| Revision as of 02:40, 24 November 2008 editFactchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,476 edits →Sarah Palin BLP violation????← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:24, 23 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,381 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Collect/Archive 39) (botTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| =leave messages to me on this page, please= | |||
| {{User QMAward|Christian Science}} | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| Well-meaning editors: Do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you. | |||
| I have now reached the 244 "Thanks" level from "notifications" - getting an average of over 115 per year it appears. Thank you to all who have thought highly of my edits. ] (]) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{{helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! | |||
| From 2013 (and various '''unnamed''' editors): ''I have started to work on a composite of my history dealing with Collect at my talk page. It starts in late 2008 so it might take a while. I'll accept fellow editors deciding when they have more of the facts.'' | |||
| == Yankees == | |||
| :''Had I known Collect was behind your request I may have declined. He has been sniffing my excrement for 4 years or more. I don't bother myself with him unless he shows up where I am working. Then I have to consider what is more important: dealing with Collect's dribble or continuing to talk and work with other editors. '''I detest him''' so much I usually just leave and go do something else in WikiLand'' | |||
| :''Sorry, But I'd rather have all of my fingernails pulled out than to get involved with those editors. Especially Collect, perhaps '''the most dangerous and dirtiest Misplaced Pages editor''' I've come across--only my opinion of course, which I feel I am free to offer on my own talk page? It is true that there are plenty of articles here that are more about numbers than about the truth, IOW, who ever has the most editors on their side can write the article.'' | |||
| :''I got here by looking at Collect contrbutions. '' (from a sock master) | |||
| :''This essay serves no purpose in mainspace other than to aggrandize its creator. I recall some quip about dressing a pig...I'll let those who want, finish the line. '' | |||
| ''Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense'' | |||
| Look at ] for details, rather than my repeating myself too much. :) They were first called Yankees the same year they were first called Highlanders. I think which name was used varied from newspaper to newspaper. The same deal happened with the Cubs, which were called Colts by some papers and Cubs by others. Modern fans don't understand how things worked in those days. Nearly every nickname of the classic 16 teams originated in the newspapers. Sometimes the clubs even asked the reporters to come up with a new nickname. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I knew a bit about the nicknames -- what surprised me was the use of two names in a single article. Then I wondered if the nickname had an older basis .. guess I should read the article. ] (]) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.''' | |||
| ::It's not unusual, then or now. Think of the Yankees being called the Bombers or other names. Or the White Sox being called the Pale Hose or the Chisox. Or the Cubs being called the North Siders or the Denizens of Wrigley. Now go back to the 1910s or 1920s, and you might see "Dodgers" and "Robins" in the same article; or "Senators" and "Nationals" (or "Nats") in the same article. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] donations == | |||
| Hi there. Thanks for your addition of a source for this article. There's not much around on Cagney's politics, and I'll certainly include the ref (so it actually shows up, which it doesn't appear to in Categories) when I get round to writing about his politics, which seem to have changed during his lifetime. --11:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Quote of the day from an editor who ''seems'' to regard his own screeds as the epitome of "wit": | |||
| :::''Twain is the perennial favorite of intellectual pygmies who believe a trite quote has the power to increase their stature.'' | |||
| I rather think his "wit" speaks for itself pretty clearly. | |||
| Some of my essays: | |||
| :I think his politics changed about the time he met Cohan <g>. (I think the template specifically ignores refs, but they show up when editing -- either an undocumented feature or a glitch. Thanks! ] (]) 11:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ::Possibly, though i'd be reluctant to necessarily link the two things together without a reliable source to do it for me! --] (]) | |||
| ] | |||
| :::All is anecdotal - they met according to the studio, but Cohan died fairly soon after. Not that keeps WP articles from being laced with them, of course. My reference to "meeting Cohan", however, was to the work on YDD (hence the <g>), not the anecdote. I suspect the machinations of the CPUSA regarding the Russia-Germany treaty made a lot of folks rethink politics. ] (]) 14:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ::::Aye, it's hard to source accurately. Certainly WW2 made lots of people re-assess their politics, perhaps unneccesarily, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if JC did too. --] (]) 14:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :::::Found hard copy of "Cagney by Cagney" -- fills in a bit. ] (]) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Your opinion on NPOV ]? == | |||
| ] | |||
| Please post at talk. ] (]) 03:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == MisterAlbert == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hi. ]. ] (]) 08:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :Thank you. I am not totally surprised at this, having read up on his history. Dave ] (]) 11:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| ] Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages{{#if:Joe the Plumber|, as you did to ],}} without giving a valid reason for the removal in the ]. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been ]. Please make use of the ] if you'd like to experiment with test edits. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> --] | ] 15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :I am unsure what template I deled. ] (]) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Huh? I deled a section (not a "template") in dispute which has an absurd number of references attached. In addition, the reason was given in the edit summary. And I would appreciate AGF. Thanks! ] (]) 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your point is well-made (whether I agree with your reasoning or not), and I apologize. This issue tends to bring out the worst in all of us, I fear. --] | ] 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::No problem! ] (]) 16:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==FYI== | |||
| ] ] (]) 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Facts707... == | |||
| ] | |||
| This guy/girl is obviously collaborating with 4Ls, but I don't know how to handle this. I could employ a strategy well-known by Powell regarding Theater Nuclear War, but I don't see this as worth taking myself out of the picture for just a pawn. Appreciate any suggestion. ] (]) 14:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| Several editors have cross-linked spoor on user talk pages at this point. This one may be a sockpuppet for sure, to aid in a wrestling event. Thanks! ] (]) 14:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Palin image? == | |||
| ] | |||
| I note that the CFD tag is removed on the "Palin-Nowhere" image, but I can not find any report that WP had received proper license yet. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! ] (]) 14:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It was removed incorrectly by the uploader. I've restored it. Nice catch. ] (]) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wish there was a WP:ASSUMEACCIDENT article ... ] (]) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::No tag on SP page at all, at least the tag is on the image page. ] (]) 16:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is now due time for the image removal if I read correctly. ] (]) 20:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can't delete ] myself, as it was I who tagged it. You could tag it as {{tlp|db|CSD:I7 - Image with a disputed fair use rationale which has been tagged for over seven days}}. ] (]) 09:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I tagged it. ALL tags were removed by agr on the gounds that the "editors" decided they could not replace it with text. I pointed out this was wrong, but do not know the procedure to reinstate the deletion tag. ] (]) 14:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Some of the articles I have created: | |||
| ==inuse== | |||
| I had some problems creating this request. Please look at my edit history. | |||
| # ] | |||
| I am sorry for any problems or confusion which I caused. I added a <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> tag to the page, please confine your comments to the talk page for now, and you can remove the comments which are in the wrong sections later after I am done and remove the <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> tag. Again, sorry for the confusion. ] (]) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # ] | |||
| :I have finished creating the ] and removed the <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> tag. You are welcome to edit. I suggest moving your comments elsewhere. The only comments on the actual page should be what issues to be resolved. Again, I apologize for the confusion and thanks for your understanding and patience. I respect your tenacity and passion on this issue. ] (]) 02:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] (recommended) | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| etc. | |||
| == BLP privacy policy for ]s == | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy ]. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. ] ] 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have provided substantial input on that policy, based on an increasing body of international law. ] (]) 12:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| ==Palin talk page== | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
| I removed a comment before you, as the talk page is not a forum for providing links to whereever. Hope you don't mind. Cheers! --] 13:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 70K | |||
| :OH <g>. Straight commercial spam that. ] (]) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |counter = 39 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(93d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Collect/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| ==From ]== | |||
| ==Muthee== | |||
| <font color = red> | |||
| Thanks for your efforts on the ] page. However, you pulled some sources because they were in another language. While I understand your objection, that leaves the sentence totally unsourced. Please put the sources back, or (sadly for me, who worked hard to find it) take out the whole sentence. Regards. <font color="#461B7E">]</font> <small>(<font color="#153E7E">]</font> | <font color= "#307D7E">]</font>)</small> 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{quotation|{{cross}} '''Copying from an unacknowledged source''' | |||
| *Inserting a text—] word-for-word, or ] with very few changes—from a source that is not acknowledged anywhere in the article, either in the body of the article, or in footnotes, the references section, or the external links section.}} | |||
| ::*The above example is the most egregious form of plagiarism and the least likely to be accidental.</font> | |||
| :I really think that we can find English sources for almost all of it -- using sources which few understand has been done in the past to insert erroneous material in some articles. Surely there is a Kenya paper which will give the opening dates for the school? Jclemens will, I think, vouch for my feelings on sources.http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:REF#Sources_in_different_languages "Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do use sources in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." is the official style guideline for WP. Thanks! ] (]) 19:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == repeating for those who did not seem to read it the first time: == | |||
| ==Cool down== | |||
| '''Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.''' | |||
| Take another look. He did not do what you think he did. ] | ] 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Poring over 40K+ edits .... == | |||
| He did move stuff around -- the worse stuff was the other day. Thanks. ] (]) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No he copied stuff, He probably could have done with putting it in quotes but I do think he did it in good faith. ] | ] 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :;Still confusing after all the 30 edits overnight. I fear I think he is abusing process in order to prevent reaching a consensus he does not desire. ] (]) 21:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::No I don't think so. I actually think his edits today are to try and reach a consensus. ] | ] 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Mirabile visu! ] (]) 22:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| On over 98% of articles where I have asserted BLP problems - there was no contest about it. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| #Sarah Palin is ''not'' a practitioner of Witchcraft, | |||
| Please ] as you are doing on this talk page. Engaging in such conversation is pointless and only disrupts the talk page further. Instead, you should remove all discussions not related to article edits. --] (]) 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| #Joe the Plumber is ''not'' a felon, | |||
| :Most of the time it has actually worked -- so while I appreciate the suggestion (and I have deleted pure trolls) I felt that this particular case as it reflected what had made it into the main article in the past had to be addressed. Yes -- that stuff '''had''' once been in the main article. Sigh. ] (]) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| #Prescott Bush was not a manager of ''Nazi slave labour camps'' whose living heirs live off of Nazi gold, | |||
| #Johan Hari is not a worst journalist ever to live, | |||
| #XXX is not "gay", | |||
| #YYY (living person) is not "homophobia", | |||
| #ZZZ (many) are not "Jews", etc. | |||
| as well as many hundreds of other articles, such as ones asserting groups of living persons support use of biological weapons to commit genocide, etc. Of those where an issue was raised and discussed, in about 80% of the cases it was determined that there ''was'' a BLP violation and my position was correct. '''My "poor BLP average" is 99+% in my favour.''' As for being biased on "US politics" issues, no evidence has been provided for that claim for one very good reason - I am not biased on US politics issues, and have edited articles on everyone from Communists to Fascists worldwide. | |||
| Clearly some editors have spent a great deal of time following my every edit, but did anyone note that it is the ''same'' editors each time? | |||
| == Diffs and such... == | |||
| I have now spent several full days on the preliminary stuff -- but so far '''not a single arbitrator has acknowledged the evidence I sent in months ago'''. Where no one reads anything, it is likely they will read anything in the future - or is it a matter of "our minds are made up ahead of time - don't bother us with facts"? ANEW complaints? In one case: ''My conclusion is thus that this is not a blockable offense, and Collect apparently acted in good faith'', In another "both editors blocked" despite the fact the 3+RR was not on my part at all, and the BLP issue was later proven at AfD to be correctly raised, notes that repeatedly removing '''fucking''' from a BLP ''where the problem had already been shown to be a BLP issue'' was not improper on my part, and so on. ] (]) | |||
| Think you whacked the entire topic in talk that outlined Facts707 initial deletion of the entire VP Campaign section along with the blob that later stuck in. Could probably revert talk and just rv that one change. Also, given that Facts hasn't defended his wholesale deletion from the main article, if you need me to rv anything until that's settled, just let me know. ] (]) 13:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == for lurkers: == | |||
| :All I saw was the seemingly intact reprint of the article section. Sorry if I erred. ] (]) 13:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Cinderella was a notorious crier - tears by the gallon. | |||
| ::No problem whatsoever. I'm actually ambivalent to the wholesale deletion of the Campaign pieces, but despite ] I smell a rat, and something tells me that resulting subarticle will start collecting all those smears that have been discounted in the main one. :( ] (]) 13:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thus becoming the very first Grimm weaper. | |||
| == Barbara West == | |||
| == On this day == | |||
| Not a problem. Several editors have been working on it to improve the references and to neutralize the language. Thanks for the head up! ] (]) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. I guess you can see what I thought -- several places I have seen subtle stuff worked in by making big shuffles <g>. ] (]) 22:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As we hear '']'' or '']'' on this day, we should remember they descended from the same source - a call to innkeepers to "close the taps" so soldiers could return to their posts ('']'' in Dutch). What one does not hear though is ]'s comment about retirement and death: | |||
| == October 2008 == | |||
| ::''I leave when the pub closes'' | |||
| Is there any reason other than your edit summary of "nope" that you removed reliably sourced statement on the ] article? ] (]) 14:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It qualifies as trivia -- it is unrelated to the campaign issues, nor to any bio of SJW. ] (]) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It adds to his notability and is not trivia under any sense of it. Please do not remove reliably sourced sections in the future. ] (]) 15:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| When ''taptoe'' has sounded the last time, and the "last post" has been visited. | |||
| == Belated reply == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] (]) 16:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::''any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee'' ] | |||
| == Off topic Joe the Plumber discussion moved == | |||
| Quotation of the day. 9 February 2016 | |||
| Hello, the discussion on the Joe the Plumber talk page had wandered significantly from improving the article and has been moved per ] to if you wish to continue your discussion. -- ] 13:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] marketing run amok == | ||
| ecigs at ''Darth Vaper'' | |||
| When you deleted the external link to the "dossier", you . Please check your edits in the future. ] ] 05:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| major stores at ''Darth Maul'' | |||
| == Welcome back! == | |||
| Dating service at ''Luke Shywalker'' | |||
| Good to see you again, Dave. Frank ] (]) 19:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Was I gone that long? Kidney stones tend to knock one off balance, I fear. ] (]) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think ya made a boo boo, at ]. -- ] (]) 22:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::What boo boo? I know I can err for sure, but the only odd point I made was about the Rasmussen poll? If it were put in, the floodgates of other polls being put in would open, IMHO. ] (]) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The lower half of the talk-page's posts were made small. ] (]) 22:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I thunk I had it right (first try made everything tiny) -- I think blockquote malfunctions as I checked preview and it looked ok here (sigh). Thanks! ] (]) 22:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No prob. ] (]) 22:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Merci beaucoup. ] (]) 22:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Tanning salon at ''Obi Wan Kenobi'' | |||
| == Sarah Palin BLP violation???? == | |||
| So far no suggestions for the female characters ... | |||
| In what way does this remotely violate ]?: | |||
| == ArbCom Election Guide 2017 == | |||
| :Palin's high profile in the 2008 presidential campaign has fueled speculation of that Palin may run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and as of November 2008, there is an active "Draft Palin" movement.<ref>"" by Ali Reed; BBC News, November 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-07.</ref> However, Palin has so far not expressed interest in seeking the presidency in 2012, telling CNN, "Right now I cannot even imagine running for national office in 2012."<ref>"" by Martin Kaste; ''All Things Considered'', NPR, November 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-07.</ref> | |||
| See ] | |||
| It simply states that there are elements of the Republican Party that want her to run in 2012, and that she has presently stated she has no interest in that. All of this is non-controversial and cited from verifiable sources. ] (]) 05:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Highly recommended candidates are {{u|Premeditated Chaos}}, {{u|The Rambling Man}}, {{u|SMcCandlish}} and {{u|BU Rob13}}. | |||
| '''The recommendations are based on answers to my questions only, and nothing else.''' | |||
| It is a conjecture which is contrary to what she has stated herself. Thus it fails under the "conjecture" pare of BLP. Sort of like saying "Some people say John Doe is considering running for Congress, but John Doe is denying it" -- all it is, is speculation. Even from CNN, speculation remains speculation. ] (]) 12:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == diffs easily verified by anyone looking at the MKUCR history == | |||
| :I was just checking out your talk page to see if any comments had been posted about me, and I noticed that you were giving out some mistaken advice. | |||
| 04:19 to 04:24 4 June three edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after five edits by others. | |||
| :Conjecture is absolutely fine in a BLP, as per BLP policy/guidelines. Just wanted to make sure you understood that, so you can avoid making further erroneous claims in the future. You had made the same incorrect assertion at various points on the Palin talk page, and I corrected you, but I'm not sure the message got through. Best. ] (]) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 16:03 to 18:29 3 June seven edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after thirteen edits by others | |||
| ::"Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability." As for seeking to intimidate anyone, it does not work. Facts are what belong in a BLP, not conjecture. ] (]) 01:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 03:01 to 05:57 3 June seven edits with two intervening edits by another, after three edits by others including clear reverts. | |||
| :::This is really frustrating talking with you and having to explain every basic concept in every policy, over and over. Take a look at the policy you just quoted: "Remove any contentious material about living persons ... '''that is a conjectural interpretation of a source'''". | |||
| 17 edits in roughly one day. And with at least three reverts by any count (even counting multiple reverts as a single revert). | |||
| :::'''Referencing conjecture which directly appears in a source ''is not'' a conjectural interpretation of a source.''' Taking a source which includes no conjecture ''and then adding your own conjecture to it'', or adding conjecture ''that is different from the conjecture that appears in the source'' is a conjectural interpretation of a source. '''That is original research. Conjecture which appears in a source is NOT.''' | |||
| {{hat|diffs}} | |||
| :::Your repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated suggestion that conjecture, allegations, etc, do not belong in a BLP, ''is plainly contradicted by the very language of the BLP policies.'' You can assert your own novel interpretation all you like, but '''the fact is,''' you're wrong and your wrongness is spelled out in the actual letter of the BLP policy. | |||
| (cur | prev) 04:24, 4 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (109,924 bytes) (+2) . . (→Terminology: ups) (undo | thank) | |||
| :::PS, This is about the tenth time I've explained this exact point to you. Could you PLEASE READ the policy '''carefully''' before making assertions about it to other editors? ] (]) 01:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (cur | prev) 04:23, 4 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) m . . (109,922 bytes) (+22) . . (→Terminology) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 04:19, 4 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (109,900 bytes) (+277) . . (→Terminology: Added a source per My Very Best Wishes) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 22:44, 3 June 2018 AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) . . (109,623 bytes) (+1,791) . . (Rescuing orphaned refs ("Aronson" from rev 844275840)) (undo) | |||
| (cur | prev) 22:19, 3 June 2018 My very best wishes (talk | contribs) . . (107,832 bytes) (-1) . . (→Estimates) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 22:16, 3 June 2018 My very best wishes (talk | contribs) . . (107,833 bytes) (-3,329) . . (→Estimates: rephrase: this can be summarized much shorter) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 21:36, 3 June 2018 Aquillion (talk | contribs) m . . (111,162 bytes) (+9) . . (partial restore of some minor edits no one has specifically objected to on talk. I presume nobody has a strong feeling that we must not link Barbara Harff, or that the typo of "byStéphane" is essential to the article.) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 18:43, 3 June 2018 Smallbones (talk | contribs) . . (111,153 bytes) (-2,185) . . (revert to last 6+7=13, verbose and opinionated) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 18:29, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (113,338 bytes) (+18) . . (→Estimates) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 18:25, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) m . . (113,320 bytes) (+1) . . (→Estimates) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 18:15, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (113,319 bytes) (+1,390) . . (→Estimates: More about famine deaths. Sources added.) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 17:10, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (111,929 bytes) (+210) . . (→Estimates: Do not understand why hyperlink was removed. Added an explanation of why Rummel's approach leads to inflation of figures) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 16:42, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (111,719 bytes) (+427) . . (→Terminology: More strict definition of democide is provided, cited from the article authored by a close Rummel's colleague and renown genocide scholar.) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 16:34, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) m . . (111,292 bytes) (+4) . . (→Estimates) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 16:03, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (111,288 bytes) (+135) . . (→Estimates: Expanded Dallin's opinion) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 15:50, 3 June 2018 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs) m . . (111,153 bytes) (+15) . . (imprisonment -- that's what a Gulag is.) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 15:27, 3 June 2018 My very best wishes (talk | contribs) . . (111,138 bytes) (-27) . . (should be fixed I think - see talk; of course all these estimates were highly approximate and debatable) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 12:49, 3 June 2018 50.49.143.77 (talk) . . (111,165 bytes) (+4) . . (→Political system and ideology) (undo) | |||
| (cur | prev) 12:34, 3 June 2018 C.J. Griffin (talk | contribs) m . . (111,161 bytes) (-1) . . (→Estimates: removing space) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 12:23, 3 June 2018 Collect (talk | contribs) . . (111,162 bytes) (-236) . . (→Estimates: reduce argumentation and "however" WTA) (undo) | |||
| (cur | prev) 12:19, 3 June 2018 Collect (talk | contribs) . . (111,398 bytes) (-299) . . (→Estimates: declaration of "importance" is made in Misplaced Pages's voice and would need a source and ascription as opinion) (undo) | |||
| (cur | prev) 09:24, 3 June 2018 Fifelfoo (talk | contribs) . . (111,697 bytes) (-9) . . (more citation fiddle (citation / bibliography)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit: Switched) | |||
| (cur | prev) 09:13, 3 June 2018 Fifelfoo (talk | contribs) . . (111,706 bytes) (+116) . . (standardise to p. ## with lowercase for alpha pages. s.=>§. See also: and See: in citations to plain citations. <br/> => ; in list citations. Similar such citation changes of no content change to article.) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 08:58, 3 June 2018 Fifelfoo (talk | contribs) . . (111,590 bytes) (+23) . . (standardise to p. ##[figuredash ##) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 08:37, 3 June 2018 Fifelfoo (talk | contribs) . . (111,567 bytes) (+580) . . (→Bibliography: first three brought into style, figure dashes) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 06:16, 3 June 2018 Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) . . (110,987 bytes) (-334) . . (→People's Republic of China: trimming. We do not need separate sections for every paragraph. Also copyediting. "Subject to control at various times" is hardly enough to include here.) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 06:06, 3 June 2018 Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) . . (111,321 bytes) (-56) . . (An outrageous claim with no source. The image itself is dodgy, but with a plain caption may be okay.) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 06:01, 3 June 2018 Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) . . (111,377 bytes) (+5) . . (→Terminology: ce) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 05:57, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (111,372 bytes) (+651) . . (→Estimates: Added more sources and the reference to famine) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 05:30, 3 June 2018 Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) . . (110,721 bytes) (-1,234) . . (→Legal prosecution for genocide and genocide denial: too much detail. We haven't, and shouldn't, provide background info on any of the other incidents. That Stalin was declared responsible is enough.) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 05:26, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) m . . (111,955 bytes) (+3) . . (→Estimates) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 05:24, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) m . . (111,952 bytes) (+9) . . (→Estimates) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 05:23, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (111,943 bytes) (-58) . . (→Estimates: repetition) (undo | thank)(cur | prev) 05:12, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (112,001 bytes) (+774) . . (→Estimates: More on Rummel and genocide scholars) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 04:58, 3 June 2018 Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) . . (111,227 bytes) (-130) . . (→Debate on famines: ce, unnecessary weasel word, format) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 04:06, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (111,357 bytes) (+888) . . (→Estimates: Criticism of Rummel added) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 03:01, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (110,469 bytes) (+4,184) . . (→Estimates: Added explanations about controversy per talk. Will add more.) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 02:45, 3 June 2018 Holdoffhunger (talk | contribs) . . (106,285 bytes) (-5) . . (Remove double "the.") (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 01:46, 3 June 2018 UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk | contribs) . . (106,290 bytes) (+86) . . (→Debate on famines: Changing for clarity (previous phrasing made it seem like Churchill may have presided over both events listed. Also rewriting and expanding intro sentence to avoid synth/OR (source does not indicate that famine should not be viewed as state killings, rather that communists were not alone in causing famine.)) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 01:07, 3 June 2018 UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk | contribs) . . (106,204 bytes) (0) . . (→Estimates: Simplifying numbers, listing thousands of thousands is confusing, this is more in line with formatting of other figures in same section) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 00:03, 3 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (106,204 bytes) (+2,316) . . (→Estimates: Added modern data for deaths estimates in Cambodia and Stalin's USSR. Will add other data later.) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 22:12, 2 June 2018 C.J. Griffin (talk | contribs) . . (103,888 bytes) (+1,115) . . (→Debate on famines: Adding dissenting scholars on this debate) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 20:15, 2 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (102,773 bytes) (+14) . . (→Terminology: Actually, most authors cited here do not apply their terminology to all MKuCR. For example, Valentino does not include Afghanistan in his definition. Wheatcroft discusses only Stalinist repressions. Such a generalisation is an original research.) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 19:55, 2 June 2018 AmateurEditor (talk | contribs) . . (102,759 bytes) (+22) . . (→Estimates: added years of publication to encourage maintenance of chronological order going forward) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 04:12, 2 June 2018 Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) . . (102,737 bytes) (+48) . . (Undid revision 844013188 by Collect (talk) Seriously, Collect? A quick google search found a bunch of sources using ''that exact phrase'', not to mention the critics already on the talk page.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ::::And the fact remains that your interpretation of the BLP rules about conjecture and mine differ. The conjecture which is barred is material which posits material other than current fact. BLPs are for facts about a person. Period. Opinions? Sometimes, but only clearly identified as opinion. Crystal ball gazing? Not. ] "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. " "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen." Is this more clear now? Material which is not set in the future is not really BLP material, else we would have "what if?" scattered throughout all of WP. As for your ungracious and tendentious lecturing, it is ill-suited to WP. Thank you most kindly. ] (]) 12:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The comments about WP:Crystal need to be directed at the person who wanted to add material about Palin's future political prospects. Your comments about your blatantly contradictory opinion about what you think the BLP guidelines say -- ''which, in point of provable fact, they do not say'' -- are simply not applicable. If someone sets a house on fire, you arrest him for arson -- you don't arrest him for "illegal thumb twiddling" when he wasn't twiddling his thumbs and twiddling your thumbs isn't illegal. Thus, if someone tries to add crystal balling conjecture from a source, you disqualify it based on WP:Crystal instead of making up some fake rule that conjecture from a reliable source cannot go in an article. | |||
| :::::''Again, not that I expect you to understand or acknowledge this, your claim is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by the BLP guidelines.'' | |||
| :::::See: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article". BY DEFINITION, AN ALLEGATION IS A CONJECTURE. And the guidelines say relevant allegations go in. So you can see the BLP guidelines clearly do not prohibit conjecture. SOME conjecture is prohibited on other grounds, such as being irrelevant or unsourced. '''There is simply no aspect of the BLP guidelines that says all conjecture is prohibited --''' '''''yet you repeatedly assert this fictitious, non-existent rule in an effort to bully other editors who attempt to make reference to relevant, reliable source material.''''' That point goes on top of the fact that your nonsensical transformation of "Material which is a conjectural interpretation of a source is prohibited" into the fictitious, non-existent rule that "Conjectures made by a source are prohibited" is a total, obvious, verifiable distortion of what the plain English of the rules say. | |||
| :::::You are free to re-write BLP guidelines in your head, but those imaginary guidelines are only applicable in your own imaginary Misplaced Pages that exists only in your head. '''If you think 2 + 2 = 5, I can prove you're wrong, but I can't make you believe it.''' | |||
| :::::PS, Facts about opinions are facts, and go in a BLP when appropriate. You can say this isn't so, but you are wrong, and your wrongness, like the other wrongness I detailed above, is spelled out in the BLP guidelines. Thank you most kindly. | |||
| :::::PPS. Your behavior is CONSTANTLY abusive, even more so when you've been proven wrong and feel the need to lash out at the other person in order to cover up the fact that your views have just been comprehensively shown to be false. The first numerous times you asserted a false rule, I chalked it up to a misunderstanding. But now, after having the rule explain to you, you persist in attempting to spread false Misplaced Pages rules, '''and it constitutes ongoing abuse'''. | |||
| :::::Thank you most kindly. ] (]) 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::An "allegation" is not a "conjecture." Allegation: "1. Something alleged; an assertion: allegations of disloyalty. 2. The act of alleging. 3. A statement asserting something without proof: The newspaper's charges of official wrongdoing were mere allegations. 4. '''Law An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence. " ''' Conjecture: "1. '''the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. ''' 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation. 3. Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens. " As for charging me with "ongoing abuse" such a charge is fatuous ab initio. Thank you most kindly, but '''each time you assert soemthing is in the archives, and it ain't there, that is far more abusive than my claim that "allegation" and "conjecture" are substantively different.''' ] (]) 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::By definition, all allegations are conjectural. A conjecture is something which is asserted but not proven. An allegation is a specific type of conjecture: an unproven ACCUSATION. If X is a subset of Y, all X are Y. Thus all allegations are conjectures, but not all conjectures are allegations. XOXO Hope that helps. PS, Your claim that sourced conjecture is prohibited in BLPs is completely without substantiation by any text of the BLP guidelines, as I demonstrated above. Two plus two still equals four even if you say it equals five. PPS the discussion and sources I said were in the archives... are in the archives. I linked them. The newspaper articles haven't been burned, the discussions haven't been deleted. Have a great day.] (]) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Nope. All "allegations" are not "conjectural." The terms are not in any way synonymous. As for your misstatements of what I write, I would kindly ask you to desist, as it really clutters up my Talk page. Dictionaries would probably help you a lot. ] (]) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I did not '''say''' they were synonymous, as they're not. "Allegations" are a subset of "conjectures". Thus all allegations are conjectures, but all conjectures are not allegations. And all this is somewhat beside the point, since your claim that BLP policies prohibit sourced conjecture is based on a horrible misreading of the plain English meaning of the BLP policy which prohibits ''conjectural interpretations of a source'', which are original research. If the '''source''' makes the conjecture, it's not original research; if the '''editor''' makes the conjecture, it is. Not that I expect you to acknowledge or understand this obvious truth. You seem determined to distort policy in whatever way suits your purpose at any given time. ] (]) 23:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Nor are "allegations" a subset of "conjectures." Nor are any of your logical statements, logical. As for your attempts to misstate my position, that is a matter for your own conscience someday. Try writing without attacking people. ] (]) 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Allegations are a subset of conjectures. All allegations are conjectural: they are unproven. And sourced conjecture can be perfectly legitimate material for a BLP. This is perfectly logical, logical and un-illogical. And I have not misstated you at any time: you have said plainly, in plain English, with clear meaning, that BLP policies prohibit conjectural material, but they plainly '''don't'''. Your comments about my conscience and my supposed "attacks" represent nothing more than a further attempt to change the subject escape the obvious conclusion that ''you are in the wrong yet refuse to admit it.'' | |||
| :To wit, '''BLP guidelines do not prohibit conjectural material''', yet you repeatedly, repeatedly, plainly, and falsely say that they do. | |||
| :You may continue to believe that black is white and 2 + 2 = 5, but do not try to convince another editor of this and ESPECIALLY do not attempt to disqualify any material from an article based on this nonsense. If you do, I will correct you again. Your attempts to change the subject in order to escape having your wrongness demonstrated, will fail, and you will be shown to be wrong. That is all. Good day. ] (]) 02:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Um -- "allegations" are '''still''' not a subset of "conjectures." Saying something that ain;t so over and over does not make it so. By the way, when you ascribe a quote to me, I would appreciate it if it were an actual quote from me. What I have said is "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability." (actual quote from ]) Note that there are several classes of material referred to. "Conjectural interpretation of a source" is '''specifically disallowed.''' As for the precise '''real''' quote -- it remains correct. And please stop iterating your "allegations are a subset of conjectures" silliness here. You have said it enough, and it still is wrong. ] (]) 02:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::All allegations are conjectural -- they are unproven. You can say it's not so, but it is. If they were not conjectural, they would be proven, and therefore would no longer be allegations, because the "without proof" condition would no longer be satisfied. | |||
| :::Conjectural interpretations of sources '''ARE indeed specifically disallowed''' -- as I have repeatedly agreed. | |||
| :::References ''to conjectures made by sources'' '''are not disallowed''', no matter how many times you say it. | |||
| :::As I said, you may persist in your delusion, but do not try to force other users to abide by your own personal policy that BLPs may not contain any conjectural material, because that is not Misplaced Pages policy. And if you object to something being included in an article, I highly recommend you find an actual Misplaced Pages policy which supports removal of it, instead of distorting one or making one up whole cloth. ] (]) 02:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Use a dictionary.''' As for your insistence on misciting what I write, it reflects mainly on you. Your allegations are absurd, and my conjectures about you would be unprintable. '''Allegations are not, never have been, and never will be, a "subset of conjectures."''' As for using the word "delusion" -- you are so far from normal etiquette that I wonder about those "conjectures" which I now have about you. Thank you most kindly. ] (]) 02:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Like I said, just don't try to force other users to abide by this fictitious rule you have made up, and you may believe whatever nonsense you like. On Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages policy is the law of the land. Have a great weekend. ] (]) 02:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Fun facts.... == | |||
| This stuff was fun to dig up ... though I probably sourced it too well. ''']''' '']'' 15:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :<g> I deled a couple of overkill sources, I hope I chose ok. Thanks! ] (]) 15:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problemo. I thought it better to give too many than to have someone question where the information came from... or worse, to have it said "only one source reports this", before a none-discussed deletion. ''']''' '']'' 23:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know how things ran before -- this time I trust the consistent system will make it a decent article. ] (]) 00:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Barbar West == | |||
| While I believe that you may have an argument for decreasing the content, I'm concerned that you are edit warring while not participating in the talk page's discussion. Let's take this to the talk page. Three editors have been previously banned for 24 hours for 3RR violations on this page. Thanks! ] <small>]·]</small> 01:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting assertion, though there is no way my edits could be construed as "edit warring." ] (]) 11:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Further you seem to forget that I have, indeed, gone to Talk, quite a bit whilst you have been absent from the discussion. Kindly do not make false assertions. ] (]) 11:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I realize that you have participated in the talk page whilst edit warring. Please, I encourage you to read up on ] and in particular ] so you aren't the fourth editor banned from the page. Thanks. ] <small>]·]</small> 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Barbara West|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:Barbara West (TV news anchor)|Barbara West (TV news anchor)|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] <small>]·]</small> 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your accusation is ill-founded at best, and abusive at worst. As I have not come anywhere near your claim of multiple reversions with 24 hours, I fear it is just plain abuse on your part. Kindly desist from such. Per WP:BLP, contentious material requires consensus to be reinserted, not the other way around. " Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability." Thanks. ] (]) 12:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please don't fall into the same trap as others have done. ] <small>]·]</small> 13:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Are you asserting that you are using this as a trap of some sort? ] (]) 13:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, I'm asserting that you are walking into your self-made trap. Please see who made the exact same arguments as you. Let's do this on the talk page. I'm working to respond to your points now. ] <small>]·]</small> 13:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I made repeated contributions on Talk while you ignored Talk. I am adding information on Olbermann to show his biases, which is proper if you do not want any eitwar for sure. Thanks! ] (]) 13:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| That's great -- let's work on the talk page! ] <small>]·]</small> 13:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been there all this time. I fear you just didn't read it? ] (]) 13:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Joe the Plumber 3RR == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Joe the Plumber|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->-- ] 21:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Conversely it appears to be you who is ignoring consensus in order to edit war. Kindly take this as your '''own warning.''' Thanks! ] (]) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thomas Muthee== | |||
| Did you even LOOK at what you pulled out? One was an article from The Jewish Journal, the other was an AP article! The citations were from the ''text'', NOT the video. I'm undoing your edits. Regards. <font color="#461B7E">]</font> <small>(<font color="#153E7E">]</font> | <font color= "#307D7E">]</font>)</small> 18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Give a link to the text -- it appeared a video was being used as the cite which a person in another area claimed ... I left in, I thought, the links to text. Sorry. ] (]) 22:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know I don't own that article, but I've worked pretty hard on it with other editors to make it as NPOV as possible. My apologies for being testy, but your drive-by was pretty frustrating. No hard feelings, though. Regards. <font color="#461B7E">]</font> <small>(<font color="#153E7E">]</font> | <font color= "#307D7E">]</font>)</small> 11:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::In Sarah Palin an editor was seeking to have the Muthee videos inserted as RS for Palin believing in "witchcraft" <g>. ] (]) 12:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sigh. What part of "encyclopedia" is hard to understand for people? Regards. <font color="#461B7E">]</font> <small>(<font color="#153E7E">]</font> | <font color= "#307D7E">]</font>)</small> 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Far too many do not understand what NPOV means, and what "facts" are. Try looking at ] where I am trying to get outside opinions on what Joe the Plumber's "coocupation" is for his infobox <g>. Gosh -- they are trying to put POV in to that (but Sarah Palin has "fisherwoman" in hers at one point <sigh>. ) ] (]) 13:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Plumber's Helper - If You Are Seriously Curious == | |||
| At least in some circles, it refers to an auger or "snake." Please ignore this if you aren't really interested. Since you keep bringing this up, I thought you might like this link though. | |||
| www.ehow.com/how_2273747_buy-plumbers-helper-snake.html | |||
| ] (]) 20:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| NO American dictionary defines "plumber's helper" as "snake." None. Your cite is an example of "on the cheap" advertising sites, as shown by the huge total of ZERO ratings for the article <g>. Who writes for ehow? "We also have a rapidly growing library of articles '''created by eHow's members.'''" In short -- slightly less usable as a source than WP is. Thanks! ] (]) 22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your question == | |||
| Hello Collect, and thank you for your contributions. Regarding , please see: ], which may save a long discussion in talk :) ] <small>]</small> 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. I do think the list of references needs pruning, along with details of his teachings -- it is more a treatise on his group now than a biography of him. Perhaos the "teachings" which are covered in other articles (Divine Light Mission, I think?) could be greatly shortened? ] (]) 00:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: See ] which expands on the subject. As for the current discussion in talk, please check ] which demonstrate how the overwhelming majority of sources describes him. ] <small>]</small> 00:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then much of the bio relating to specific teachings could be pruned? I am not concerned with how his friends and critics feel -- I think both pretty much have to have some representation in the article, but the sheer bulk is what I would like to work on <g>. Too many WP articles get out of control, I fear. Especially on Talk pages. For my philosophy, right or wrong, see ] ] (]) 00:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I like the essay... pretty good actually. I offer you a good quote that I came across a few days ago from Mark Twain: | |||
| :::{{quotation|The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that aren't so.<ref>{{cite book |title=The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature|author=Pinker, Steven|pages=p.9|ISBN=0670063274}}</ref>}} | |||
| ::: ] <small>]</small> 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nice Twain quote! Variant on a Will Rogers quote which really goes back to Josh Billings <g>. "It ain't what people don't know that hurts them it's what they know that ain't so" ] (]) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You are right... the author of the book in which I found the quote, says this about it in a footnote: "Possibly apocryphal. or a paraphrase of sayings by Josh Billings; See Kim A. McDonald, ''Mark Twain's Famed Humorous Sayings Are Found to Have Been Missatributted to Him''. Chronicle of Higher Education, September 4. 19991, A8. ] <small>]</small> 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I read most of Twain before I was 10 -- my dad had the Harper "Complete Works" which were, of course, quite incomplete <g>. JFK said he would have liked to have had dinner with Jefferson. My choice would be Twain, hands down. ] (]) 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I am with you on this! I also read Twain as a child, but in Spanish, though... Which is not the same thing as in the original English as I later learned... ] <small>]</small> 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I read Cervantes in English -- same sort of experience? (In English he used a lot of very long words in translation <g>) ] (]) 01:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Twain used simple words, mainly -- which makes translation easier, but the dialects must have caused a coronary for the translator! I still prefer simple English in articles, too much "purple prose" infects WP at times. ] (]) 02:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Noting your spelling, I think you do not like the British spelling of "judgement"? And "deled" is a proofreading term from "dele" (I had too many newspapermen as relatives) Your changes are ok, as the words have the same meaning. <g>. ] (]) 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Could you please have a word with this user? First she posts this | |||
| ... calling editors "bald-faced liars"... | |||
| ...and then she tells another user off, with this: | |||
| This user is known to not participate in editing, just coming to talk pages to "raise hackles". Of course, given the circumstances, it is pointless for me to raise the issue with her. ] <small>]</small> 01:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I trust my response to this person may make them rethink the tone of their posts. I suspect you know I am not a follower of Rawat, but that I want any article to be scrupulously fair. Is there any specific issue I ought to address? I removed some of the surplus wordage about teachings, and hope I have not cut into the quick. On the other hand, if I can cut more, tell me <g>. ] (]) 01:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You can cut the whole section - it's already covered in another article. As for Sylvie, she's doing what Jossi has also committed to doing: only posting to the talk page. For some reason Jossi portrays that as a bad thing. ]] ] 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: See ]. Anyone is welcome to talk page discussions, but not welcome to be uncivil. The article and talk page are still under probation. ] <small>]</small> 02:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am officially not on the "I found a misspelling" patrol <g>. ] (]) 02:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==What's your stake?== | |||
| ''"One more sign of vitriol in the article."'' -- vitriol (which is not an English word originally) is not a matter of pointing out the truth. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)<br/> | |||
| Intresting that your first edit was at 02:24, on 21 June 2006, and yet your real edit history begins in . As I say, interesting. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you charging me with anything? In case you did not bother to read my User page, you would note that I have been busy online for more than 26 years. I have used WP since 2005, though I did not "register" until 2006. I trust this is longer than you have been online. I ahve also read somewhere over 6 million words online, and posted over 500,000 words in posts and articles, and managed over 500 gigabytes of images and files. I have had no connection whatever with any campaign involving any edits I made, and so I wonder just what your intent is from this post. "Origin: 1350–1400; ME < ML vitriolum, vitreolum, equiv. to L vitre(us) vitreous + -olum, neut. of -olus -ole 1 " Vitriol has been an English word for about 650 years now. Thank you most kindly. ] (]) 00:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Seriously? == | |||
| In what way is linking to an established reliable source "original research"? The citation is clear, absolutely regarding that Gas Pipeline section, and follows appropriately the prior text. --<span style="background:mistyrose">]</span><span style="background:tan;font-size:7pt">]</span><span style="background:wheat;font-size:6pt">]</span> 18:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The AP article said the bidding rules were slanted against the major global gas companies. It tdid not say this was an impediment to the gas pipeline. Your use saying it was a problem for the pipeline was OR by WP standards. I was going to insert the correct language - that the AP felt the contract was slanted "against the giant global companies which control the gas rights," but another editor pointed out that the article was not strictly relevant to the claims made for it. If you wish to claim that the global gas companies somehow were cheated in the bidding, then find a cite for that. If you feel they will win a contest about the bidding, find a cite for that. The AP article does neither. ] (]) 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Jihadists... == | |||
| I was wondering what Sarah had gotten herself into this time! :) ] (]) 11:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It is in the McCain campaign article -- hop in! ] (]) 11:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Meh... we'll see. Politics really doesn't interest me that much. Some people do, though! ] (]) 12:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:24, 23 September 2024
 | This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Christian Science to Good Article status. |
Well-meaning editors: Do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you.
I have now reached the 244 "Thanks" level from "notifications" - getting an average of over 115 per year it appears. Thank you to all who have thought highly of my edits. Collect (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
From 2013 (and various unnamed editors): I have started to work on a composite of my history dealing with Collect at my talk page. It starts in late 2008 so it might take a while. I'll accept fellow editors deciding when they have more of the facts.
- Had I known Collect was behind your request I may have declined. He has been sniffing my excrement for 4 years or more. I don't bother myself with him unless he shows up where I am working. Then I have to consider what is more important: dealing with Collect's dribble or continuing to talk and work with other editors. I detest him so much I usually just leave and go do something else in WikiLand
- Sorry, But I'd rather have all of my fingernails pulled out than to get involved with those editors. Especially Collect, perhaps the most dangerous and dirtiest Misplaced Pages editor I've come across--only my opinion of course, which I feel I am free to offer on my own talk page? It is true that there are plenty of articles here that are more about numbers than about the truth, IOW, who ever has the most editors on their side can write the article.
- I got here by looking at Collect contrbutions. (from a sock master)
- This essay serves no purpose in mainspace other than to aggrandize its creator. I recall some quip about dressing a pig...I'll let those who want, finish the line.
Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense
Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.
Quote of the day from an editor who seems to regard his own screeds as the epitome of "wit":
- Twain is the perennial favorite of intellectual pygmies who believe a trite quote has the power to increase their stature.
I rather think his "wit" speaks for itself pretty clearly.
Some of my essays:
WP:Misplaced Pages and shipwrights
WP:Repetition in Argumentation
Some of the articles I have created:
- Samuel Arnold Greeley
- Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography
- Harlan Howard Thompson
- Charles S. Strong (recommended)
- John W. Curry
- Gordon Grant (artist)
- Éditions Gründ
- Tech Engineering News
- Boston Society of Civil Engineers
- Frank P. Brown Medal
- Thaddeus Seymour
- Christopher Burnham
etc.
From WP:Plagiarism
N Copying from an unacknowledged source
- Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes—from a source that is not acknowledged anywhere in the article, either in the body of the article, or in footnotes, the references section, or the external links section.
- The above example is the most egregious form of plagiarism and the least likely to be accidental.
repeating for those who did not seem to read it the first time:
Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.
Poring over 40K+ edits ....
On over 98% of articles where I have asserted BLP problems - there was no contest about it.
- Sarah Palin is not a practitioner of Witchcraft,
- Joe the Plumber is not a felon,
- Prescott Bush was not a manager of Nazi slave labour camps whose living heirs live off of Nazi gold,
- Johan Hari is not a worst journalist ever to live,
- XXX is not "gay",
- YYY (living person) is not "homophobia",
- ZZZ (many) are not "Jews", etc.
as well as many hundreds of other articles, such as ones asserting groups of living persons support use of biological weapons to commit genocide, etc. Of those where an issue was raised and discussed, in about 80% of the cases it was determined that there was a BLP violation and my position was correct. My "poor BLP average" is 99+% in my favour. As for being biased on "US politics" issues, no evidence has been provided for that claim for one very good reason - I am not biased on US politics issues, and have edited articles on everyone from Communists to Fascists worldwide.
Clearly some editors have spent a great deal of time following my every edit, but did anyone note that it is the same editors each time?
I have now spent several full days on the preliminary stuff -- but so far not a single arbitrator has acknowledged the evidence I sent in months ago. Where no one reads anything, it is likely they will read anything in the future - or is it a matter of "our minds are made up ahead of time - don't bother us with facts"? ANEW complaints? In one case: My conclusion is thus that this is not a blockable offense, and Collect apparently acted in good faith, In another "both editors blocked" despite the fact the 3+RR was not on my part at all, and the BLP issue was later proven at AfD to be correctly raised, notes that repeatedly removing fucking from a BLP where the problem had already been shown to be a BLP issue was not improper on my part, and so on. Collect (talk)
for lurkers:
Cinderella was a notorious crier - tears by the gallon.
Thus becoming the very first Grimm weaper.
On this day
As we hear Taps or The Last Post on this day, we should remember they descended from the same source - a call to innkeepers to "close the taps" so soldiers could return to their posts (taptoe in Dutch). What one does not hear though is Winston Churchill's comment about retirement and death:
- I leave when the pub closes
When taptoe has sounded the last time, and the "last post" has been visited.
De mortuis nil nisi bonum
- any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee John Donne
Quotation of the day. 9 February 2016
Star Wars marketing run amok
ecigs at Darth Vaper
major stores at Darth Maul
Dating service at Luke Shywalker
Tanning salon at Obi Wan Kenobi
So far no suggestions for the female characters ...
ArbCom Election Guide 2017
Highly recommended candidates are Premeditated Chaos, The Rambling Man, SMcCandlish and BU Rob13.
The recommendations are based on answers to my questions only, and nothing else.
diffs easily verified by anyone looking at the MKUCR history
04:19 to 04:24 4 June three edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after five edits by others.
16:03 to 18:29 3 June seven edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after thirteen edits by others
03:01 to 05:57 3 June seven edits with two intervening edits by another, after three edits by others including clear reverts.
17 edits in roughly one day. And with at least three reverts by any count (even counting multiple reverts as a single revert).
| diffs |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|