initiated a new move request yet because I would like to get the wording right. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bush Derangement Syndrome for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome 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/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article. Yworo (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas. 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) 09:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Watson

Did you mean to revert El Heuro instead of me? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep - I did not intend to revert you - but to go back to my prior edit, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Entertainment in the 16th century: AfD?

Hi, Collect! I actually have an account (I think we've crossed paths once or twice; nothing really memorable, positive or negative, as I recall), but I've decided to give IP editing a try for a while. As a side effect, I can't complete the AfD nomination process, since I can't create the AfD page itself as an IP editor. I've been looking at the Entertainment in the 16th century page, which looks like quite the mess; based on the title, it seems way too broad in scope (though naturally the article limits itself to Europe, itself a problem), it wanders off topic, the sources are questionable at best (one, as best I can tell, was created by third-graders!). I don't think there's anything worthwile in the content to be moved to a more appropriate title, and without that, I don't think there's any reason to keep it. If you have a moment, could you take a look, and if you agree, do the honors? Thanks! 68.48.34.96 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if you're wondering, I came to you based on the highly scientific method of choosing the first name that looked vaguely familiar on the RecentChanges list. 68.48.34.96 (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - but I rather think the topic is notable per se even if it either needs renaming or inclusion of material from outside Europe. Collect (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough; thanks! 68.48.34.96 (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

RSN

As a regular contributor to RSN, whose opinions I respect, but don't always agree with, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Colombo.2C_Rose.2C_Fight_Back_Legal_Abuse:_How_to_Protect_Yourself_From_Your_Own_Attorney. At this point, one uninvolved person has commented, but I prefer to have more than one uninvolved person comment under the circumstances, so as to get a clear consensus one way or the other. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification requested

I would expect this not to be discounted - clearly the person read the posts above, where Viriditas has been exceedingly active in charging everyone who !votes "oppose" with being CANVASSed - clearly his own CANVASS rather backfired here, and thus should not be ignored or discounted.

Could you please take a moment to explain these strange comments? I have not canvassed anyone or talked about this RfA anywhere. Please consider striking your comments as you appear to have misunderstood and misinterpreted comments made by another user, who admittedly made nonsensical comments that have no bearing on this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You charged me with being CANVASSED. I was not. You have not apologized for that attack. Cheers. Now leave. Collect (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, as there does appear to be a communication/language barrier. I have never "charged" you with being canvassed. I asked you if you were canvassed. Now, are you telling me because I asked you a very simple question, that gives you the right to make false statements? If that's what you are saying, then we have a problem. Since you cannot provide any diffs of me canvassing anyone for this RfA, it looks like you are deliberately lying. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It did not appear to me or to others to be a "very simple question" and the context was quite accusatory indeed. When one apologises, one well ought not make a meaningless one, as one risks being considered a laughingstock by others. Cheers. BTW, please note what I wrote, and not what you seem to think I wrote - it makes it very hard to discuss anything with a person who is able, like the Red Queen, to believe what ain't so. Collect (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, Veriditas. A charge of "deliberately lying" is a bit off the mark. Maybe there is simply a bit of confusion in this interchange; that could be the problem. If at all possible, we should try to assume good faith.GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect was given the opportunity to clear up this "confusion". He refused and persisted to claim I was canvassing. Since the fact of the matter was explained to Collect, and his reply consisted of "I'll do what I want", it can only be interpreted as a deliberate lie. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You have an interesting concept of "truth" considering your username. In fact, your conscept is far from "truth." Cheers. I told you to stay away - next time will bring a stronger reaction. An editor stated he posted at the RfA due to your post on his page. Granted that "reactive CANVASS" seems an advanced theoretical concept for you to grasp - but it certainly appears to exist. Collect (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I think you're confusing Viriditas with Veritas there... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Darn - and my mom was a Latin teacher making sure I had it 4 years in high school <g>. Six decades does make one fuzzy on "greenness", alas. Collect (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh. My mom was a business teacher, and tried to teach me to touch-type. It didn't take for me until years later, when I had to keep up with internet conversations... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's rap.

I want to clear things up, because we've both been here a long time and shouldn't be having this much trouble communicating with each other. Here is my side of the story:

• We went to DRN to determine the answer to the dispute of, "Are the territories part of the country." I mostly sat back while other people argued about how many sources they could gather, which had zero appeal to me as I thought the dispute didn't involve sourcing (we should be able to tell from a government what it claims is part of it, right? Rather than relying on Sparrow? Can third party books really annex an island to a country?)
• So, at some point, for some reason, the DRN decided to argue whether or not the country was a federal republic or something like that, apparently so it could remain faithful to the Sparrow source. I apologize if I'm reading this incorrectly, I'm basing this on comments since then.
• So, the consensus is apparently that the territories are not not part of the country, but it's unsure how much a part of it they are. So this federal republic stuff was waffle words to get around that.
• Unfortunately, in the process, the committee came up with a sentence that makes no sense. "The United States is a country governed by a republic" is simply not a thing that is said. It is not said anywhere on Wikipedia, at all. There is a reason for this. THAT is what I had the complaint about. Not the broad stroke, but rather this laser-pointed specific wording y'all had created. I continue to not understand what is wrong with "The United States is a federal republic," in part because people will say "Consensus!" rather than explaining it.
• So, it passed and I gave my objections. They were shot down, not on their merits, but because I have to respect the "consensus". While DRN is a tool to help resolve disputes, it cannot force a consensus. For someone who has been here as long as you have, surely you know also that a consensus is not gained from a simple vote. It is earned through time, discussion, and acceptance of a particular version by all parties who decide that it's more effort to change it than to let it lie. I was willing to accept consensus on the territories, but that doesn't mean I have to stare blankly while this horrible construction is forced through because it got one more vote than the other option.
• There's my story. What's yours? --Golbez (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The DR/N was not about the minutiae of the article - it was about the lead. We achieved what I thought was a compromise lead which met all of your points which you dwelt on at DR/N, and was accepted by a pretty clear majority. DR/N will never make any article perfect, nor should anyone expect perfection from DR/N - that is not why it exists. You seem to desire more from Wikipedia than it can give - we can not make articles be the "truth" based on what we personally "know" - we deal with what others say - especially what reliable sources state. And if they do not agree, we do not "choose the correct answer" - we provide all the positions to readers which are used by reasonable numbers of sources. My initial wording was not what the consensus arrived at - but since I felt consensus was more important than my suggested simple wording, I lived with it. Which is what you also ought well to do. And note that I entered via the DR/N and was not a disputant at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My dispute was not over how the article was worded; it was over what we should be aiming to say with those words. If, with the help of others, we determined that it DID include the territories, then we could work appropriately on the article. In fact, that's usually how it goes, isn't it? You start with a concept and then express it? You don't jump straight in to "here are 10 ways to express one side of the concept, and here's 1 way to express the other"? I didn't need DRN to tell me how to edit once the dispute was settled, thank you very much. We could have done that on our own.

Basically, it sounds like you're saying "Disputes are never about facts, disputes are only about which version of the text to use" which is absolutely wrong. They can very much be about facts, and they can also be about how to express them. When I am researching an article, I don't ask "Should this sentence read 'West Irian Jaya was renamed West Papua in 2007' or should it read 'West Irian Jaya was renamed West Papua in 2008'?", I ask "Was West Irian Jaya renamed West Papua in 2007 or 2008?" I get an answer and then work on possible wordings.

I note your summary was "I fear you misapprehend how Wikipedia works" but DRN is not Wikipedia, it is a small part of it, and you have your opinion over how it should work, and I have mine. Likewise, though, you seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works, because DRN does not have the power to magically turn a marginal vote into perfect consensus. No one does. --Golbez (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh? We do not use Wikipedia to tell anyone what we personally WP:KNOW to be the WP:TRUTH - we use the opinions of lots of reliable sources to give readers as much relevant information as we can on a topic, worded in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. I suggest you read the "WP:Five Pillars and note that this is a collaborative effort, not a place to make sure what you know is what is given to readers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that's one way to deliberately misinterpret what I said. Keep your alphabet soup to yourself. --Golbez (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your mature reply. I have been online for well over thrity years now, and have seen many types of behaviours. Collect (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why, after I explained everything, you continue to misinterpret me or misrepresent me. So, please, tell me to my face, what you think I'm after here, so I can respond properly. I want to work this out. --Golbez (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am now convinced your posts are proof that "no good deed goes unpunished." My goal was to reconcile as many views as I could in a simply worded and understandable lead. Clearly that task is insurmountable per your position. Cheers. You may now leave this venue. Collect (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I notice one of your recent edits included the word exeunt, which is defined as "exit from stage: used as a stage direction in a text in place of 'exit' when more than one actor is to leave the stage." Are you assuming more than one person is leaving the conversation? Actually, with this message another actor is joining it, but only in a good spirit and because I find the above interchange a bit invigorating compared with other dust-ups I have run across on WP. (Grin.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Mom taught Latin - if I expect he and I both to leave the stage, the plural is correct. <g> Collect (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

AFD - Legal abuse

Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lisa Lavie

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lisa Lavie. 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, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OSC Woops

Sorry about clobbering your changes on the Orson Scott Card article. I'm not sure if I just didn't notice the "editing an old version" warning or if the wiki simply failed to notify me that there was an edit conflict, but one way or another, I thought I was editing the most recent version only to discover in my Watchlist that there had been an intervening change. I reinstated most of your edits with the exception of the "however" in the lead, which, after my partial reversion, I thought was necessary to highlight OSC's apparent change in position from the one in the preceding sentence. – RobinHood70 ^talk 16:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

NP - found "however" and think it not necessary when the reader can see any change in posiiton - it is rather like putting an arrow directly over a door saying "door" <g>. Also deled an "argue" in there <g>. Collect (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan. 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, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charlize Theron

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlize Theron. 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, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

George Maharis

I would like to thank you for removing undue weight. Well, I didn't realize that "arrest" thing should have been easy to write about, as long as too much is omitted. I can't find a barnstar for you, so... there. --George Ho (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Trudeau boxing

Please see Trudeau's talk page for further discussion since I am not interested in an edit war. Also the undue weight does not seem to imply here. Krazytea(talk) 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. 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, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Congressman John Fleming and "The Onion Incident"

We seem to have this situation resolved for a month or so and another user arrives and posts on this trivial incident starting the cycle over again. Thank you for the help. Can you monitor this article for repeat offenders? Politics555 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On my watchlist - the silly season mentality that every trivial incident for a politician gets magnified is an endemic problem. Collect (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Business Career/ Subway Muslim incident/Congressman John Fleming

Regarding this piece, if this incident is merely a one time unverified claim in only one of Fleming's 33 sandwich shops he has owned for many years, and Fleming was not there, and there is no evidence that the incident results from any business or political policy of Fleming, is it worthy of inclusion in a BLP? Joapedia (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It is a slendid example of "silly season political issues" at best. Collect (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that being the case (and considering the campaign season is over), and nothing ever developed of this situation, should it be removed? With your experience, you would know better than me. Thanks. Joapedia (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Use "not a tabloid" and "unsupported allegation of a crime not leading to anything" as the rationales. (WP:NOTATABLOID and WP:BLPCRIME) Collect (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Joapedia (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Need your help again. My removal of the content was reversed with the weakest of explanations. Joapedia (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Will look. Collect (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kurban Said

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kurban Said. 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, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Mini-RfC

Thanks for your comments on the Lisa Lavie AfD. I'm asking various editors for constructive comments or explanations on my talk page: User talk:RCraig09#Questions. Thanks, from RCraig09 (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment on your user page

"Yep -- it is kind of hard to get less than zero percent from a fundraiser!" Actually, no. Remember, the fund raising company needs to be paid - even if it's also a non profit, it still pays wages to its employees. If the people dialing phones can't get donations to cover their time, a fundraiser could actually lose money. I'm guessing this was a contract that guaranteed that wouldn't happen. --GRuban (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been on a NPO board -- if a fundraiser can not guarantee even one cent, the odds are the fundraiser is working primarily for their own commercial interests. F'rinstance the "internet cafes" in Florida which gave under 2% of income to charity - or a "veteran's charity" which gave well under 1% ... I have a teeny lack of sympathy for those "charities" at all. Collect (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

account scammed

If anyone got a strange email from me - it was not from me - my contact list was hacked, and pernicious stuff sent to all on it. I have no idea whether I was deliberately targeted or not, but if I were, this may recur. Do not click on any links in a message purportedly from me which are from a strange domain of any sort at all, please! Collect (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You had better clarify if this was your email account or your wikipedia account or else a trigger happy admin might block you for being compromised.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

My Wikipedia account is not compromised in any way. The problem is at Yahoo mail and has been widely reported online for some time. Traced mainly to Russian hackers, with some suggestion of Korean hackers with similar attacks. No one should think that any emails coming from me through Wikipedia are in any way whatsoever afected, and most of the emails were blocked by Yahoo - after the first batch. Yahoo really needs to fix their own holes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, it's coming up labelled as coming from your bellsouth account. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That is because bellsouth does not have a mail server -- they use Yahoo <g>. And thus I have no choice about this stuff -- nothing to do with my security - it is all on Yahoo's end. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I was concerned that they might have retrieved a password or something. I had a similar issue with yahoo a few months back: just change your password, and change the settings to require logging in again every 24 hours. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears they have found back doors into Yahoo -- which is a major pain indeed! Youlda thunk that they would simply add a second tier challenge where certain countries are involved. Collect (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No rational violation -- last edit was clear compromise attempt - and made a total of 3 edits since 10 April, and a total of 6 edits in a period of over a year. About 10 edits in the entire history of that article. I suggest this is a carryover of the Shepard Smith BLP contro, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Collect, please read my comments at ANEW. I just want to make sure you are on notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Maharis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Maharis. 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) 07:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirming a rumour

Yes - I have dental problems. It turns out to be common after extended radiation treatments for cancer. If someone thinks this is a good way to dis someone, then I suggest it reflects on them quite poorly. Collect (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

My ban appeal

Hi. You took part in the deciding of my ban, so I need to inform you of this appeal. It's your choice if you want to join in. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=551050869&oldid=551050508#Please_remove_my_ban. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this...

I apologized because it seemed LBW was angry at me for some reason. That was before he started making further accusations against me on the talk pages of other users. I took this as an indication that he was not willing to compromise. I knew before I apologized that I had been in the right and that LBW was guilty of TBAN violations: I apologized only on the off-chance that I had accidentally seemed confrontational and caused him some stress. His later actions proved me wrong. Further, there was nothing punitive about his block. It was preventative. Let's not speak of this any more, okay? Cheers, and happy editing! Konjakupoet (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The block was for CANVASS and then extended due to the colloquy. I think that it was indeed "punitive" here. Collect (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't prove it and I really don't want to, but he made about a half-dozen very dangerous personal-attacks personal attacks against me, and didn't show any sign of stopping (in fact he did it after getting blocked for canvassing). He was warned to stop. He didn't listen. What exactly is "punitive" about preventing him from continuing what he was doing? Konjakupoet (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No block said "outing" therefore your complaint is moot. What the block was for, was CANVASS per the block summary. Your apparent animus at this point ill-serves you entirely, by the way. Cheers. No response is required nor desired. Collect (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Indian poets

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Indian poets. 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) 08:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jesus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jesus. 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 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagreements....

Hi Collect!

Since we seem to disagree more often than we agree, please take a look at User:Stephan_Schulz#Collected_ramblings, in particular the third bullet. I usually strongly try not to shape my arguments to a desired conclusion, but rather to arrive at my conclusions based on the strength of evidence and argument (and I was quite happy when I was able to derive your square root of sampled class size estimate of the standard deviation from the definition of standard deviation and variance - I didn't remember that particular rule of thumb from my class on probability theory). But I will happily attack (what I see as) faulty reasoning, not matter if I like or dislike the claim made. I really have no particular opinion on, not interest in, the size of a tiny and mostly harmless religious group. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My "professional flaw" is a degree in science, with way too many math courses. You should be aware that I do not shape any of my positions on who holds them or not, and I keep no "enemies list" whatsoever. I chose the "square root example" as being something virtually anyone with any probability background has to encounter <g>. Cheers - and thanks. Collect (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Noted. Though I disagree it is an edit war at this point; he was bold, I reverted. He then broke process by reverting me, and I reverted again informing him of this. Should the edit war continue, that was the opening salvo, but if it doesn't then that was merely a corrective action. --Golbez (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And I think you ouht to look up the word "sovereign" - The US as a government is "sovereign" over the states in the usual and legal senses of the word. Collect (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Show me another article out of the ~195 country articles on Wikipedia that uses anything remotely resembling that kind of wording. I'll wait here. --Golbez (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, something from Google Books using anything vaguely resembling that wording. If you can't find one, think about why that might be. --Golbez (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Read case law on "sovereign immunity" for the United States government, for one example. Treaties calling the "United States" a "sovereign nation."

Recognition of its sovereignty over its present continental landarea of 2,977,128 square miles, or about 1,905 million acres (as recomputed for the 1940 Decennial Census), was acquired by the United States Government through a series of international agreements and treaties. The United States, however, did not gain title to all of these lands by such agreements. At the time of acquisition of sovereignty over the areas involved, title to about 463 million acres rested in individual States and their political subdivisions or in private owners, which title was not relinquished to the United States. title to the remaining 1,442 million acres passed to the United States Government during the period from 1781 to 1853. [3] for example showing the use of "soveignty" over the entire area of the nation.

Extensive discussions at [4] (primarily about the reasoning for double jeopardy and sovereignty - a state prosecuation does not render a later federal prosecution to be "double jeopardy" as the federal goverment is sovereign)

and a few dozen more examples on Questia - amazing you missed the vast number making such discussions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I ... didn't challenge it being a sovereign nation? I challenged your wording of it being "sovereign over fifty states". No one describes countries that way. Ever. I didn't dispute your SOVEREIGNTY CLAIM and anyone acting in good faith would comprehend that. I disputed the way you WROTE it, which has ALWAYS been the core of my dispute with you. Find me another country article that describes in the intro the country in question as "It is sovereign over x units". Any. --Golbez (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose was to get past the interminable quibbling over what the US actually consists of - if we accept that the sovereignty is not an issue, then using that term should get us past the perpetual impasse. Collect (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No one challenges the sovereignty. I challenge the way in which you state it. This is not the first time you've fallen in love with a wording with absolutely no basis in the history of the English language and fight to the death to defend it rather than, you know, writing something that isn't bad. --Golbez (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Except for organizations such as the UN and the US government which do, indeed, use such wording in many papers <g>. The original compromise from DR/N was, IMO, quite reasonable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Except what you quoted had nothing to do with what you propose. --Golbez (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You asked for sources backing the use of the word "sovereign" with regard to the United States lands being defined by its sovereignty ... which I provided, and directly on that point. My aim has nothing to do with specific words but with finding words which can achieve a [[WP:CONSENSUS[[. That has been my sole aim in all of this. And if we need to use the word "zyxxy" to reach such a consensus, then that is the word I would agree to -- it is not the exact word which counts -- readers look to find simple language making simple claims in the lead of articles. Right now, it appears several editors are so enamoured of their own particular legalistic position that they fail to realize the WP:CONSENSUS is what is required by the ptoject. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"which I provided" No you didn't, and you know it. There is nowhere on Wikipedia or serious scholarship that the U.S., or any country for that matter, is introduced as "having sovereignty over fifty states and a federal district." Yes, of course it has sovereignty over millions of square miles, but it is made up of those states, because they, unlike land, are political units. You're essentially saying it has sovereignty over itself, which is so tautological it doesn't even merit being on the Simple English Wikipedia. You've been here long enough, you can do better than this. --Golbez (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See Recognition of its sovereignty over its present continental landarea of 2,977,128 square miles, That which it is made up of is its land. Parsing it otherwise simply is tendentious "Humpty-Dumptyism" at its worst. And if all you can do is snark about :"simple English Wikipedia" you are quite welcome to leave this page to those who wish actual discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Golbez above asserts it is "tautological" that a country has sovereignty over itself. Which appears to say that "that which a country has sovereignty over is part of that country." Which is the crux here ... is having sovereignty over a territory the same as owning it? In the case of a nation holding sovereignty (not "trusteeship" or any leasehold or treaty otherwise) over an area, is it wrong to say the area is part of that country? Anyone please respond - but not by parsing minutiae or egg yolks <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not tautological to say that a country has sovereignty over itself, because one country may have sovereignty over another country. However, since the U.S. is defined as a republic, it is implicit that it has sovereignty over itself. But it is confusing to say the U.S. has sovereignty over 50 states, because each state shares sovereignty with the federal government, while districts and territories have no sovereignty. TFD (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the damn cites, TFD. And your assertions about "no sovereignty" for the federal district and territories is risible. DC has elected officials, as do the various territories, and the courts so state. And the US Civil War settled the silly claim that the US does not actually have sovereignty over the states, as do many SCOTUS decisions. Now can you get off the wall? Collect (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That is an odd argument. D.C. has sovereignty because Congress allows it to have a municipal corporation, while the states have no sovereignty because they are not allowed to secede. TFD (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That is nicely and absolutely incorrect -- states do have sovereignty -- they do not have a national sovereignty. Please read up on the term before trying to abuse it. Collect (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes and because states have sovereignty, it is confusing to say that the United States has sovereignty over fifty states. TFD (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

READ THE SOURCES - and since we have quotes direcly above about the US having sovereignty over all the states, your post is utterly and completely fatuous. In fact, I have never seen a less coherent argument about a topic widely covered in RS sources and scholarly journals than that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Having sovereignty over a territory is the same as owning it. This is basic. What is sovereignty if not that? In the case of a nation holding sovereignty over an area, the area is clearly part of that country. This shouldn't be controversial. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Christian Science

Please don't keep edit warring to place the disputed figure in the lead or infobox. It was an anomaly, and there are multiple objections to it on the talk page and the RSN. It is in the body of the article, which is enough. Even if not disputed, it's inappropriate to have multiple numbers in the lead – church figure v independent figure is enough. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As no one is now disputing the figure other than you -- and Binksternet at RS/N now only objects to it being in the infobox -- and your excuse is that you "know" it is an "anomaly" go the heck off and try convincing folks at the noticeboards that your knowledge that it is an anomaly is sufficient to refuse to accept the figure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people have questioned it. I don't want to take this further, but I don't want to just go back and forth with you either, so please revert yourself. This is a GA; the lead needs to be well-sourced and to make sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And I was the one who actually nominated it for GA in case you simply forgot. Meanwhile read Stephen's note above that he understands that the poll was very statistically valid and Binksternet's acknowlegement at RS/N that the source is absolutely a "reliable source" Your are now out on a very thin limb, and I think the folks who read the RfC at Talk:Christian Science are likely to agree that it is RS, and accurate from a mathemaatical poll standpoint, and that shouting "It is an ANOMALY!" is not found in any Wikipedia policy or guideline for excluding such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on now, best not to rewrite the history of the article. You nominated a version that almost certainly wouldn't have been promoted. I was grateful to you for the nomination, but it was premature, and a lot of work had to be done between then and its promotion. As for the source, the issue is only whether it should be in the lead. It isn't appropriate to keep on restoring it (seven times in five days), [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] as though no one has objected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The edits I did were worthless according to you? What in hell are you doing on this page then -- you should have deleted the barnstar I got if you really felt that way. Now go away. Really -- GO AWAY. Collect (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vegans

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegans. 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) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eugene Plotkin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eugene Plotkin. 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 May 2013 (UTC)

question

In an RfC/U, the requirement appears to be that two users must have the same dispute with the user in question. Does that mean, the same dispute on the same article, or does it allow for anyone with a dispute with that editor to add his dispute and certify the RfC? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically - yes. The idea is to prevent everyone who has ever had any dispute with the person from piling on at the start. Is it enforced? Not really. WP:CANVASS is supposed to prevent this - but the particular case is not cured by sending out a second notice - just like a police officer who searches a house without a warrant can not then get a warrant to search it again <g>. The reason the rule was put in place was because of abuses in the past which curent users seem not to understand. Collect (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vegetarians

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegetarians. 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) 00:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sockpuppet (Internet)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sockpuppet (Internet). 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) 09:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

CS

Hi Collect,

Your defense of good stats on the Christian Science article is spot on. It also makes me feel bad because I raised the issue in the first place.

I do not understand why others don't get it, and even among those who do, that crack about elementary stat books raised my dander.

Please check out my sandbox at Centamia and see if you think any of it is worth posting. I've pretty much had it with Wikipedia but as you've sprung to the defense of good stats (which I started), I'll push on at your suggestion.

Thank you so much for introducing an iota of logic into that article. And please forgive me if this is the wrong place to tell you so. Please advise.

Centamia ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centamia (talk • contribs) 09:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Southmonitor.com

You are the only person who took the pain to answer my query in a clear way. I think I understood the difference between the 2. Can I conclude that Southmonitor.com is not a reliable source? Benedictdilton (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. If the real source is Reuters, any claim should be ascribed to Reuters - the southmonitor link should only be used if there is no clear Reuters link, but the article should be ascribed to the original author/source. Collect (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party

I've just made this comment on the moderated discussion page:

There were four editors involved in the edit war: Phoenix and Winslow, Ubikwit, Collect, and Xenophrenic. Phoenix and Winslow and Xenophrenic have agreed to not revert. I haven't seen that commitment from Collect and Ubikwit. I will let them know that if they are unwilling to agree not to revert on the sub-articles either while they are being created or after they have been moved into mainspace, then they should agree not to edit the articles at all.

You may have mentioned somewhere on the discussion page that you agree not to revert, and if so, then please point me to it. Otherwise, would you mind stating that you either agree not to revert, or you agree not to edit the sub-articles we are creating? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have made an explicit statement thereon, and you should be aware that my position has generally been to find middle-ground where Wikipolicies lead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Content discussion, resumed

The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. For example: "One editor suggests that..." is picking on an editor, even if not naming them. If the point of the statement was to clarify what the use of "alleged" signifies in the article, then that is all that is needed to be stated. It can be helpful to see what guidelines there are for uses of words on Wikipedia, such as WP:ALLEGED, and to refer to these guidelines.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them, however obliquely, on the discussion page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, I did so. Collect (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: [12] Please participate and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic, as well as any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned about CANVASS with multiple notifications where a neutral post almost anywhere (including on the article talk pages involved) would have been seen by editors with large watchlists :(. I would, moreover, suggest that you include specific non-neutral language used by that editor - IIRC he objects to the off-chance that the article may become "non-negative" which appears to be a specific disacceptance of WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm very deliberately staying off article Talk pages with this, since posting it there could be seen as disruptive. Canvassing is allowed for two reasons. First, I'm canvassing everybody, including Goethean, Ubikwit and Snowded, not just the ones who might side with me. Second, it's not canvassing for a vote since RfC/U cannot impose involuntary sanctions such as a block or a topic ban; that will have to be done at ANI if it goes that far. If you are aware of a specific instance where Xeno objected to an article becoming "Non-negative," or any other incident of behavior you may find problematic, please provide evidence at RFfC/U. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I did find Ubi objecting to the TPM article becoming "non-negative" but Xeno's use of the word was not with regard to the current article. Collect (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Explain

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy is convicted of his fraud, explain with some common sense and brain why u reverted my editMurrallli (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BLP and read closely how we treat allegations and convictions in biogrraphies of living people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy is not yet convicted. Even the trial had not begun. Benedictdilton (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP and Wade Robson

I replied to you on the ANI page regarding protection of Wade Robson. PP was of course, turned down. It is still getting vandalised, but apparently not "enough" to be protected. I know I'm not supposed to go from board to board asking for assistance, but I don't know how to appeal this. Can you help? Ultra Venia (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kriyananda

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kriyananda. 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) 10:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On personalization

Hey Collect. I just want to leave a note about the direction the Rob Ford discussion seems to be taking. I noticed an edit to Dennis Brown's page where you refer to "political" editors, and now another where you speculate on the political motivations of contributors to that conversation. I don't know everyone on that page, but the Canadian editors I am familiar with are not "political" editors by any means. It really puts people's backs up against the wall when their motivations are questioned. This is a divisive topic, and I don't expect the current issue will be resolved smoothly, but if everyone stays focused on the content and the policies, there is a much better chance of people working together to improve our coverage of Ford. The Interior (Talk) 13:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The history of "political BLPs" is clear, and has been discussed many times on Jimbo's talk page (including a current discussion) as well as at BLP/N. I would, moreover, note that editors who add great amounts of "negative commentary" in a BLP are, in my experience, "political" - in fact I ran into one a few years ago who was actually a member of a candidate's campaign staff! We already have some who say that consensus can override policy - which is actually a pretty bad idea. If we stick to policy - including WP:BLP and WP:NPOV then that is what the project actually requires us to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh I know how stupid politically-related BLP's can get, and I empathize with your frustration. I usually stay the heck away. Just thought I'd say hey and try to reduce the temperature of that conversation a bit. The Interior (Talk) 14:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Done

Done. Sorry for the mistake.Casprings (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

NP. My interaction on that topic (other than trying to find compromises in the moderated venue) are de minimis. Collect (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Selleck

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Selleck. 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) 10:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please comment on Talk:Alicia Silverstone

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alicia Silverstone. 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) 10:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

edit checker

Where's the wikichecker you used? I'd like to check mine. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Try [13]. You rarely edit from 0700 to 1300 UTC (usually indicating midnight to 6 a.m. local time for most editors as a matter of common knowledge) and you edit 7 days a week (usually meaning you likely are a sutdent or else edit on work time, or on Wikipedia, more rarely retired) , and your major pages include: Talk:Tea Party movement[WP] (1,120)Tea Party movement[WP] (512)Talk:Sarah Palin[WP] (335)Talk:Karl Rove[WP] (239) Karl Rove[WP] (148) Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion[WP] (129) Scott Brown[WP] (118)Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher[WP] (109)Talk:Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)[WP] (107) and Sarah Palin[WP] (102). Collect (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Thing is, if you look at my contribs since 2010, the stats don't really match the articles edited. If you look at my articles created you'll see very different subjects. When I scroll through my contribs, it shows a very different picture. Also, was a student, graduated. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

<g> Which explains the hours nicely. Amazingly enough, a bunch of admins have no idea how to read such stats at all. Collect (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect, was your edit here [14] in reference to a comment I made on the moderated discussion? Or is this another matter? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw your comment that Ubi referred to a person as a "sociopath" and that was the only one I found in a Wikipedia search. If he used it in direct regard to the Tea Party, then you really can email ST with that information -- I have no way of searching deleted material :(. It does appear that editor likely has problems on Israel/Palestine edits however. Collect (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't find it as it was deleted by an oversighter admin. The comment was made on the moderated discussion page. Phoenix&Winslow saw it too. I deleted it, then found instructions for what to do over on the ANI page and sent the diffs in an email to the oversighter email address. The comments were deleted soon after. But today, after I made my comment on the mod/discuss page about nothing happening to him yet TE got blocked, Silk Tork left a stern warning on my talk page. I had no idea what that was all about. Later, I went to his talk page to ask about it and spotted your comment. Now I understand the chain of events. He connected our comments and thought they were regarding the same BLP vio. I don't know anything about the other article. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Have the admin who did the oversight post to ST then - I think that ought to address the issue for sure. (or point AT to the oversight address) Ubi sure seems quick to use "sociopath" in posts! Collect (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bruce Lee

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bruce Lee. 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, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laura Robson

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Laura Robson. 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, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting help on Tea Party movement

Would you know other NPOV experienced editors who would be willing to help out on the Tea Party movement article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Need your opinion on a BLP matter

Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. 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, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

|}

Please comment on Talk:Alger Hiss

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alger Hiss. 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, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

Collect, are you at all technical? Do you know how to crop an image in an article? Could you take a look here: [15]. I'd appreciate it. This is regarding the admin on the ArbCom case you also commented on. I made mention of problems with that image and he's started an RfC regarding it. An editor made an excellent suggestion to crop the photo. I've no idea how to do that but perhaps you do, or you might know of someone who can do it? Malke 2010 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone's done it already. Thanks anyway. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation on primary source

Hi Collect, thank you for your help. So in stead of the Chinese embassy press release, would news article be more appropriate? For example: http://english.people.com.cn/special/fagong/1999073000A101.html This news report states Li Hongzhi is wanted in China. Is this acceptable? Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A secondary reliable source stating that a person is wanted may work - but WP:BLP limits the nature of the allegations to be presented in Wikipedia's voice (we do not state that the person is guilty of the crime). The source you give, unfortunately, seems to be inaccessible, and thus not likely to be accepted by others. Collect (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@Collect: Try it again. I was able to access it from my Comcast connection here in Chicagoland. While I'm not sure if the People's Daily Online has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, it doesn't appear to be contentious that this person is wanted by the Chinese government for some alleged crime. (Other sources, such as the BBC have republished the Chinese government's claim to some degree.[16][17]) However, I am unable to find any sources that refer to this person as a felon. So, it may be acceptable to say in Wikipedia's voice that this person is wanted by the Chinese government for the alleged crimes of A, B and C. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It worked this time -- dunno what the error was then, but it lasted a while. It definitely does not call him a "felon" at all, but says he "spread superstitions" and held "gatherings" without official permits. Not a lot to make into a claim, for sure. Collect (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already stand corrected in the talk proposal. Here's an experiment I'd suggest, if you are interested. If Li is wanted in China, however you like to characterize it, is not contentious, go ahead add the BBC cite and see for yourself the "circling the wagon" you'll encounter.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here, but the BBC source is already in the article and has been for years. Check the second to last paragraph in "Life Abroad." —Zujine|talk 04:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages

Since you have over 25 edits at Talk:Mark Twain, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wayne Madsen

Hi, There is a discussion about reliable sources and BLP issues related to Wayne Madsen [here] if you would like to participate. I feel that you have a firm grasp of BLP issues, and would value your input although I am not at all certain you will agree with my edits. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the article. Your improvement of the lead is clear. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Flesch-Kincaid

Collect, I'll work on the readability tonight and post that for you in a separate section on the moderated discussion. For now, let's just get everybody saying 'yes' for a change. Okay? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove the excess details as well right at the start -- there are too many possible "items" which one could add for any subset - I prefer to look at the entire article as an entity which should be made as neutral in tone and content as possible, while seeking usability for readers. And that includes reducing the absolute America-centricity of the article - most of the added "stuff" is of total irrelevance in the eyes of the world. Cheers. IOW, cut the size down by half as a first step. Collect (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to remove the American-centricity because it's an American movement in America. It would be like trying to unBritish an article about the Tories or Labour. We can't use British English, btw. Okay, I'll work on the size bit. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

TPm edit

The Tea Party lacks a central organization, and lacks specific central goals. Each group sets goals and priorities, sometimes conflicting with other groups. Some principles are widely embraced. These include a government limited in size by the Constitution, a free market economy, and governmental fiscal restraint.

It is both conservative and libertarian in part. Some focus on economic issues and taxes, limiting government size and spending. Others deal with social issues such as abortion, immigration enforcement, and health care reform. Their SuperPacs support candidates sympathetic to their goals and oppose what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates. The IRS treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names has raised some controversy.

It stresses an "originalist" view of the Constitution in its reform agenda. Amendments have been targeted by some groups for repeal or change, including the 14th, 16th, and 17th. There is support for a "Repeal Amendment" which would enable a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment to limit deficit spending.

The Contract from America is based on points favored in an online poll conducted by Ryan Hecker, a conservative activist. Score 13/28 which almost gets to a reasonable minimum of 30 for reading ease ("fairly difficult" in the standard). Collect (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For lurkers: This is in reference to Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion which seems sometimes to be at a horrid impasse. Collect (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (Tweaked to not miss gist of prior proposal - would love to get readability back up, of course) Collect (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This one is pretty good. The score on this one is 13/28, I see. Remember that my V12f had a score of 14/37 — (37 dude!!) — and it contained more information than this. I wish we could have put that one into the mainspace ... but you gotta take what you can get sometimes. As you can see from SilkTork's Talk page and some of the responses to his "request for clarification" at the Moderated Discussion page (MDP), there are certain editors who are demanding my head on a plate for actioning Malke's condensed version of Xenophrenic's V12d. It's clear that I was taking some risks actioning that edit. But at that moment I reasonably and sincerely believed that you were going to support it, Xenophrenic (as co-author) was going to support it, and with a 4-1 "vote" already, it would have been 6-1. Have a happy 4th, watch those fireworks and remember what they represent. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I stated clearly it was a good faith edit on your part, and supported your actioning. This new suggestion is the first to actually put the "conservative stuff" together, and the "libertarian stuff" together. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cary Grant

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cary Grant. 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 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mike Gatto may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• legislators' pay. He said the bill would create a financial hardship for his family.<ref name=KPCC>{{cite web|url=http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/06/22/19596/i-now-have-to-explain-to-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Alger Hiss

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alger Hiss 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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

CJK (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Policymic

Will you please take a look at the following thread and offer your opinion.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House

I think thanks to the reliable sources board we have made progress, but was hoping to get your input here as well if you have a minute. CorporateM (Talk) 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Collect. I was wondering if you could comment on the discussion at the bottom of this string. The topic of the string changed, so I'm referring specifically to the part at the bottom (pasted here) where Bilbo suggests altering the language based on researching 11 separate press releases from Attorney Generals. I don't really care that much specifically or have any subject-matter expertise to validate the accuracy of the change, but it might help to establish when primary sources are or aren't ok, so we can avoid an endless time-suck of disputing over Original Research. CorporateM (Talk) 16:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The conversation string I'm referring to

Corp: I did some research re: the 2010 settlement. We say that "after the Oregon AG alleged that..." In actuality it was AG's of the 32 states acting through the Nat'l Association of Attorneys General. After the settlement, the press release from each state's AG used language along the lines of "the {name of state} AG alleged that...". I can dig up about 11 press releases that use this language. To clean this up, I think we simply remove "the attorney general of Oregan alleged" and change it to read "after the attorneys general of these states and the Distrcit of Columbia alleged that..." Bilbobag (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC) That seems fine, but it should be in a single secondary source as oppose to 11 press releases. Otherwise it's Original Synthesis. I would actually prefer not to be consulted before each individual edit though - the article should continue to improve the regular way. If something is not compliant with Wiki-policy in a really overt way, I will raise my objections after the edit is made and I hope my objections will be considered based on their merit. I'll also circle back every 6-12 months for updates and other things. My efforts are just to make the article "good" but I don't want to micromanage every word. OTOH, a healthy collaboration would be, say in 2015 there is another lawsuit that attracts significant media attention. You could say "I'm going to cover this lawsuit for Wikipedia and I wanted to (among other POVs) include PCH's. Can you provide it?" Also, the article should improve based on Wikipedia policy and primarily based on reliable secondary sources (with some exceptions for primary sources where appropriate). Otherwise we will be in this yo-yo forever of my contesting original research in response to your persistence in adding it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth II

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth II. 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 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Collect. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard.
Message added 22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Again—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 23:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked one final question, regarding the rules of claiming consensus. I might just be misinterpreting the statement, but I do want to be sure. How does four votes determine consensus?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It says a minimum of 4 !votes plurality -- this is actually taken from ArbCom's internal rules for determining "consensus" about even taking a case. The problem has repeatedly occurred when a person proposes something, has two "allies" jump in on a weekend, and then self-declares "consensus." As this has been a clear and ongoing problem, the idea is that by requiring more than a "two vote plurality" (read the discussions in the past) that we can have an objective standard for the arbiter here. Meanwhile, I note my own personal stalker has shown up again (see [19]) and claims that this would promote tag-teams! If you know about the accusations made in the past, it is clear that requiring a clear consensus discourages tag-teams. His apparent misinterpretation of the reasons and effects of the proposed rules (added as one editor specifically said we should have them), I offer no reasons. I also note that Xenophrenic seems to wish to re-interpret his own post on the talk page:

Comment - ...on some of your (Option 1) rules, it appears we've already disregarded Rule #5. Rule #1 is standard Civility/NPA policy. Don't comment on editors, period. It's a shame that such a basic rule needs reiteration. Rule #2 - Instead, let's stick with Wikipedia policy, and not introduce numbers in any way, shape or form to the determination of WP:CONSENSUS. Quite simply: when a proposal is made and objections are raised, the objections need to be addressed. Gathering 4 like-minded editors to say "Me too" is not how consensus is achieved. Same applies to Rule #3. Of course not all objections can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties when achieving consensus, but any proposal that is actioned while ignoring legitimate concerns is not an act of consensus. To the more general question of whether or not we can continue to be productive, I don't see any reason why not. Xenophrenic 22:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

He objects to 5, 1, 2 and 3. And already you can read where he has defined "consensus" for his own proposal to exist <g> since not enough people objected to it! Collect (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I know from experience that you, Collect, know how to read better than that. Maybe you're just having an off day, so I'll take you by the hand and step you through this. I've never objected to Rule #5. I made an observation that "it appears we've already disregarded it" as Phoenix and Winslow was already off and running with his decision on what procedural matters we should be tending to next. I've never objected to Rule #1. I made an observation that Rule #1 "is standard Civility/NPA policy", and I bemoaned the fact that we need to keep reminding editors about it. Regarding Rules #2 & #3, which deal with consensus, my single objection was against your attempt to redefine Wikipedia policy by assigning arbitrary numeric values (in this case, the number '4') to the process of determining WP:CONSENSUS. I still maintain that objection. If your intent really is to stop editors from prematurely "self-declaring consensus", why not simply have rules 2 & 3 say: No consensus will be declared as achieved, and no proposal will be actioned until the Moderator explicitly says so. Leave the responsibility with the Moderator.

Regarding your comment, "And already you can read where he has defined 'consensus' for his own proposal to exist", no, I've never done such a thing. I abide by the Wikipedia policy as it is written. I'll leave the redefining to you, and as you've already observed, it will very likely prompt objections. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Clue: Talking down to editors and making snarky posts rarely impresses them. And also that trying to redefine the tenor of a post you make also rarely works. Now -- begone from this page as it appears you have no actual constructive reason for existing here. You have successfully chased me and others from the playground so go there and play with yourself to your heart's content. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I left you a message there.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Some more Hiss stuff

Were having a rather serious debate on the Hiss talk page right now on what constitutes a reliable, verifiable source and I was hoping you could share your opinion.

CJK (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:IRC

See WP:IRC, in my statement

• linked for your convenience and
• hidden in denial by ArbCom.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wayne Madsen#NPOV BRD

It has been suggested to me at Talk:Wayne Madsen that you are the BLP go-to guy so I would be pleased if you could help resolve the BLP problem at Talk:Wayne Madsen#NPOV BRD. I took it to the noticeboard but have no replies. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard. 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 2013 (UTC)

Formally added as party to an ArbCom case

Just so you know, you have been formally added to the Tea Party Movement ArbCom case as an involved party.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Weird. Collect (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked, you have (maybe) five edits in the last 500 at the Tea Party movement article. That goes back to 2012. Your edits don't even look contentious. How are you conceivably an involved party? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Because some idjut said I should be topic banned from all political articles at AN a long time ago -- KC added me at the time the ArbCom case was started, I was removed, and now, for no apparent reasoning at all, got re-added. No findings about me at all -- this is cloud-cuckooland stuff, really. Go figure. Collect (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card & BLP

Sir/Madam

You and others have continually removed the label of "prominent homophobe" from the opening paragraph of OSC's biography on the grounds that it violates BLP. How does it violate the terms of BLP? Please provide some actual language from the text that suggests this, because in my reading it just isn't there; Occam's razor suggests that you're just queazy about homophobia as a legitimate part of someone's biography as a public figure.

Regards,

63.228.70.128 (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a contentious claim per WP:BLP and thus requires strong reliable sourcing for it to be made as a fact claim in Wikipedia's voice. Reinserting it is contrary to Wikipedia policy and practice. Collect (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Doug Ford

It's not weird, it's handy. You click on the link it takes you to the spot on the page, etc. And it's not an external link, it's just a reference. It doesn't need to be on Doug Ford only. That's a policy for external links. Alaney2k (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Madsen

Thank you for your clear-eyed input at the article. I have a question. Arthur Rubin used the formulation "generally regarded" as conspiracy theorist. You reviewed and we currently have "described as" conspiracy theorist in the lede. Given the plethora of RS (Poynter, the Atlantic, Salon, ABC News, Telegraph, Business Insider, Seattle Post, Forbes, The Nation, Daily Beast/Newsweek) is it reasonable to use the adjective "widely described as"? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

gun control

Thanks for your input on the gun control debate. Have not seen you involved in this topic before, out of curiosity, what brought your attention to this? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not implying anything nefarious. Your comments are either neutral or to my benefit, this is true curiosity :) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I avoided it until I saw a really incorrect claim about Wikipedia policy. If you ask my personal beliefs about guns, I do not own a gun, but I also suspect that draconian laws on just about anything simply do not work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree on accuracy the wikipedia claim, how are you even aware that that claim existed though :) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I "watchlist" well over three thousand pages <g>. Not all that hard -- I used to read about five thousand messages a day on an ISP. Collect (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Gah! And I thought I wasted time at work! lol. Doesn't the watchlist scroll past the max limit every hour or so with that many? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope -- 90% of the articles get edited less than 10% of the time -- most days there are only 50 or 60 interesting edits to examine. Figure the number of edits shown in 4 days is generally under 600 total. Collect (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. 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, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Territories on US:talk

I agree with you at United States Talk:Territories. Sorry I can't follow along on an hourly basis. My view is now more nuanced than a couple months ago, but I still am not brief enough. Nevertheless, please take a look. I have not yet completed my reading, so I was holding off making a formal proposal to restore the previously agreed to sentiment: the US as a federal republic includes the places of US citizens directly represented in Congress: 50 states, DC and five territories.

-or- the US as a federal republic is where uniform federal taxes are administered? states only, and DC as a place that was once a state, never mind the people -- even when modern territories have more rights than previously 'incorporated' territories of the 19th and 20th Centuries (Alaska, Hawaii)? Still working on a fair representation for the second view, with apologies, I am TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pricasso

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pricasso. 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, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth. 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, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wading through the wall of text?

I would not "wade" through that wall of text (ANI) unless I had a backup plan! But I'm glad you made it through. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case - final decision motion

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hell of a delay - especially when you already called my post on the talk page "bickering" which could lead to me being disciplined, of all things. I fear that the motion is so far out of common-sense that it will spell grievous long-term results for Wikipedia, and this bit about "closing discussions" as being "bickering" does not impress me one iota whatsoever. Cheers. Judgements without evidence or findings at all are not exactly going to raise my esteem for the arbitration committee at all. As for the "this is not a topic ban" but it is a "page ban" -- Orwell would be proud, indeed! Collect (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

From my reading you are not subject to any of the individual editor level sanctions? nm, I missed the page ban section Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I just don't understand this. Aren't these decisions /enforcement actions supposed to be based on the evidence of individual actions and misdeeds? You have almost no edits on the article and tried like the devil to help achieve consensus on the moderated discussion. Isn't collective punishment against the Geneva Convention? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork has rewritten the rules to allow banning even where no case has been brought, and no evidence presented <g>. See Star Chamber. Cheers. If no one on the committee has a whit of sense, I am likely to just pack up my bags -- this sort of "decision" is puerile "It is my ball and I make up the rules" Calvinball at best. Collect (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the reason is rampant discrimination against a well known Gnarphist! Capitalismojo (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

GN	This user is a Gnarphist

Round up the usual suspects may be clever in a movie; here it's another nail in the wikiCoffin. I hope someone listens to reason before they pass the proposed motion, especially for your sake, Collect. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I if only these kittens were made of gold! Thanks for sensible recent comments in various places.

User:Carolmooredc 20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to be careful -- my wife says we should have a kitten to keep our older cat company .... Collect (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We got a 40 lb "shepherd mix" mutt from the pound to keep our active hound dog company - but before you know it he turned into a 90 lb rottweiller mix. Who knew! So one does have to be careful. Though guard dog/cats can be useful :-) User:Carolmooredc 15:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Lurkers please note:

In a current ArbCom case one arbitrator stated:

Calls for sanctions should be based on evidence; the greater the sanction, the greater the need for appropriate evidence.

Later the same Arbitrator "suggests" adding a number of editors to a case at the last minute - without any provision for them to actually participate in the case, to have any evidence presented against them, to refute the non-existent evidence, or to have their voices heard at all.

And then tries to have this adopted as ArbCom policy:

The Arbitration Committee may impose restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior (or where it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, regardless of conduct), usually following a request for arbitration)). There have been no objections.

Note two interesting bits: No misconduct need occur for a person to be punished at all, and there is no requirtrement that any case ever have been brought or any complaint been brought to the Arbitration Committee at all.

I consider such an extension of the ArbCom remit, not found in WP:Arbitration/Policy, to be puzzling at best, and Star Chamber like at worst, and if their "wisdom" allows such a usurpation of the community's clear remit (that policy) in establishing the committee, I am quite likely to pack up the old kit bag. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: The moderator of the moderated discussion has now stepped down, saying [20]

The current ArbCom case seems to be in favor of topic banning everyone involved for 6 months. There won't be anything to moderate when it passes. On the topic of ArbCom, since I can technically be seen as an involved party, it may come to pass to topic ban me too. In any event resignation would be a preferable option than to face a topic ban.

Just in case anyone needed to see how far the fallout from the "proposed motion" is likely to reach. Collect (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While I agree with your concern that no one should be sanctioned without having evidence presented against them, I think the other part of your concern isn't really such a big deal, since it basically happens all the time via Discretionary/General Sanctions and AE. Lots of people who weren't "party" to an Arbitration discussion are "sanctioned" as a result of it, after they've been warned of the sanctions and then their misconduct submitted to AE, where the decision usually comes down to even fewer people, none of whom are even elected. I do think that if the committee is going to widen the scope of an action, they do need to lay out clear evidence against each person...but I'm not sure that there's anything terribly wrong with them essentially speeding up a trip to AE, if it seems inevitable that it's going to go that route anyway. But I know you're a smart editor, so what am I missing/misunderstanding? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I could understand "discretionary sanctions" after a warning where an admin sees improper behavior. Restricting people pre-emptively without even giving than a chance to state their positions is, however, not within the remit of ArbCom per the policy enacted by the community. ArbCom can not unilaterally alter what the community stated as policy. The problem now is ArbCom arrogating powers not granted to it by the community, and not discussed by the community. The precedent is chilling -- the moderator has abruptly resigned due to the prospect of this "decision." Did you miss the moderator stating specifically: In any event resignation would be a preferable option than to face a topic ban. If you do not find that a chilling result, I know not what you would find chilling here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If only Wikipedia wasn't so passive aggressive. Aggressive like the above, but passive on giving out 24 blocks to a lot of editors who need a slight smack on the head to overcome their persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or whatever. (Since I lose my temper from time to time I could have used a few of those myself in the past.) Sigh... User:Carolmooredc 15:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary North (economist)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gary North (economist). 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, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Move Duckworth RfC to BLPN

Hello. You are one of 6 or 7 Admins who has supported including DOB info in the Duckworth article: Talk:Tammy Duckworth#RfC on providing full date of birth. Yesterday I proposed moving the discussion to the BLPN so that we could get a policy determination on this and thereby avoid such prolonged and repeated discussions on article talk pages. In the last few comments I haven't seen a positive to my proposal. Would you care to opine on moving the discussion? (I am posting this message to each of the admins.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction on dissent

I described you as the 1) "lone dissenter of the RfC", which I noted 2) "established WP:Con regarding the use of the word homosexuality/homosexuals in one of the headers." I regret if you got confused by the second part of the sentence (which describes the content added after the RfC, which resulted from but is not identical to all the points expressed therein), but that doesn't change the clear logical meaning of the sentence: that you were the lone dissenter of (not after) the RfC, which you clearly were in its most important respects: whether to "keep" or "change"; and whether the previous title was "biased". Cheers. Steeletrap (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no "consensus" to have the "homosexuality" bit added -- as the !votes were even. Asserting a false consensus is not going to help much. Now go back to read what WP:CONSENSUS states in black and white before asserting "consensus". Collect (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

RfA

There is a current RfA for the editor quoted at the top of this page, who in April 2013 called another editor a "psychopathic schizophrnic". If you approve of that demeanor, go to WP:RfA. Chees. Collect (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the canvassing. I did, with a support vote. Cheers. Edison (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS. leaving messages on one's own talk page is not "canvassing." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prince George of Cambridge

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prince George of Cambridge. 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, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP

Hi Collect. The TPM case aside, I am genuinely interested in understand your interpretation of BLP, if you could point me to any particular conversation or essay or anything. Thanks. — goethean 22:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The core of BLP is to do no harm" which coincides with the stricture that biographies be written conservatively. I commend you also to read the very top of this talk page:

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.

Is this sufficient to show the basis for my positions? Collect (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, though, your view is inconsistent with the actual policy you're citing. Regarding public figures, WP:BLP states: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. (In contrast, our bar for including allegations about low-profile individuals or private figures is substantially higher, and often excludes even well-sourced material). MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained.

...and you are going to enforce your suggestion by reference to WP:BLP, which says no such thing? I have to say that the more we discuss this, the more I think that your edits are completely indefensible via Wikipedia policy. — goethean 00:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You asked for my position. I follow WP:BLP as written, and I find your suggestions here to be absurd, indefensible, and of nugatory value to a collegial atmosphere. Cheers. Now go away from this talk page. Collect (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)