| Revision as of 02:38, 30 July 2013 editGaijin42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,866 edits →Tea Party movement case - final decision motion: nm← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:24, 23 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Collect/Archive 39) (botTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User QMAward|Christian Science}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| Well-meaning editors: Please do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you. | |||
| 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.''' | |||
| I find it interesting that an editor who says he is "collegial" would ever have posted anything remotely like: | |||
| :''I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding ***. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless *** pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective).'' | |||
| :''And then, lets just go back to being fellow editors with an extreme dislike for an editor whose name begins with a C and ends in a T.'' | |||
| Sound "collegial to you? | |||
| '''Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. 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: | Some of my essays: | ||
| Line 38: | Line 49: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Happy Collect's Day!== | |||
| {| style="border: 2px ridge #4682B4; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background-color: #EAF5FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 8px; text-align: center;" | |||
| |] | |||
| |style="padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 10px; font-family: Comic Sans MS, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;"| | |||
| ''']''' has been identified as an '''''Awesome Wikipedian''''',<br /> | |||
| and therefore, I've officially declared today as ]!<br /> | |||
| For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,<br /> | |||
| enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Collect! | |||
| Peace,<br />]<br />00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <small>A record of your Day will always be kept ].</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see ] and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::And sincere best regards and thanks to you! ] (]) 00:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 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. ] (]) 13:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've left a note for Khazar 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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 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>. ] (]) 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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Ortiz == | |||
| Hi. Please review explanation of . 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 ]-seekers haunting these articles. As long-established editors, let's try to show them how collaboration works. Thanks. ] (]) 17:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. ] (]) 23:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Cracker Barrel == | |||
| Hi there, Collect. I saw you made some small adjustments to the '']'' section of the Cracker Barrel article, and since then I've ] 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? ] (] · ]) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Reverting Marco Rubio edits == | |||
| I've restored my edits to ] 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 ]. Thank you. ] (]) 02:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Please READ ]. Thanks. ] (]) 13:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Courtesy notice == | |||
| Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ]] 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Surrealism lives on at ]. ] (]) 19:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, yes. It is ANI, after all. Also known as the drama pit of the universe. *shrug* ]] 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? . It's a 'viewpoint' piece where she mentions her background. Thanks. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 20:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Fred Hiatt BLP issues == | |||
| Hi there,<br> | |||
| You responded quickly and helpfully to my posting on the BLP noticeboard regarding the ] 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, | |||
| <br>Thanks,<br> | |||
| ] (]) 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 ]. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Possible compromise resolution''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | The ] volunteer, ] has offered a compromise solution ]. 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 . ] (]) 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, ] (]) 09:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] 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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 09:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Watson == | |||
| Did you mean to revert El Heuro instead of me? --] 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. ] (]) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ]: 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 ] 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! ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, fair enough; thanks! ] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Collect, I think you're confusing ] with ] there... --] 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. ] (]) 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... --] 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 Misplaced Pages, 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? --] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages works" but DRN is not Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages works, because DRN does not have the power to magically turn a marginal vote into perfect consensus. No one does. --] (]) 12:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Huh? We do ''not'' use Misplaced Pages to tell anyone what we personally ] to be the ] - 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 "] and note that this is a collaborative effort, not a place to make sure what you know is what is given to readers. Cheers. ] (]) 12:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I suppose that's one way to deliberately misinterpret what I said. Keep your alphabet soup to yourself. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.) ] (]) 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> ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 11:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == OSC Woops == | |||
| Sorry about clobbering your changes on the ] 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap">– ] <sup style="line-height:0">]</sup></span> 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>. ] (]) 17:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 12:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 13:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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. --] (]) 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. <font color="#FF0000">''']'''</font><font color="#00FF00">(])</font> 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 14:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Nope. It is a slendid example of "silly season political issues" at best. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Use "not a tabloid" and "unsupported allegation of a crime not leading to anything" as the rationales. (] and ]) ] (]) 11:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Excellent, thank you. ] (]) 12:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Need your help again. My removal of the content was reversed with the weakest of explanations. ] (]) 14:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Will look. ] (]) 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Invitation to Mini-]== | |||
| Thanks for your comments on the . I'm asking various editors for constructive comments or explanations on my talk page: ]. Thanks, from ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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! ] (]) 01:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :You had better clarify if this was your email account or your[REDACTED] account or else a trigger happy admin might block you for being compromised. ]{{SubSup||]|]}} 03:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::My Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 11:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just FYI, it's coming up labelled as coming from your bellsouth account. --] | <sup>]</sup>✌ 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. ] (]) 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. --] | <sup>]</sup>✌ 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. ] (]) 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 ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.--] (]) 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 ] BLP contro, alas. Cheers. ] (]) 21:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Collect, please read my comments at ANEW. I just want to make sure you are on notice.--] (]) 21:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=551050869&oldid=551050508#Please_remove_my_ban. --] (]) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Regarding ...== | |||
| 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! ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 08:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tea Party movement Moderated discussion== | |||
| ] | |||
| A discussion is taking place at ] 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. ''']''' ''']''' 08:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Please see ]. Cheers.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 12:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Disagreements.... == | |||
| Hi Collect! | |||
| Since we seem to disagree more often than we agree, please take a look at ], 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 ] religious group. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Show me another article out of the ~195 country articles on Misplaced Pages that uses anything remotely resembling that kind of wording. I'll wait here. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 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.'' for example showing the use of "soveignty" over the entire area of the nation. | |||
| :::Extensive discussions at (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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Except what you quoted had nothing to do with what you propose. --] (]) 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 ] is what is required by the ptoject. Cheers. ] (]) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::"which I provided" No you didn't, and you know it. There is nowhere on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. You've been here long enough, you can do better than this. --] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages" you are quite welcome to leave this page to those who wish actual discussion. Cheers. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}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. ] (]) 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, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 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. ] (]) 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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages policy or guideline for excluding such. Cheers. ] (]) 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), as though no one has objected. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 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. ] (]) 01:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] 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. ] (]) 14:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 00:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ---- <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 06:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party== | |||
| I've just made this comment on the moderated discussion page: | |||
| {{ex|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? ''']''' ''']''' 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. ] (]) 11:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. ''']''' ''']''' 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 Misplaced Pages, such as ], 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. ''']''' ''']''' 12:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :IIRC, I did so. ] (]) 12:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: 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 ... ] (]) 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 ]. Cheers. ] (]) 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 ... ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 edit] (]) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :See ] and read closely how we treat allegations and convictions in biogrraphies of living people. Cheers. ] (]) 14:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy is not yet convicted. Even the trial had not begun. ] (]) 03:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == BLP and ] == | |||
| I replied to you on the ANI page regarding protection of ]. 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? ] (]) 03:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 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. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">] ]</span> 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 ] and ] then that is what the project actually ''requires'' us to do. Cheers. ] (]) 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. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">] ]</span> 14:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Done == | |||
| Done. Sorry for the mistake.] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 10:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == AN/I == | |||
| Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 10:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == edit checker == | |||
| Where's the wikichecker you used? I'd like to check mine. Thanks. ] (]) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Try . 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 Misplaced Pages, more rarely retired) , and your major pages include: Talk:Tea Party movement (1,120)Tea Party movement (512)Talk:Sarah Palin (335)Talk:Karl Rove (239) Karl Rove (148) Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion (129) Scott Brown (118)Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher (109)Talk:Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) (107) and Sarah Palin (102). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Collect, was your edit here in reference to a comment I made on the moderated discussion? Or is this another matter? Thanks. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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! ] (]) 21:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 11:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 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? ''']''' ''']''' 12:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Need your opinion on a BLP matter== | |||
| Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in ? Thanks. ] (]) 15:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 12:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 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: . 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? ] (]) 19:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Someone's done it already. Thanks anyway. ] (]) 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? | |||
| ] (]) 16:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :A secondary reliable source stating that a person is wanted may work - but ] limits the nature of the allegations to be presented in Misplaced Pages'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. ] (]) 21:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|Collect}} Try it again. I was able to access it from my ] connection here in ]. While I'm not sure if the ] 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.) However, I am unable to find any sources that refer to this person as a ''felon''. So, it may be acceptable to say in Misplaced Pages's voice that this person is wanted by the Chinese government for the alleged crimes of A, B and C. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. | |||
| :::: ] (]) 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." —'''<font color="darkred">Zujine</font>|]''' 04:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Navboxes on author pages == | |||
| Since you have over 25 edits at ], you might want to participate in the discussion at ] regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, There is a discussion about reliable sources and BLP issues related to ] ] 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. ] (]) 03:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for looking over the article. Your improvement of the lead is clear. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == TPm edit == | |||
| <font color = green>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. </font> Score 13/28 which almost gets to a reasonable minimum of 30 for reading ease ("fairly difficult" in the standard). ] (]) 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| For lurkers: This is in reference to ] which seems sometimes to be at a horrid impasse. ] (]) 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (Tweaked to not miss gist of prior proposal - would love to get readability back up, of course) ] (]) 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 ... ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— <!-- FRS id 40856 --> ] (]) 13:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == July 2013 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on . | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki>legislators' pay. He said the bill would create a financial hardship for his family.<ref name=KPCC></nowiki>{{red|'''{{'''}}<nowiki>cite web|url=http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/06/22/19596/i-now-have-to-explain-to-</nowiki> | |||
| Thanks, <!-- (0, 0, 2, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 20:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Alger Hiss == | |||
| You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— | |||
| * ]; | |||
| * ]. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> | |||
| ] (]) 13:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Policymic == | |||
| Will you please take a look at the following thread and offer your opinion. ] (]) 04:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Arbitration case declined == | |||
| This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a {{oldid2|563280462|Alger Hiss|request for arbitration}}, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see {{oldid2|563280462|Alger Hiss: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter|the Arbitrators' opinions}} for potential suggestions on moving forward. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, — ]] 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| I think thanks to the reliable sources board we have made progress, but was hoping to get your input as well if you have a minute. ] (]) 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :Hi Collect. I was wondering if you could comment on the discussion at the bottom of . 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. ] (]) 16:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| {{collapsetop|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 Misplaced Pages and I wanted to (among other POVs) include PCH's. Can you provide it?" Also, the article should improve based on Misplaced Pages 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) | |||
| {{Collapsebottom}} | |||
| ] | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Some of the articles I have created: | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— <!-- FRS id 41172 --> ] (]) 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| # ] | |||
| ==Talkback== | |||
| # ] | |||
| {{talkback|Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard|Moderator_wanted|ts=22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| # ] | |||
| —] ]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:arnprior">Limited Access</sub> 22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| # ] (recommended) | |||
| :Again—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:arnprior">Limited Access</sub> 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?—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 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 ) 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 Misplaced Pages policy, and not introduce numbers in any way, shape or form to the determination of ].''' 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! ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages policy by assigning arbitrary numeric values (in this case, the number '4') to the process of determining ]. 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. | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| etc. | |||
| :::::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 Misplaced Pages 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, ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I left you a message there.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 17:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Some more Hiss stuff == | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| 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. | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 70K | |||
| |counter = 39 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(93d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Collect/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| ==From ]== | |||
| ] (]) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <font color = red> | |||
| {{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> | |||
| == WP:IRC == | |||
| == repeating for those who did not seem to read it the first time: == | |||
| See ], in my statement | |||
| * linked for your convenience and | |||
| * hidden in ] by ArbCom. | |||
| <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 19:21, 9 July 2013 (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.''' | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| == Poring over 40K+ edits .... == | |||
| 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 ]. I took it to the noticeboard but have no replies. Thank you. ] (]) 14:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| On over 98% of articles where I have asserted BLP problems - there was no contest about it. | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| #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? | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— <!-- FRS id 41487 --> ] (]) 15:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) | |||
| == Formally added as party to an ArbCom case == | |||
| == for lurkers: == | |||
| Just so you know, you have been to the ] as an involved party. | |||
| Cinderella was a notorious crier - tears by the gallon. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, - ] | <sup>] and ]</sup> 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Weird. ] (]) 19:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Thus becoming the very first Grimm weaper. | |||
| ::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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== On this day == | ||
| 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: | |||
| Sir/Madam | |||
| ::''I leave when the pub closes'' | |||
| 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. | |||
| When ''taptoe'' has sounded the last time, and the "last post" has been visited. | |||
| Regards, | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] (]) 08:46, 17 July 2013 (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'' ] | |||
| :It is a contentious claim per ] and thus requires strong reliable sourcing for it to be made as a fact claim in Misplaced Pages's voice. Reinserting it is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy and practice. ] (]) 11:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Quotation of the day. 9 February 2016 | |||
| == Doug Ford == | |||
| == ] marketing run amok == | |||
| 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. ] (]) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ecigs at ''Darth Vaper'' | |||
| == Madsen == | |||
| major stores at ''Darth Maul'' | |||
| 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"? ] (]) 14:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Dating service at ''Luke Shywalker'' | |||
| == gun control == | |||
| Tanning salon at ''Obi Wan Kenobi'' | |||
| 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? ] (]) 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 :) ] (]) 14:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I avoided it until I saw a ''really incorrect claim'' about Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 15:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree on accuracy the[REDACTED] claim, how are you even aware that that claim existed though :) ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| So far no suggestions for the female characters ... | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| == ArbCom Election Guide 2017 == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— <!-- FRS id 41853 --> ] (]) 15:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| See ] | |||
| == Territories on US:talk == | |||
| Highly recommended candidates are {{u|Premeditated Chaos}}, {{u|The Rambling Man}}, {{u|SMcCandlish}} and {{u|BU Rob13}}. | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''The recommendations are based on answers to my questions only, and nothing else.''' | |||
| -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 ] (]) 09:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == diffs easily verified by anyone looking at the MKUCR history == | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| 04:19 to 04:24 4 June three edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after five edits by others. | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— <!-- FRS id 42195 --> ] (]) 16:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 16:03 to 18:29 3 June seven edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after thirteen edits by others | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| 03:01 to 05:57 3 June seven edits with two intervening edits by another, after three edits by others including clear reverts. | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— <!-- FRS id 42502 --> ] (]) 16:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 17 edits in roughly one day. And with at least three reverts by any count (even counting multiple reverts as a single revert). | |||
| == Wading through the wall of text? == | |||
| {{hat|diffs}} | |||
| I would not "wade" through that wall of text (ANI) unless I had a ]! But I'm glad you made it through. Thanks. – ] (]) 14:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| (cur | prev) 04:24, 4 June 2018 Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) . . (109,924 bytes) (+2) . . (→Terminology: ups) (undo | thank) | |||
| == Tea Party movement case - final decision motion == | |||
| (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}} | |||
| This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a '']'' (which affects you) has been proposed to close the ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 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 Misplaced Pages, 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! ] (]) 01:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::<strike>From my reading you are not subject to any of the individual editor level sanctions?<strike> nm, I missed the page ban section ] (]) 02:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:24, 23 September 2024
| [REDACTED] | This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Christian Science to Good Article status. |
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Million_award_logo.svg){kind=link}
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. |
|
|