User talk:Collect: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:43, 24 October 2013 editNE Ent (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors20,717 editsm →jumping from the pan to the fire ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:24, 23 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,377 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Collect/Archive 39) (botTag: Manual revert
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{wikibreak\|message=ArbCom has made the singular worst decision in its history. So all I can say now is "Ave atque vale" unless the decision is overturned. Banning anyone because one does not like their "attitude" sans a scintilla of evidence of violating any Misplaced Pages policy, rule or guideline, is the first step towards ] becoming the "law of the land" and any future ArbCom could then block or ban '''anyone at any time for any reason or no reason at all.'''}}

			{{User QMAward\|Christian Science}}
	Well-meaning editors: Please do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you.
			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)

			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.''
	'''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.'''
			:''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''
	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 40:		Line 51:
	]		]

			]
	]

			]
	==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)

			Some of the articles I have created:
	==misplaced comments===
	Hi, regarding your changes to the article listing politicians at the federal level convicted of crime-- I looked at the talk page and there seems to be no consensus on what a politician is. So I deferred to the wikipedia definition of a politician. The politicians I put back into the list are all high ranking political appointments that meet the wikipedia definition of a politician. From your past edits to the article I get the general impression that you rather arbitrarily declare a political appointee as more administrative than political and then declare them not a politician. What exactly do you believe does and does not make a political appointee a politician?] (]) 13:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	:'''A "politician" is a person who is normally described as a "politician" in reliable sources''' -- where the BLP of the person does not even use the term, it is ''highly unlikely'' that reliable sources call the person a "politician." '''That you personally know that all appointees are "politicians" is, unfortunately, ''not'' regarded as a "reliable source" for Misplaced Pages policies, especially the policy of ]'''. And next time - post at the BOTTOM of talk pages per normal Misplaced Pages custom. ] (]) 13:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	::OK next time I start a new conversation I will post on the bottom of the page. Back on topic. Where are your reliable sources defining the word ]? I am going by the definition in the wiki article: ] That is my reliable source. What is your reliable source???] (]) 14:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Unless you have a reliable source )see ]) specifically calling a person a "politician" the policy ] applies - placing a person on a list of "politicians convicted of crimes" is a "contentious claim" from the start. And it is what reliable sources say and not what we wish to claim that counts on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

			# ]
	== "A reproach to the law" ==
			# ]
			# ]
			# ] (recommended)
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

			etc.
	'' Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it. If the law should be in danger of doing injustice, then equity should be called in to remedy it. Equity was introduced to mitigate the rigour of the law. But in the present case it has been prayed in aid to do injustice on a large scale'' - Lord Denning.

			__TOC__
	== About Arbcom. ==

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	I noticed that we appear to be starting a lively and so-far civil debate on ]. I would like to inquire as to whether you think that there might be a better place for us to debate this. Thanks!
			\|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

			\|maxarchivesize = 70K
	On a personal note, I would like to say that your basic argument does have merit, even though I disagree, and I think that debating its merits is quite worthwhile. You might even convince me that I am wrong! :) --] (]) 02:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
			\|counter = 39

			\|minthreadsleft = 4
	:I presented substantially the same position on the case decision talk page - a clerk, however, warned me in no uncertain terms about "bickering" and stated that any further such "bickering" would be actionable. When I saw the ArbCom position presented in the Signpost, I rather felt that my position should also be stated there, as otherwise the Signpost article did not meet the NPOV system posited on Misplaced Pages, as containing only the one position. If you read the essay at ], you will note this is not a new position for me - I have long felt that asserting that one has the power to make a decision does not actually make it ''right'' to make such a decision, and I noted Denning's famed opinion which appears quite to coincide with mine. Cheers. ] (]) 11:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1

			\|algo = old(93d)
	::All I can say about your disagreement with the Arbcom position being suppressed and then the Arbcom position being featured in the Signpost (even though I kind of agree with Arbcom this time) is this: '''AAAAAARRRRGGHHH!!!!'''
			\|archive = User talk:Collect/Archive %(counter)d

	::That being said, the editors who run the signpost will be glad to post a well-written editorial, no matter who agrees with it. I would like to see one from you; this is an important policy topic. --] (]) 22:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

	So you just don't agree with Misplaced Pages's rules and refuse to do anything until they change? Well good that you've effectively quit Wiki if you don't agree with the rules. And I wouldn't expect them to ever care that you quit either.

	] (]) 14:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
	:{{tps}} In this case, Arbcom seems to be making up the rules as it goes along, so... --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 14:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

	@IP: The rules seem to be undergoing a strange metamorphosis not allowed by the Misplaced Pages community policy. '''For some odd reason, I expect ArbCom to abide by the community remit.''' If they do not, I expect a number of them to no longer be ArbCom members after the coming election. BTW, I do not give a damn what an anonymous IP opines on this page - if you wish anyone to care what your opinion is, I suggest you register as a user. Cheers. ] (]) 15:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

	== BLP ==

	Hi, could you go back to and clarify how you feel about other options? Thanks, ] (]) 19:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
	:I am on a Wikistrike due to a rather strange precedent which might be set by ArbCom. If they actually perform this march against sanity, you will find me far more absent than anything else - there are, indeed, times where one must stand on principle or else fail to be true to oneself. ] (]) 19:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
	::No worries. I think I knew that, but forgot when handing out these requests. Best of luck to you. ] (]) 20:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

	== Tenterhooks ==

	It looks like ArbCom thinks they have the ''right'' to make the improper motion, but is not passing it ''yet'', but allowing for eventual passage of the "motion". Rather like ArbCom being "partly pregnant", I suppose. So the "Wikistrike" continues - except for making my voice heard on exceedingly important matters. Cheers to all. ] (]) 14:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

	== proposal for a Request for Comment ==

	I suggest someone file this proposal or a similar proposal for an RfC on the proper community noticeboards:

	''Under what cirumstances are "topic bans" on specific registered editors not a "sanction" on those named editors? Ought such bans be made on named editors where neither evidence nor findings of any impropriety are presented? Ought ArbCom be able to add editors to a case after all evidence and workshop phases in a case have been closed, and without any evidence nor findings about any such named registered editors being educed at any point? Does ArbCom have the power to create a "non-sanction sanction" in order to comport with community policy establishing that committee?'' ] (]) 19:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC) (still on Wikistrike thus not going to post this himself on any noticeboards)

	]
	:'' At any time between the request for a case being made and the closure of the case, the Committee may issue temporary injunctions, restricting the conduct of the parties, or users generally, for the duration of the case.''
	::seems to be ''restrictive'' of the power of the committee to make such "temporary injuctions" for any duration greater than the "duration of the case."
	::This part of the policy establishing ArbCom appears to be ''absolute'' in nature, and suggests that such "temporary injunctions" made without evidence nor findings are limited by the community to "the duration of the case" only.

	One additional query remains: Is the "moderated discussion" covered by the mediation policy? That is, is a "moderated discussion" under the aegis of an admin who happens to be an arbitrator covered by that policy? ] (]) 19:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

	:We need something to determine the powers held by ARBCOM. I wrote an appeal in anticipation of AGK's motion succeeding at ]. ] (]) 20:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
	::A community RfC concerning the policy under which ArbCom ''exists'' would be sufficient AFAICT. I am pretty sure that the idea that a "temporary injunction" which is what the proposed motion really is, is improper here. And they did not even think of calling it one <g>. ] (]) 20:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

	== Japanese and Koreans... (re: your CfD comment) ==

	OT to the discussion, but I wanted to point out that your statement was erroneous. During the occupation, and even today, Koreans were not "considered Japanese." There are third-generation ethnic Koreans in Japan who were born in Japan, educated there, speak Japanese (and don't speak Korean), very likely have never been to Korea, and are still required to hold a foreigner identification card because they are not recognized as Japanese citizens. They may have been Japanese ''subjects'', but they were certainly no more than that. ] (]) 18:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
	:Read up on the Olympics - Japan assigned the Koreans officially "Japanese" names. ] for example/ ] (]) 21:02, 17 August 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 44042 --> ] (]) 18:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

	== ArbCom seems to have a minor problem with something called "Reality" ==

	I am accused of being "dismissive" of a person who used a source to make a claim '''directly antithetical to what the source said'''.

	If that is being "dismissive" than the Wiki-world is about as far off reality as is possible. '''There is no way in hell that anyone can provide "proof" that they are not "dismissive" when such edits are made''', and I suspect the arbitrator who proposed that claim is errant, off-base, and is not dealing with reality on this case.

	I would point out that I have made '''exceedingly few edits''' on the topic other than in the moderated discussion which ought to follow the policy about "mediated discussions" which is that they, in general, '''not used in ArbCom cases in the first place'''. If a person who participates in such a mediation, doing his damndest to reach a consensus through seeking compromise, is then going to be called on the carpet by ArbCom, then the whole concept of "mediation" on Misplaced Pages is in the toilet well and truly.

	Note the very first mediator on the list at ]. Note also that no one has suggested that I even ''belong'' in this case -- though AGK did not issue comparable "findings" about TFD who is in pretty much the same boat as I. Cheers. ] (]) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (still on Wikistrike - and not willing to try "disproving" vague claims made on non-evidence in the first place -- will '''someone''' show an ounce of sense here please? ) BTW, not a single one of the diffs cited as a reason for a six month topic ban is ''remotely'' near the level of evidence normally required by ArbCom to do a damn thing in any other case in the history of that committee. . If pointing this is "dismissive" of ArbCom, so be it.

	== ANI notice ==

	] Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. I've reported Ubikwit for his personal attacks on the PD talk. I posted one of the comments he made to you. ] (]) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

	== /interesting quote of the day: ==

	'''As a general rule, I don't think it's helpful to take a literalist reading of site policy. Misplaced Pages has no law, so policy merely reflects current practice – it doesn't regulate it. '''

	From an arbitration committee member, of all people. Apparently if he does not like a policy, the policy does not exist. Sehr interessant. ] (]) 18:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


	The person who made that "very interesting" claim about policy also thinks that the following are sanctionable edits on my part (He mined my every edit and came up with these as examples of my horrid character!):

	''Show me ''any'' edit where I ''removed'' the allegations. '''You can't.''' And since we already had the allegations in the article, sourced to the Ombudsman cite, and the Ombudsman addressed it in detail, it is silly and wrong to '''keep his specific comments about it our of the article'''. More specifically, the assertion about "spitting" - the Ombudsman ''specifically'' found the incident to have been improperly handled by the Washington Post. Yet you ''seem'' to wish to keep ''that'' trivial point out as well. NPOV requires a ''neutral point of view'' in articles -- and keeping out the "neutral" and balancing part from a source used for the primary claim is contrary to absolutely non-negotiable policy.''

	''On matters of ''current events'', generally newspaper articles represent how the public perceives those events -- there are ''no'' scholarly sources on such which are superior to the newspapers for public perception. This silliness about using "peer-reviewed sources" is not worthwhile when the events and groups are still current. Maybe in ten years or so we will have real scholarship on such, but we ain't there yet. "Instant scholarship" tends to be "instantly worthless." ''

	Cheers. ] (]) 14:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


	Wowzers -- will wonders never cease? On a website which shall not be linked to, the same arbitrator who found my remarks "dismissive" says this to another party:

	<big>'''Did you learn to argue by reading the Daily Mail?'''</big>

	I take it that his own words are not "dismissive" of anyone at all, right? ] (]) 22:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


	'''If you continue to deliberately assume bad faith about XX, me, ''or any other user'', I will report you to a clerk so that appropriate administrative action (up to and including blocking) can be taken'''

	is the precise sort of comment a person secure in their own position would make. ] (]) 11:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

	==Erroneous citation of BLP on ]==

	North's support for theocracy is documented in numerous independent RS and is proudly and forthrightly asserted by North himself in articles such as . It isn't a "BLP" or "NPOV" violation to accurately represent the views of an intellectual just because those views are controversial. The "theocratic" adjective helps readers understand the nature of North's proposed political and social order. ] (]) 06:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
	:Nope. Unless you count Italy or Ireland as a "theocracy." I find no source for him having church leadership rule the country -- see what "theocracy" means. ] (]) 13:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

	== Comment ==

	Excellent use of chronophagus. ] (]) 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

	== did a specific editor call the "Tea Party" racist, or not? ==

	''What's wrong is what is always wrong when someone mentions the 'R'-word. People balk, without rational reason or explanation. The source was titled, "Analysis: Was The Notorious Racist Tea Party Sign Forged? We Believe Not." Xenophrenic (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)''

	''Some of those might not be sourced to reliable sources, but some are. It is not accurate to flatly state, "the Tea Partiers are racist", but there may be significant enough reliably sourced information to explore the frequently heard allegations of a racist component. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)'' (used his reply to the earlier quote from an IP)

	''You can't catch slurs with video, by the way - you would need audio; and I note there has been absolutely ZERO audio evidence produced to prove the slurs didn't happen. The congressmen were surrounded by all those tea partiers with media recording devices, yet not a single one has stepped forward with video to disprove the racial slurs. I think we all know why. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)''

	''Are they, as one commenter said, "just a few isolated incidents?" Or, as another commenter said, "these incidents seem isolated to just Tea Parties." I've seen and heard the reports of racism and bigotry; seen comedy shows parody it (Can you spot the black man in this sea of protestors?); noted the racist pictures and words on some signs; heard the justification that "everyone has a voice" as white supremacist and anti-immigrant protestors walked in unison with other Tea Party protestors. There appears to be a disconnect between what Tea Party protestors say and what they do. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)'' ''This section isn't about people who don't like Obama's policies. This section is about racism. Put the straw man away. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)''

	Just scratching the surface on an editor who asserts that he has not tried to insert "racist" as a Tea Party attribute. Here as a substitute for being allowed to present any evidence at the ArbCom case page. Cheers. ] (]) 12:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

	''So a TP organizer posts some racist stuff, and some other TPers scold him for it; and many local politicians immediately disassociate themselves from him. Sounds like a replay of Dale Robertson: racist crap followed by denunciation and disassociation. Which sounds like a replay of Mark Williams: racist crap followed by denunciation and disassociation. Which sounds like a replay of the Health Care protests: homophobic and racial crap followed by denunciation and disassociation (except for one loon denialist that tries to make a conspiracy out of it). These incidents are merely examples in a section of the article headed by polling results showing elevated racial animosity among TPers, and you ask what place they have in the article? Before we continue this conversation, please reassure me that you do not jest. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)''

	''The source from which that quote is taken explains it quite well in the immediately following sentences:
	::''He and other black conservatives are divided over the grass-roots movement of tea party groups that has caught fire with adherents of small government and fiscal responsibility. The tension stems from reports of racial and homophobic slurs directed against black and gay members of Congress who voted to overhaul health care, from photos circulating on the Internet of signs raised at tea party protests with slogans such as "Obama Promotes White Slavery," and the exhortation of a speaker at the group's convention that voters should be subject to literacy tests. The debate ratcheted up this week as two prominent black conservatives, Thomas Sowell and Ward Connerly, decried accusations of tea party racism.
	''And from later in that same source:
	::''Yet Lenny McAllister, a Republican commentator and author, said he has seen racism within the tea party and has confronted it -- approaching people with racially derogatory signs of President Obama and asking them to take the signs down. Like Brice, he said leaders of the movement must not ignore the issue.
	''It is clear from the source article that Brice was referring to wide-spread hate of Barney the Dinosaur, and the Misplaced Pages article should be amended accordingly. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)''

	an edit where he restores language saying the TPm has "neo-Klansmen" after it was removed. His edit summary is ''(no vandalism indicated, and the "unnecessary accusation" was never removed: "demonizing tea party activists tends to energize the Democrats' left-of-center base") ''

	''I did kind of leave that up in the air, didn't I? The title of this section came about as I was reading Homo Logica's comments above where s/he contemplates naming a sub-article Perceptions of the Tea Party, and I was reminded of past discussions on what the related section of this article should be named. It morphed between variations of 'Racist behavior', 'Racist and Homophobic behavior', 'Bad behavior', 'Racism, Anti-gay, Anti-semetic, Islamophobic and violent behavior', 'Inappropriate behavior', 'Controversial and bigoted behavior', etc., and I remember thinking "it all sounds antisocial to me". So my guess would be: both. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC) ''

	''We can fill the article with all kinds of content suggesting the racial slurs never happened, the homophobic slurs never happened, the anti-semite slurs never happened (), but I think that does a disservice to the article.'' Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

	I trust these diffs also provide salient facts for those reviewing posts by editors. ] (]) 07:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

	== Wiki thanks ==

	Hello Collect. I'd like to thank you, as nominator, for appending your concerns regarding The Interior's RfA in the neutral section. I think it speaks well of your own admirable qualities, in that you are clearly willing to hear, and consider matters of mitigation. I look forward to seeing The Interior's reply, anticipating a thoughtful response; unhindered by pride and motivated by a desire to find better ways, when better ways may exist. I respect your !voting history, and support whatever conclusion you ultimately reach. Without any doubt, the matter of BLP interpretation is a current matter of contention, making yous a timely concern, and one well worthy of clarification. Best regards.—] (]) 21:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I thank you very much for your considerate post. ] (]) 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

	== ] closed ==

	An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

	{{quotation\|1=
	Pages related to the ], broadly construed, are placed under ]. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.<p>

	The ] are lifted.<p>

	{{user\|Goethean}}, {{user\|North8000}}, {{user\|Malke 2010}}, {{user\|Xenophrenic}}, {{user\|Arthur Rubin}}, {{user\|Ubikwit}}, {{user\|Phoenix and Winslow}} are indefinitely ] from all pages relating to the ], broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.<p>

	{{user\|Collect}} is ] from all pages relating to the ], broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.<p>

	{{user\|Xenophrenic}} is indefinitely prohibited from ], {{user\|Collect}} anywhere on Misplaced Pages (subject to the ]).<p>

	{{user\|Snowded}} and {{user\|Phoenix and Winslow}} are indefinitely prohibited from ], each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages (subject to the ]).
	}}		}}

			==From ]==
	For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 07:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
			<font color = red>

			{{quotation\|{{cross}} '''Copying from an unacknowledged source'''
	:I trust you know my opinion thereon. ] (]) 11:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
			*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>
	== Hail and Farewell ==

	The Arbitration Committee has made one of the singular worst decisions in its entire history, finding that a person may be given a broad topic ban for simply having what an arb calls his "general attitude" and '''without a scintilla of evidence of wrongdoing.''' And while being told that "bickering" was a blockable offence (where the bickering was opposing this decision!) Thus I say Ave atque vale, which someone is sure to say is offensive.

	For my Jewish friends: Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor.

	The committee members will, of course, be the topic of an ACE2013 essay here, and I welcome suggestions as to what I ought say about them.

	Adios, Adieu, Farvel, Auf Wiedersehen, Dosvedanya, and no real time to say Good-Bye in every language around ... ] (]) 12:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

	: Collect, I do urge you to reconsider, irresepctive of what I might consider to be the merits (or lack thereof) of the ArbCom decision. Nelson Mandela was wrongly arrested and jailed, but did not give up, and look where he ended up. By running away, you allow them to win, and/or show that they were right. By sticking around, dilligently working on the outside of the prescribed limits, you prove them to be wrong. Perceived injustice is only turned into justice by running away <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 17:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

			== repeating for those who did not seem to read it the first time: ==
	::I am not dead - but I endeavour that this shall be a ] for those who back such results. When called to task for quoting TR, by a person who apparently disdains any "hard to understand words", then it is fairly clear that Misplaced Pages really has some choices to make, n'est-ce pas? Expect an interesting ACE2013 essay inn this userspace. ] (]) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Collect, for reasons completely unrelated to you, I have not been following a great many things on Misplaced Pages lately, including the tea party thing, so I didn't even know you were topic banned. That aside, I'd just like to say that if you leave, I'll miss you. Whatever you do, take care of yourself. Best.--] (]) 20:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::For a while, you will be the ''only'' person left really protecting BLPs. I dasn't (archaic) edit there because who knows what "broadly construed" means -- I know that some senior (poobahs) apparently do not regard them as a serious issue <g>. It looks from here that "chronophagous" is the single most apt term for a runaway ArbCom. Cheers. ] (]) 21:28, 5 September 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.'''
	I'm going to assume this is ''au revoir'' instead. ]] 03:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

	== ~~Scope~~ ~~definition~~ ~~thoughts~~ ==		== Poring over 40K+ edits .... ==

			On over 98% of articles where I have asserted BLP problems - there was no contest about it.
	I don't wish to turn NW's page into a general talk page, so I'll comment here.
			#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 urge you not to make too much of your point:

			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. ] (])
	<blockquote>
	''It is of no minor interest that User:KillerChihuahua specifically stated that I ought not be in the list, and she was the original complainant here. Cheers.''
	</blockquote>

			== for lurkers: ==
	Cases usually take on a life of their own, and while nominally about named participants, often grow. I don't think the original editor to file a case has any special privilege regarding its scope.

			Cinderella was a notorious crier - tears by the gallon.
	Which reminds me of one of my early concerns about Arbcom process, which still troubles me.

			Thus becoming the very first Grimm weaper.
	I think an early step in the case ought to be a proper determination of scope. I am fine with the notion that the scope might change as evidence is provided, but it ought to be explicit: lay out an initial scope, and modify it openly if it needs changing. I literally want a Scope section, which may need updating over time, but clearly identifies the scope. While some of the closely involved participants may scoff and argue that the scope is obvious, one of the points of the case documentation is to...well document the case. I've reviewed some old cases, sometimes because I explicitly wanted to know if some aspect was in scope, and I literally had to read the whole case and draw a conclusion. It shouldn't be that hard. I should be able to read a scope section and know.--]] 16:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
	:It would be interesting to find the ''Verfahrenanschauung'' of Arbitration committee members. Where no concept of proper procedure is found, the concept of proper result is also then undefined. After seeing one comment on Jimbo's talk page about using foreign terms makes me perversely inclined to use them where they accurately fit <g>. ] (]) 17:10, 5 September 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:
	==Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute==

			::''I leave when the pub closes''
	Dear Collect.

			When ''taptoe'' has sounded the last time, and the "last post" has been visited.
	This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Quick courtesy reply: My statement as made, stands. ] (]) 21:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	==Occupation of the Baltic states==

			::''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'' ]
	Hi, you have commented my additions to the article ], stating that "this stuff not directly related to the Baltic states". Other users agreed on the talk page that such information could be added. Plus, the article already has the "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces" section, which, for some reason is not deemed unrelated to the topic. My changes directly concern the topic, since the article's title is Occupation of the Baltic states, and they were occupied by Germany and served in their ranks. This article mentions occupation by the USSR and how those nations served in its rankes during WWII, but doesn't mention how they served in Nazi Germany's ranks. So please undo your changes, since two users didn't object the inclusion of such section (see the talk page). Thank you. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Note that the other section ''already'' mentions that there were Baltic nationals in the German forces. The stuff about what German forces did is, however, not properly in this article. I reduced it to the fist. Saying what non-Baltic nationals did is "right out." We have to stick to the precise topic as stated in the lead. There are other things in the article which can well be shortened (including the Soviet forces section) - but I left two strong refs for ''the claim as stated''. Cheers. ] (]) 13:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::This article mentions Holocaust and German occupation. Baltic nations participated in it. How can one mention Holocaust and German occupation and not mention Baltic nations? It looks biased. Or, as you say some things may be shortened, why not to shorten Holocaust and Soviet forces sections? To shorten one section and not to shorten the other look "strange" to say the least. You should have either removed or shorten all unnecessary things, or leaved my suggestions until you or someone else had the time to shorten everything redundant. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::The article ''already'' contains such references! '' Some Latvians and Lithuanian conscripts collaborated actively in the killing of Jews'', '' Baltic nationals fought in both German and Soviet army ranks'', ''Some Baltic nationals served in German forces during WW II, engaging in the killing of Jews and others'' now presents three statements ... how many are needed? ] (]) 14:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: Than what's the point of having such big sections regarding "Holocaust" and "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces"? If you don't want to do it than I can do it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::::I do not recall being the one responsible for those sections - so '''please be angry at someone else'''. Cheers. ] (]) 16:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::But you basically killed my section. Now it turns out you are not responsible for them. The other two users approved my suggestions. And why do you think I'm angry at you? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::::::No sound reason, I fear. When something is in an article '''three times''', that is ''generally'' considered enough. That you feel others agree with you is neat, but not relevant to the colloquy here. Cheers. ] (]) 16:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Using your logic, the whole article (and other articles in Misplaced Pages) should consist of ~10 sentences. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::It is possible that a great many Misplaced Pages articles are, indeed, too long. See ] now and as it appeared before I edited it. ] (]) 19:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

			Quotation of the day. 9 February 2016
	==Chip Rogers==

			== ] marketing run amok ==
	You reverted my edit to the Chip Rogers article, claming '"Searcy" is relant to Searcy. The ownership of a radio staton which he had previously owned and one of the new partners apparently returned his share is not generally considered criminal in nature, as it is presented here'. Searcy is relevant to the 'Agenda 21' presentation that Roger organised; it was the content, and it was the controversial nature of Searcy's remarks in a talk organised by a prominent state politician, which caused the media articles to take notice. I used the facts from the existing reference; without them, the article is mystifying. No-one would know why a talk on 'Agenda 21' would be worth noting in a Misplaced Pages article. You are the one saying the ownership looks 'criminal'; it appears to be against FCC regulations to not have reported this, and given there is already controversy about his appointment to Georgia Public Broadcasting, and this is being reported in several Georgia media outlets, and could be a conflict of interest in a government-created job, it is noteworthy. I ask you to undo your edit. ] (]) 17:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Alas -- what a speaker says is not always directly relevant ("relant" was a typo) to anyone other than the person speaking -- thus Searcy's quotes are relevant to Searcy, but ''not'' to Rogers. WRT the ownership of a radio station - it looks from here that one of the new partners essentially returned his share of the station to Rogers - likely to not being able to pay the price of that share. ''This is far from unheard of when dealing with sales of businesses to partnerships,'' and, unless the FCC takes some specific action, is not all that important. Ownership of a radio station does not, per the source, seem the same as ''employment'' byt that radio station, so any speculation requires far stronger sourcing that you provided. And, in normal usage, "criminal" means "violating the law." Cheers. ] (]) 19:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::The mention of 'Agenda 21' without what was notable in the presentation would be meaningless. It was noted in the media because of the unusual content. The concurrent ownership of one radio station and the public employment of another is also notable, and was noted. It is not 'speculation'. ] (]) 15:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Retained "Agenda 21" and the explanation that the meeting was called at constitutent request. The slideshow claims about Stalin and Mao are ''not'' directly claimed to have been made at the meeting, nor that Rogers had anything to do with those claims. Cheers. ] (]) 16:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

			ecigs at ''Darth Vaper''
	== Please comment on ] ==

			major stores at ''Darth Maul''
	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 29 --> ] (]) 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Dear Bot. Read the top of my page - I am on Wikistrike. ] (]) 00:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

			Dating service at ''Luke Shywalker''
	== An "Enlightened Comment" from an editor who clearly does not "condescend" to anyone: ==

			Tanning salon at ''Obi Wan Kenobi''
	See also to see the spoor of my very own personal stalker. ] (]) 20:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

			So far no suggestions for the female characters ...
	== The Horror of Party Beach ==

			== ArbCom Election Guide 2017 ==
	Do you happen to have a source on it being used as an example of a bad movie by Disney?] (]) 20:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	: Oops, I didn't see this before messaging you. Might be of some interest .] (]) 21:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Noted on a number of pages as being "featured" at the Sci-Fi Diner at Hollywood Studios. , etc. , , etc. Newspaper-blog " Connecticut had its own Ed Wood, an actor, director and entrepreneur named Del Tenney who made a series of truly awful pictures in the Stamford area during the 1960s, the most notorious of which is “Horror of Party Beach,” a 1964 drive-in quickie about an atomic mutation that terrorizes Stamford (“party beach” was actually Shippan Point). " Tell ya what -- watch it. ] (]) 21:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	== Speaking of personal attacks -- "hobgoblin of little minds" edit summary ==

			See ]
	Since you used an edit summary to me of, "(cur \| prev) 19:43, 17 September 2013‎ Collect (talk \| contribs)‎ . . (47,883 bytes) (+417)‎ . . (→‎CCA found in contempt of court = WP:UNDUE?: '''hobgoblin of little minds?''') (undo \| thank)," I am going to ask you to please not ] other editors in edit summaries or anywhere. It won't win consensus for your edits. Thank you. --(] (]) 20:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
	::It is a quote "''A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds''" by ] which I had assumed was well-known. I trust this explains the use of the quotation - the edit summary field does not allow extensive quoting, alas. Cheers. ] (]) 20:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::: appears to indicate that I am familiar with the quote. Someone else being familiar with the quote or not, does not give you the right to suggest that editors with whom you disagree are "foolish" or "little minded." --(] (]) 20:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
	::::As it is an '''extremely well known quotation''', I did not think a gloss was needed, but shall consider your position the next time I make a literary reference. Cheers. ] (]) 20:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Okay, so, you have personal interests in the CCA article, and intend to attack anyone who disagrees with you. I will watch your edits for future issues. --(] (]) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
	::::::'''I have absolutely no connection with CCA, and prisons, or anyone associated with CCA or any prisons whatosever.''' All I do is try to improve articles -- vide ] etc. Cheers. ] (]) 21:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::As a bystander, I'd just like to say that I don't see any grounds for thinking that Collect was calling anyone a hobgoblin. In context, Collect seems to have been asserting that consistency would dictate mentioning lots more contempt-of-court incidents in other Misplaced Pages articles if such incidents are mentioned here in this article. So, to the extent Collect was questioning (note the question mark in his edit summary) whether anyone is mistakenly seeking consistency, that would most likely have referred to Collect himself. There was no accusation of being a hobgoblin as far as I can tell, nor an accusation of small-mindedness. I could be mistaken, of course. (I hope that the editor who had a fleeting comment here will scribble all of this in his notebook.)] (]) 23:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Precisely and succinctly put. ] (]) 00:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I agree with ]. Taking this as a "personal attack" is ridiculous. It is quite clear that Collect was just saying something like "perhaps it is a mistake here to seek strict consistency", and ] is, I'm afraid, being hypersensitive in taking it personally. ] (]) 08:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

			Highly recommended candidates are {{u\|Premeditated Chaos}}, {{u\|The Rambling Man}}, {{u\|SMcCandlish}} and {{u\|BU Rob13}}.
	== Cool your jets! ==

			'''The recommendations are based on answers to my questions only, and nothing else.'''
	Edits like risk making you look a fool. As I know you are not a fool, I counsel you to think long and hard before making any further edits of this type. Are you in need of a Wikibreak, perhaps? --] (]) 12:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Oh well -- I guess ] is beneath your dignity? Try cooling your own jets, and kindly note that People magazine also is "not a tabloid." When making a ] it helps to have a large cup of tea yourself. And what precisely upsets you about proper use of noticeboards? BTW, if you look at the top of this very talk page, you will see I am on Wikistrike - die to a strange and malformed ArbCom process which was not even followed by ArbCom. So what "edits" are you actually upset about? Cheers. ] (]) 12:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Er, ones like the one I posted? Off for a cup of tea now... --] (]) 12:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I'm not sure which Arbcom decision you are upset by, but for what it's worth I sympathise; I've seen them at their worst more than once. I also noticed this: "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 completely agree with this, and I wonder in light of this why you would want to fight to use tabloid sources on BLPs? It seems like quite a contradiction. --] (]) 17:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I am strange -- where a source has been the topic of noticeboard discussions and consensus, I tend, for some outré reason, to abide by that consensus and not be a "bull in a china shop" (literary allusion - I am ''not'' calling you an animal here, just using an old adage (for the benefit of my very own personal stalker )) Cheers. ] (]) 17:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::I reckon you must be talking about ] where you were topic-banned for six months for what look like some pretty innocuous comments. You really do have my sympathy. --] (]) 18:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Yep -- topic banned for six months for using Teddy Roosevelt's mild "bosh and twaddle" phrase about a hypothetical "example" given by an editor is a very civil discussion -- I am half-tempted to point out the language routinely used by some editors <g> The "allegation" issue is, indeed, a "content dispute" for which your proper course would have been to call it "contentious" and requiring at least one additional source. The concept that we can simply declare a major newspaper "media non grata" where such has not been done on the proper noticeboards is ''quite'' iffy. ] (]) 18:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

			== diffs easily verified by anyone looking at the MKUCR history ==
	== Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request ==

			04:19 to 04:24 4 June three edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after five edits by others.
	I'm not sure if anyone notified you, but your !vote has been moved to an entirely different section and will apparently be discounted. The same thing happened to my !vote, so I created an Abstain section where I repeated my concerns. ] (]) 22:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

			16:03 to 18:29 3 June seven edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after thirteen edits by others
	== You make a difference ==
	{\| style="width:100%; height:125px; border:1px solid black; background-color:#efefef; text-align:left; padding:8px;"
	\|-
	\| rowspan=2 style="width:125px;" \| ]
	\| Hello Collect, ] has given you a delicious ] sammie, for your faithful service and commitment to Misplaced Pages! You see, these things promote ] and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious ] sammie! Enjoy!
	\|-
	\| style="font-size:8pt;" \|
	\|-
	\|}

			03:01 to 05:57 3 June seven edits with two intervening edits by another, after three edits by others including clear reverts.
	==Comment==
	I appreciate that you're unhappy about an ArbCom decision, and rightly so. But you say: "ArbCom has made the singular worst decision in its history." To know that, you would have had to have studied all of those decisions. Have you really done that?] (]) 01:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I read all the major decisions in the past six years (not many more than a dozen are "major") (checking out, inter alia, the principles applicable to 'false consensus' etc.) -- I ''suppose'' they may have made some bad decisions ''prior'' to that - but I stick to what I know. The current Manning decision, however, makes for a great "daily double" indeed. Banning editors for their ''sincere opinions'' on any issue is ''not'' a wise course in the long run at all. In this world, people disagree on a great many issues, but it is beyond the bounds of common sense to assert that ''particular opinions'' are "correct" and the opposite opinions are "wrong." In history, a great many "wrong opinions" have ended up being a great deal less wrong that people averred. Folks who ''deliberately troll'' are quite another matter, of course, as are people whose statements contravene law. Cheers. ] (]) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Well, if you'd like to talk about the abortion case sometime, just send up a smoke signal.] (]) 02:09, 21 October 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).
	== FYI I referred to some analysis you did of sourcing ==

			{{hat\|diffs}}
	In requesting an edit summary removal by an IP at ANI, I referred to the analysis of the sources that you had done. The section is ] -- ] 12:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Thanks - that editor seems bent on ignoring policy :( ] (]) 13:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

			(cur \| prev) 04:24, 4 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk \| contribs)‎ . . (109,924 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Terminology: ups) (undo \| thank)
	== jumping from the pan to the fire ==
			(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 was so obviously a topic ban violation my first instinct was to rat you out to ], and then I recalled how lame the arbcom decision was ... my second instinct was to fix the article, but then I'd be encouraging you to continue make ban violating edits. So I decided to do nothing and let someone else deal with it. Reviewing the situation and seeing getting into stupid arguments with AC clerks and an AE admin .. not good. I've spent enough time in the dark wiki-places to know that, yea, Misplaced Pages "governance" often sucks, but it's a better place if there are editors; and you losing the rest of your editing privileges in some ] quest for justice that will probably never happen will not make the encyclopedia a better place. Let it go, edit elsewhere, and either like the sanction clock out or appeal after the election to the new committee. <small>]</small> 01:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:24, 23 September 2024

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Christian Science to Good Article status.

Well-meaning editors: Do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you.

I have now reached the 244 "Thanks" level from "notifications" - getting an average of over 115 per year it appears. Thank you to all who have thought highly of my edits. Collect (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

From 2013 (and various unnamed editors): I have started to work on a composite of my history dealing with Collect at my talk page. It starts in late 2008 so it might take a while. I'll accept fellow editors deciding when they have more of the facts.

Had I known Collect was behind your request I may have declined. He has been sniffing my excrement for 4 years or more. I don't bother myself with him unless he shows up where I am working. Then I have to consider what is more important: dealing with Collect's dribble or continuing to talk and work with other editors. I detest him so much I usually just leave and go do something else in WikiLand

Sorry, But I'd rather have all of my fingernails pulled out than to get involved with those editors. Especially Collect, perhaps the most dangerous and dirtiest Misplaced Pages editor I've come across--only my opinion of course, which I feel I am free to offer on my own talk page? It is true that there are plenty of articles here that are more about numbers than about the truth, IOW, who ever has the most editors on their side can write the article.

I got here by looking at Collect contrbutions. (from a sock master)

This essay serves no purpose in mainspace other than to aggrandize its creator. I recall some quip about dressing a pig...I'll let those who want, finish the line.

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense

Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.

Quote of the day from an editor who seems to regard his own screeds as the epitome of "wit":

Twain is the perennial favorite of intellectual pygmies who believe a trite quote has the power to increase their stature.

I rather think his "wit" speaks for itself pretty clearly.

Some of my essays:

WP:Defend to the Death

WP:Midden

WP:Baby and Bathwater

WP:Wikifurniture

WP:Contentious

WP:Sex, Religion and Politics

WP:Editorially involved

WP:Mutual admiration society

WP:Source pH

WP:Sledgehammer

WP:Variable RS

WP:Misplaced Pages and shipwrights

WP:Repetition in Argumentation

WP:The task of an editor

User:Collect/BLP

User:Collect/þ

Some of the articles I have created:

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:

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

See User:Collect/ACE2017

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.
(cur \| prev) 04:24, 4 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk \| contribs)‎ . . (109,924 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Terminology: ups) (undo \| thank) (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. => ; 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)

diffs

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(cur | prev) 04:24, 4 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (109,924 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Terminology: ups) (undo | thank) (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.
=> ; 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)